Gay adoption

[MaC]

Option 4 - Gays can raise children *better* than straight parents.

explain, please

I would diagree. It's probablyn all 'relative.' A stable gay couple would probably be better parents than a 'straight' couple who fight day in day out for example

well, chances are yeah.  But I want Earl to make a case for his claim.

I do say option 2.  Not that they'd be better at parenting, but it would be preferable that the child expiriences both genders in a family structure.

[Gabu]

Option 4 - Gays can raise children *better* than straight parents.

explain, please

Just think of how fashionable the child's attire would be, for one thing.

[dazzleman]

And I do think that the NOTION that single parent families are every bit as good as two-parent families, all other things being equal, is a politically correct one.  I'm still not sure, even after all this, whether you agree or not.  I did throw out the PC card a little soon, perhaps misunderstanding your position.  But as I said, I still don't know whether your support of single parent homes is practical or ideological.

All things being equal - the two parent home is better. But all things are so rarely equal, that from a practical stand point it is hardly worth addressing when your goal is to get kids out of foster care as quick as possible.

I'm not sure then what our big area of disagreement is.

I don't think you really have one, daz. The thing is, I think since you're a lot more vocal about your preference for the traditional household as an environment for child raising it can come off to some as not at all wanting single parent or gay family adoptions, so misunderstandings happen and this thread is an example of the result.

The thing to understand also is that I generally think of adoption in terms of new-born babies.  There is a lot of demand for healthy, new-born babies in many cases, and I do believe that heterosexual couples should be given preference when there is a choice.

But I recognize that the adoption landscape is very different for older children, children who have been abused, been through the foster care system, etc.  There is a much narrower group of people willing to adopt these kids, so we have to adjust our priorities accordingly.

[WMS]

Of course, I would agree that having good role models for both sexes no matter what sex the kid is is a good idea. However, this shouldn't discount the idea of single sex adoption or even gay adoption, given that we need to get as many of these kids out of foster care and into good, stable households as possible and that we lack enough married couples willing to adopt to do so.

Instead, rather than banning such adoptions, we need to make them work better. For instance, if a single mother were to adopt, the adoption agency might consider recommending the mother have the child(be it a boy or a girl) hang out with a respectable male role model, that while not a full father can at least provide a good example of what a man should act like. This man can be an uncle, a godfather, or one of those 'big brother' programs. Similar steps can be taken for gay family adoptions. As WMS says above, you don't need a full time person to fill in the role, you just need someone there to learn from. As long as the only other missing role models aren't just the child's peers, who have yet to mature, things should turn out favorably.

Glad to see you agree with my statement - I was trying very hard to adopt a reasonable position on this whole argument.

[ian]

I am such a large advocate of the first option, it is unbelievable.  This is my biggest issue except for the Separation of C&S.