5 ms·

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sen

by natrius 17y ago

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number of children who benefit from both.

count 17y ago
What is 'parent substantially better'?
- natrius 17y ago
  Therein lies the rub. It is logically possible. It is practically unlikely.
wdewind 17y ago
BIG if
- dejb 17y ago
  It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent could have advantages. Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'. Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt. I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.
  - aphyr 17y ago
    Luckily, plenty of gay couples have tried raising kids, and they do just fine, thank you very much. :) http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."
    - dejb 17y ago
      I have no doubt that many gay couples do quite well at raising children. I would however put those cases were one of the biological parents was present in a different category to what we are talking about (which I suspect is your case). > "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation." As I argued in my post, most studies are likely to effected by selection bias so it is going to be tough to get a solid "empirical foundation" either way. The real question is who should have the burden of evidence? Should we say that 'until gay couples are proven to be good parents we won't allow adoption' or 'unless it is proven that gay couples are bad parents they should have identical adoption rights'. I don't think either is sensible position and some sort of middle ground would be best as more evidence accumulates.
      - wdewind 17y ago
        Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does? Where are your empirical studies on straight parents being good parents, or "better" than gay parents? What is your definition of a good parent, anyway? What is your definition of "natural" (as in "naturally good parents")? We shouldn't do either of those options, they are both total horseshit. It's not a matter of what rule we should adopt, it's a matter of should we adopt a rule at all. And no, we shouldn't.
        dejb 17y ago
        > Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does? Straight parents are the origin of the our species. Everyone of your biological ancestors forms a direct and unbroken line of 'Straight parents'. It is logical to assume children are well adapted to straight parents and vice versa. In fact we have no other real choice. When a company develops a new substance and wants to use it as a food additive we naturally ask if it has been tested properly before allowing human consumption. But we do not ask whether commonly eaten foods such as rice and bananas need testing. The have been tested throughout history. To put it another way,
caryme 17y ago
I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual people cannot adopt. So while a single straight woman can adopt a child, a single lesbian woman cannot.
- natrius 17y ago
  I was being excessively charitable in my framing of the argument. It makes zero sense for it to be illegal for gay people to adopt. It could make sense to prefer straight couples over gays and singles, which would effectively exclude them if the demand for adoption outstrips supply as much as I presume.
  - joubert 17y ago
    Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?
    - devinj 17y ago
      Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.
      - joubert 17y ago
        I'm skeptical. What cues? Are you thinking a girl learns how she should act by emulating a mom, and the same for a boy in relation to his dad?
alextgordon 17y ago
On the other hand, having greater variation might provide a net benefit to the population as a whole.
drivebyacct 17y ago
Ironically, even as a homosexual, I suspect that your former predicate is actually more unlikely than the latter. Though the latter is pretty damn ridiculous as well, at least by the metric of the literature I'm exposed to so I could be unaware of something supporting that idea.
lallysingh 17y ago
Why? they had their chance! It was a hetero couple that created & ditched the kid in the first place+. Every couple has their own yin-yang dynamic, and it has very little to do with whether they're an innie or an outy. + Ignoring tragedies, of course. Edit: footnote symbol caused formatting changes.
joubert 17y ago
And what may that innate quality be? And what about gay children? Aren't straight parents the wrong setup for them?
- gdee 17y ago
  Assuming non-homophobic heterosexual parents, why would they be the "wrong setup"?

by natrius 17y ago

count 17y ago

What is 'parent substantially better'?

natrius 17y ago
Therein lies the rub. It is logically possible. It is practically unlikely.

wdewind 17y ago

BIG if

dejb 17y ago
It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent could have advantages. Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'. Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt. I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.
- aphyr 17y ago
  Luckily, plenty of gay couples have tried raising kids, and they do just fine, thank you very much. :) http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."
  - dejb 17y ago
    I have no doubt that many gay couples do quite well at raising children. I would however put those cases were one of the biological parents was present in a different category to what we are talking about (which I suspect is your case). > "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation." As I argued in my post, most studies are likely to effected by selection bias so it is going to be tough to get a solid "empirical foundation" either way. The real question is who should have the burden of evidence? Should we say that 'until gay couples are proven to be good parents we won't allow adoption' or 'unless it is proven that gay couples are bad parents they should have identical adoption rights'. I don't think either is sensible position and some sort of middle ground would be best as more evidence accumulates.
    - wdewind 17y ago
      Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does? Where are your empirical studies on straight parents being good parents, or "better" than gay parents? What is your definition of a good parent, anyway? What is your definition of "natural" (as in "naturally good parents")? We shouldn't do either of those options, they are both total horseshit. It's not a matter of what rule we should adopt, it's a matter of should we adopt a rule at all. And no, we shouldn't.
      - dejb 17y ago
        > Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does? Straight parents are the origin of the our species. Everyone of your biological ancestors forms a direct and unbroken line of 'Straight parents'. It is logical to assume children are well adapted to straight parents and vice versa. In fact we have no other real choice. When a company develops a new substance and wants to use it as a food additive we naturally ask if it has been tested properly before allowing human consumption. But we do not ask whether commonly eaten foods such as rice and bananas need testing. The have been tested throughout history. To put it another way,

caryme 17y ago

I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual people cannot adopt. So while a single straight woman can adopt a child, a single lesbian woman cannot.

natrius 17y ago
I was being excessively charitable in my framing of the argument. It makes zero sense for it to be illegal for gay people to adopt. It could make sense to prefer straight couples over gays and singles, which would effectively exclude them if the demand for adoption outstrips supply as much as I presume.
- joubert 17y ago
  Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?
  - devinj 17y ago
    Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.
    - joubert 17y ago
      I'm skeptical. What cues? Are you thinking a girl learns how she should act by emulating a mom, and the same for a boy in relation to his dad?

alextgordon 17y ago

On the other hand, having greater variation might provide a net benefit to the population as a whole.

drivebyacct 17y ago

Ironically, even as a homosexual, I suspect that your former predicate is actually more unlikely than the latter. Though the latter is pretty damn ridiculous as well, at least by the metric of the literature I'm exposed to so I could be unaware of something supporting that idea.

lallysingh 17y ago

Why? they had their chance! It was a hetero couple that created & ditched the kid in the first place+. Every couple has their own yin-yang dynamic, and it has very little to do with whether they're an innie or an outy. + Ignoring tragedies, of course. Edit: footnote symbol caused formatting changes.

joubert 17y ago

And what may that innate quality be? And what about gay children? Aren't straight parents the wrong setup for them?

gdee 17y ago
Assuming non-homophobic heterosexual parents, why would they be the "wrong setup"?