7 ms·

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 ap

by caryme 16y 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 16y 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 16y ago
  Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?
  - devinj 16y 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 16y 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?
      - tsally 16y ago
        Here's the logic of a non-homophobic argument I have heard of. The majority of research on parenting and raising children has been done with heterosexual parents as a base assumption. Someone who is extremely supportive of gay rights who is also a rational thinker might be cautious when considering the issue of adoption by homosexuals. Why be cautious? Because it is necessary to take reasonable measures to guarantee the children will be raised appropriately. It is a human right of the children. In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised. Yes, homosexuals are a disenfranchised group as well, but there are homosexuals who serve openly in Congress. It's not quite on the same level as children, who do not yet have the ability to speak English. I'm not up to date on the literature regarding child development. It may be that there are studies that suggest that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual families in terms of impact on the child. I'm just throwing this argument out there because it is one of the few non-homophobic arguments against homosexual adoption that I know of. I don't personally have an opinion on this issue because I'm not qualified.
        joubert 16y ago
        So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?
        tsally 16y ago
        The argument I mentioned is concerned with psychological development not biological. I don't see how what your saying relates to the argument in any sense. Based on the argument, it would make sense to deny the adoption in your scenario. To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption. Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area. EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant. "Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- hoprocker 16y ago
  I know you said it "could make sense to prefer straight couples", but beware of implicit associations when thinking that something like this makes sense. We're much more exposed to examples of heterosexual couples raising children than homosexual couples, and, as Harvard's Implicit Association Test demonstrates, this could easily lead us to thing that one "makes more sense" than the other. Increasing positive exposure to the opposite end of things can change our opinion. Harvard's IAT site has more information (check out esp. the Q's about the Black-White test): https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.h... Malcolm Gladwell also examines the phenomenon of implicit social adjustment in his book _Blink_ (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272340829&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/031601...).
sliverstorm 16y ago
I never was convinced single parent adoption was a good idea.
- lallysingh 16y ago
  1 parent is still better than 0.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    I'm thinking mostly from the POV of if we had more adopting families than orphans, which I know isn't actually the case.
    - qq66 16y ago
      It's not blanket-true that there are more adopting families than orphans. For healthy Caucasian newborns, demand outstrips supply by factors of 100 or more. For HIV+ African-American 13-year-olds, adoption is basically never going to happen.
eru 16y ago
How does the state determine your sexual preferences? Do they take a blood test?

by caryme 16y ago

natrius 16y 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 16y ago
Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?
- devinj 16y 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 16y 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?
    - tsally 16y ago
      Here's the logic of a non-homophobic argument I have heard of. The majority of research on parenting and raising children has been done with heterosexual parents as a base assumption. Someone who is extremely supportive of gay rights who is also a rational thinker might be cautious when considering the issue of adoption by homosexuals. Why be cautious? Because it is necessary to take reasonable measures to guarantee the children will be raised appropriately. It is a human right of the children. In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised. Yes, homosexuals are a disenfranchised group as well, but there are homosexuals who serve openly in Congress. It's not quite on the same level as children, who do not yet have the ability to speak English. I'm not up to date on the literature regarding child development. It may be that there are studies that suggest that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual families in terms of impact on the child. I'm just throwing this argument out there because it is one of the few non-homophobic arguments against homosexual adoption that I know of. I don't personally have an opinion on this issue because I'm not qualified.
      - joubert 16y ago
        So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?
        tsally 16y ago
        The argument I mentioned is concerned with psychological development not biological. I don't see how what your saying relates to the argument in any sense. Based on the argument, it would make sense to deny the adoption in your scenario. To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption. Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area. EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant. "Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
hoprocker 16y ago
I know you said it "could make sense to prefer straight couples", but beware of implicit associations when thinking that something like this makes sense. We're much more exposed to examples of heterosexual couples raising children than homosexual couples, and, as Harvard's Implicit Association Test demonstrates, this could easily lead us to thing that one "makes more sense" than the other. Increasing positive exposure to the opposite end of things can change our opinion. Harvard's IAT site has more information (check out esp. the Q's about the Black-White test): https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.h... Malcolm Gladwell also examines the phenomenon of implicit social adjustment in his book _Blink_ (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272340829&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/031601...).

sliverstorm 16y ago

I never was convinced single parent adoption was a good idea.

lallysingh 16y ago
1 parent is still better than 0.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  I'm thinking mostly from the POV of if we had more adopting families than orphans, which I know isn't actually the case.
  - qq66 16y ago
    It's not blanket-true that there are more adopting families than orphans. For healthy Caucasian newborns, demand outstrips supply by factors of 100 or more. For HIV+ African-American 13-year-olds, adoption is basically never going to happen.

eru 16y ago

How does the state determine your sexual preferences? Do they take a blood test?