Gay adoption

[dazzleman]

Well, the difference is that a child needs a mother and a father, not two mothers, especially 'mothers' who have little understanding of or tolerance for the male gender, which would be especially damaging for a boy.

There is no evidence that lesbians have no understanding of or tolerance for the male gender.

Some do, some don't.  But whether they do or not, a woman can never be a good father, just as a man can never be a good mother.  And a child should have both a mother and father, ideally.

[dazzleman]

Well, the difference is that a child needs a mother and a father, not two mothers, especially 'mothers' who have little understanding of or tolerance for the male gender, which would be especially damaging for a boy.

There is no evidence that lesbians have no understanding of or tolerance for the male gender.

I have to say that's true, and I'm sorry that dazzleman made such a sweeping statement as that. Lesbians are as diverse a group as many others and while some do subscribe to feminism (just like a lot of heterosexual women do) they can come out with some statements that could be considered 'anti-men.'

However most lesbians I have known do not think that way at all. They understand the values of both sexes, but do not feel a sexual attraction to men. But they still have male friends, brothers and fathers and some even have sons and they love them as any sound minded person would. I have never found anything slightly 'anti-male' about them.

You're right; I shouldn't have made such a sweeping statement, though that certainly is true about some lesbians.  But the underlying reality is that no woman can provide a male role model for a boy [nor can a man provide a female role model for a girl].

[dazzleman]

nlm, regarding the general statistics I've discussed, I've read them in all sorts of reports and books over the years.  There's no way for me to put them together without a large research project, which I'm not about to undertake.  Somehow, I don't think you'd be convinced in any case.

You're inadvertently advancing my argument when you talk about how single parents live in areas with drastically higher crime rates and poor school systems.  There is a circular effect here -- being a single parent produces economic disadvantage, which forces you to live in substandard areas.  Then, exposure to the bad elements in those areas, coupled with the difficulty of being a single parents, makes it more likely that your kids won't turn out well.

As I noted in my previous post, I already figured out your circular theory and stated your approach was too generic to have any meaning. You are assuming a false begining point. Most of these folks are born into sh*t communities with sh*t schools that have been sh*t communities with sh*t schools for quite some time. Most never get out. Most don't get an education worth crap, most of the guys die or are jailed for an extended period of their life prior to reaching age 25. Single parents do play a roll in this, but pretending it's the cause in just outlandish and inept, and it certainly will not ever achieve any results.

But regarding this thread - these aren't the people I'm talking about. No adoption agent is going to send a kid into that kid of disadvantaged hell (single parent, gay parent or to both a man and a women) - they really would be better off in foster care. This is just a stupid side bar to create an outragous example to defend your lame arguement.

As far as your libertarian argument goes, I'll accept it the day that I never have to listen to another argument that my tax dollars should go to 'correct' the shortcomings of single parent homes.  I hear constantly that I should be paying for subsidized day care, after school programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs, and all sorts of subsidies to buttress family structures that are not self-sufficient.

With rights come responsibilities, and vice versa.  If I'm going to be taxed to support single parent homes, which is, in effect, what a good deal of welfare spending and 'educational' expenses above and beyond money spent in the classroom, goes toward, then I have a right to voice my opinion on the issue and pass judgment on a lifestyle of chosen single parenthood.

I'm not questioning your rights or your right to voice your opinion regardless of of the validity or lack there of, I'm questioning your judgement - in the case of this thread, regarding adoption, gay adoption specifically, single parent adoption secondarily.

But I can tell I'm just butting heads with a hard core social authoritarian wearing blinders that is too old to learn new tricks and is going to avoid the topic of gay adoption like the plague if he can not get in and out with a quick dis about political correctness. In other words, a waste of time.

Well, I'm sorry you've chosen to bring this discussion down to such a low level.  You're right; this is a waste of time, because your ideology has obviously blinded you to the results of single parenthood on a large scale.  And if you need 'evidence' to recognize the results of single parenthood on a large scale, then you'll never get it anyway.

You talk about the poor and how bad they have it, and you're right about that.  What you fail to realize is that irresponsible child-bearing is one of the main things that keeps that cycle going.

[nlm]

Well, I'm sorry you've chosen to bring this discussion down to such a low level.  You're right; this is a waste of time, because your ideology has obviously blinded you to the results of single parenthood on a large scale.  And if you need 'evidence' to recognize the results of single parenthood on a large scale, then you'll never get it anyway.

You talk about the poor and how bad they have it, and you're right about that.  What you fail to realize is that irresponsible child-bearing is one of the main things that keeps that cycle going.

You just provide sweeping statements - that's it. No evidence, no logic, no nothing. It is because you say it is and then start with your next lame pronouncement. This conversation had all the merit of a 3rd grade chat long ago courtesy of that, and what you assume I realize or don't realize for the sake of some snide comment fits perfectly with the rest of your sweeping generalization.

[John Dibble]

You talk about the poor and how bad they have it, and you're right about that.  What you fail to realize is that irresponsible child-bearing is one of the main things that keeps that cycle going.

I think he realizes that fully, actually - he simply disagrees that it's because of single parents. Single parents can be very responsible when raising a child, as I have seen in many cases. As he points out though, the areas where there is single parenting in mass have other problems. Poor neighborhoods are more likely to have irresponsible people inhabiting them in the first place, and single parenthood results from this irresponsibility - the irresponsibility pretty much exists in the first place, it didn't magically appear when the baby arrived. (often in these cases even if the dad sticks around you're going to end up with irresponsible parenting) And most of those kids are accidents as a result of the irresponsible behavior, meaning they weren't really wanted in the first place - this is not the case with a single parent adoption, where bringing the child into the home is planned out in most cases. I'd be willing to wager that those single parents who wish to adopt would generally be more responsible than your average single parent.

[afleitch]

I would say that John brings up a valid point. I don't believe that people simply wish to adopt 'just for the hell of it.' Rather they have a desire to give a child a loving environment and I imagine it is not easy to adopt children, even those who are only a few years old, as they could have been through so much in their short lives that makes them wary of trusting adults.

Deciding to adopt, cannot be a decision that is taken lightly. Some individuals and couples here in the UK often do so after raising their own children to adulthood. They have the time, patience and love to undertake such a responsibility. There are many straight couples who make horrible parents, never mind apotive parents. And in my opinion gay and lesbian couples are exactly the same. You've either got 'it' or you don't. To judge a whole group by their sexual orientation on their ability to love and care for a child is unfortunate.

[nlm]

You talk about the poor and how bad they have it, and you're right about that.  What you fail to realize is that irresponsible child-bearing is one of the main things that keeps that cycle going.

I think he realizes that fully, actually - he simply disagrees that it's because of single parents. Single parents can be very responsible when raising a child, as I have seen in many cases. As he points out though, the areas where there is single parenting in mass have other problems. Poor neighborhoods are more likely to have irresponsible people inhabiting them in the first place, and single parenthood results from this irresponsibility - the irresponsibility pretty much exists in the first place, it didn't magically appear when the baby arrived. (often in these cases even if the dad sticks around you're going to end up with irresponsible parenting) And most of those kids are accidents as a result of the irresponsible behavior, meaning they weren't really wanted in the first place - this is not the case with a single parent adoption, where bringing the child into the home is planned out in most cases. I'd be willing to wager that those single parents who wish to adopt would generally be more responsible than your average single parent.

Thanks John, I had lost the will to keep repeating myself.

[Speed of Sound]

Well, the difference is that a child needs a mother and a father, not two mothers, especially 'mothers' who have little understanding of or tolerance for the male gender, which would be especially damaging for a boy.

There is no evidence that lesbians have no understanding of or tolerance for the male gender.

Some do, some don't.  But whether they do or not, a woman can never be a good father, just as a man can never be a good mother.  And a child should have both a mother and father, ideally.

First of all, youll have some prejudice in any gender and any sexuality. You prove that yourself. Second of all, I dont see the ubernecesseity for both.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How about it doesn't really matter who adopts who as long as the adopter isn't a conviced sex offender.

[??????????]

Well, I'm sorry you've chosen to bring this discussion down to such a low level.  You're right; this is a waste of time, because your ideology has obviously blinded you to the results of single parenthood on a large scale.  And if you need 'evidence' to recognize the results of single parenthood on a large scale, then you'll never get it anyway.

You talk about the poor and how bad they have it, and you're right about that.  What you fail to realize is that irresponsible child-bearing is one of the main things that keeps that cycle going.

You just provide sweeping statements - that's it. No evidence, no logic, no nothing. It is because you say it is and then start with your next lame pronouncement. This conversation had all the merit of a 3rd grade chat long ago courtesy of that, and what you assume I realize or don't realize for the sake of some snide comment fits perfectly with the rest of your sweeping generalization.

You act like you are better then everyone else here. Please drop the snobbish BS.

[WMS]

Option two, although option one is correct-gay parents CAN do as good a job.

My view is that a male and female parent is best for the child, but any parent is better then none. And gay and lesbian parents can be as good. Certainly, just having a male and female parent doesn't make for the perfect family.

Bingo.

And I do believe that all children need both male and female influences in their lives. As a tough old wonderful Texas grandmother who lived (died of cancer last year ) next door to my mom once told me, daughters need time with their fathers, and sons need time with their mothers. It is an important part of understanding and dealing with the opposite sex later in life. Both the 'male' and 'female' influences are important to healthy development, as both influences have positive contributions. I can't believe anyone actually thinks that only one influence is OK. Mind you, if there is no mother or father figure in the immediate family, a child's chances to successfully make it through to adulthood without serious trouble are still good, provided they have a substitute mother or father figure. It can be a neighbor, or a relative (as was the case when my father was growing up), or a teacher, or anyone who can serve as a mentor in the other things a child needs to know that one parent alone cannot provide because of the different gender perspectives.

And before I have some haughty libertarian accusing me of attacking single parents, I spent about a decade of my life being raised de facto by a single parent. I've fu(king been there, got it? Many single parents are wonderful, hardworking, responsible people, like my mother. But, yes, I needed a male influence as well (which I did get after a while). Balance is required.

[dazzleman]

You talk about the poor and how bad they have it, and you're right about that.  What you fail to realize is that irresponsible child-bearing is one of the main things that keeps that cycle going.

I think he realizes that fully, actually - he simply disagrees that it's because of single parents. Single parents can be very responsible when raising a child, as I have seen in many cases. As he points out though, the areas where there is single parenting in mass have other problems. Poor neighborhoods are more likely to have irresponsible people inhabiting them in the first place, and single parenthood results from this irresponsibility - the irresponsibility pretty much exists in the first place, it didn't magically appear when the baby arrived. (often in these cases even if the dad sticks around you're going to end up with irresponsible parenting) And most of those kids are accidents as a result of the irresponsible behavior, meaning they weren't really wanted in the first place - this is not the case with a single parent adoption, where bringing the child into the home is planned out in most cases. I'd be willing to wager that those single parents who wish to adopt would generally be more responsible than your average single parent.

Thanks John, I had lost the will to keep repeating myself.

I agree with a lot of what John said.  A person who chooses to be a single parent through adoption would probably be a much better parent than a trashy, irresponsible person who had a baby out of wedlock.

Still, I think a male-female parent family is preferable.

As for you having to keep repeating yourself nlm, I think we could have had a better discussion had you not taken a nasty and superior attitude from the outset.  You certainly typify the lesson that many hard-core liberals have learned well -- the best defense is a good offense, particularly when one is arguing from a politically correct "earth is flat" vantage point.

[John Dibble]

I agree with a lot of what John said.  A person who chooses to be a single parent through adoption would probably be a much better parent than a trashy, irresponsible person who had a baby out of wedlock.

Still, I think a male-female parent family is preferable.

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.

[Gabu]

I would say that if everything else was exactly the same, a heterosexual couple would be better purely to give the child a well-rounded upbringing that was not dominated by one gender or the other.  However, this is a totally unrealistic assumption that would never occur in reality.  A homosexual couple who are good parents is obviously better for a child than a heterosexual couple who are lousy parents; therefore, I would go with option 1.

[nlm]

I would say that if everything else was exactly the same, a heterosexual couple would be better purely to give the child a well-rounded upbringing that was not dominated by one gender or the other.  However, this is a totally unrealistic assumption that would never occur in reality.  A homosexual couple who are good parents is obviously better for a child than a heterosexual couple who are lousy parents; therefore, I would go with option 1.

Exactly, spoken like a member of the reality based community. Taking options away from adoption agents only hurts the kids, and to do so based on totally unrealistic assumptions and parnoid prejudices is fairly alarming. Every kid that is up for adoption presents a unique case, as does every person or couple that wishes to adopt. Wouldn't it be nice if both groups could be treated as such to the best of a given adoption agents ability without the blind stereotyping and sweeping generalizations that marginalize the futures of members from both groups? Without the government stepping in to pass laws that mandate such stereotypes? I have a dream (but not much more than that right now it appears).

[nlm]

Dazz,

Beyond your attempts to try and connect the dots between disadvantaged mothers in poor urban areas (that are not given adoption rights to begin with due to their economic postion, which also applies to couples in the same position) and other single parents in non-disadvantaged positions, your position on this remains unclear other than you having some belief that allowing single parents (regardless of their position) to adopt would somehow lead to you paying higher taxes to support their welfare. An odd conclusion, and an odd way of attacking the welfare problem.

Why go after the maritial status or sexual orientation of a pontetial parent? If you are being honest about your position, shouldn't you be going after the economic status of a potential parent? Maritial status or sexual orientation taken alone has nothing to do with a kid ending up on welfare. Given that fact, I've just been assuming that your position is less than honest (my apologies if I'm wrong about that) or that you have come to believe in so many stereotypes so as not to be able to see clearly. I don't disagree that there are more potential single parents that are in worse financial positions than potential parents that are couples (if that was a point you were trying to make). But let's keep it real - unless you are trying to play with the social fabric of the country for reasons you have yet to state, the preference is economic with an expectation to find more couples that meet that preference than singles, and those couples could include gay ones with same level of expection as straight one.

But this thread is about gay adoption, and you've avoided almost any comment on the propsed gay-adoptions ban, other than to make vague suggestions of your support for them based on stereotypes - so where does the master of convential wisdom and general consensus (that oddly uses politically correct as a dis) come down on these bans?

[dazzleman]

Dazz,

Beyond your attempts to try and connect the dots between disadvantaged mothers in poor urban areas (that are not given adoption rights to begin with due to their economic postion, which also applies to couples in the same position) and other single parents in non-disadvantaged positions, your position on this remains unclear other than you having some belief that allowing single parents (regardless of their position) to adopt would somehow lead to you paying higher taxes to support their welfare. An odd conclusion, and an odd way of attacking the welfare problem.

Why go after the maritial status or sexual orientation of a pontetial parent? If you are being honest about your position, shouldn't you be going after the economic status of a potential parent? Maritial status or sexual orientation taken alone has nothing to do with a kid ending up on welfare. Given that fact, I've just been assuming that your position is less than honest (my apologies if I'm wrong about that) or that you have come to believe in so many stereotypes so as not to be able to see clearly.

But this thread is about gay adoption, and you've avoided almost any comment on the propsed gay-adoptions ban, other than to make vague suggestions of your support for them based on stereotypes - so where does the master of convential wisdom and general consensus (that oddly uses politically correct as a dis) come down on these bans?

I think I stated earlier that I don't support outright bans on adoption by single or gay parents.  I said that I think a heterosexual two-parent household is the best option, in my opinion, and that the other options are inferior to that, though not necessarily, of course, to crappy biological parents, bad foster homes, or institutionalization.

What I resist is the notion that, all other things being equal, a household of single or gay parents is as good as a household of two heterosexual parents.  I don't believe this to be the case.  But I recognize that ideals aren't always achievable, and that it's more important to look for the best alternative rather than holding out for an ideal that may not be available.  The enemy of the good is sometimes not the bad, but the perfect.

I recognize the point Dibble made about the difference between an irresponsible and careless biological single parent, and a carefully screened adoptive one.  I am quite emotional on the single parent issue, because of what the widspread acceptance of single parenthood has done to the black community, and my fears that it will become mainstream in society as a whole.  I think that while individual children can grow up will in a single parent HOME, it is nearly impossible for them to grow up well when the whole COMMUNITY consists of single parents, as is the case in our worst ghettos.

I think you are wrong in saying that I simply reflect conventional wisdom.  I have made quite a few observations, and put a lot of thought into my positions.  If you don't agree, that's fine, but we should disagree as friends.  There's no need to become nasty because of it.

[nlm]

Dazz,

Beyond your attempts to try and connect the dots between disadvantaged mothers in poor urban areas (that are not given adoption rights to begin with due to their economic postion, which also applies to couples in the same position) and other single parents in non-disadvantaged positions, your position on this remains unclear other than you having some belief that allowing single parents (regardless of their position) to adopt would somehow lead to you paying higher taxes to support their welfare. An odd conclusion, and an odd way of attacking the welfare problem.

Why go after the maritial status or sexual orientation of a pontetial parent? If you are being honest about your position, shouldn't you be going after the economic status of a potential parent? Maritial status or sexual orientation taken alone has nothing to do with a kid ending up on welfare. Given that fact, I've just been assuming that your position is less than honest (my apologies if I'm wrong about that) or that you have come to believe in so many stereotypes so as not to be able to see clearly.

But this thread is about gay adoption, and you've avoided almost any comment on the propsed gay-adoptions ban, other than to make vague suggestions of your support for them based on stereotypes - so where does the master of convential wisdom and general consensus (that oddly uses politically correct as a dis) come down on these bans?

I think I stated earlier that I don't support outright bans on adoption by single or gay parents.  I said that I think a heterosexual two-parent household is the best option, in my opinion, and that the other options are inferior to that, though not necessarily, of course, to crappy biological parents, bad foster homes, or institutionalization.

What I resist is the notion that, all other things being equal, a household of single or gay parents is as good as a household of two heterosexual parents.  I don't believe this to be the case.  But I recognize that ideals aren't always achievable, and that it's more important to look for the best alternative rather than holding out for an ideal that may not be available.  The enemy of the good is sometimes not the bad, but the perfect.

I recognize the point Dibble made about the difference between an irresponsible and careless biological single parent, and a carefully screened adoptive one.  I am quite emotional on the single parent issue, because of what the widspread acceptance of single parenthood has done to the black community, and my fears that it will become mainstream in society as a whole.  I think that while individual children can grow up will in a single parent HOME, it is nearly impossible for them to grow up well when the whole COMMUNITY consists of single parents, as is the case in our worst ghettos.

I think you are wrong in saying that I simply reflect conventional wisdom.  I have made quite a few observations, and put a lot of thought into my positions.  If you don't agree, that's fine, but we should disagree as friends.  There's no need to become nasty because of it.

Well Dazz - we are at a log jam, and I can walk away in disagreement. I figured you had some emotional conection to this issue - as a long time member of the big brother program helping kids in foster care, so do I. It's fair to say that your goal is a good one, I just have no belief that your methods will get you to your goal (which is the only reason I took the time to speak with you). It's also fair to note that nasty is in the eye of the beholder - and your persistent use of "polically correct" as a dis and a means of attempting to dismiss opinions as irrelevant sets a tone as well - though I freely admit to defending my positions aggressively when I in believe in them strongly.

[dazzleman]

Well Dazz - we are at a log jam, and I can walk away in disagreement. I figured you had some emotional conection to this issue - as a long time member of the big brother program helping kids in foster care, so do I. It's fair to say that your goal is a good one, I just have no belief that your methods will get you to your goal (which is the only reason I took the time to speak with you). It's also fair to note that nasty is in the eye of the beholder - and your persistent use of "polically correct" as a dis and a means of attempting to dismiss opinions as irrelevant sets a tone as well - though I freely admit to defending my positions aggressively when I in believe in them strongly.

nlm, I'm not sure what you think my 'methods' are.  I have said I don't favor a ban on single or gay adoption, and that I would favor placing children in such homes as an alternative to returning a child to bad parents, revolving door foster care, or an insititution.

I think we misunderstood each other from the start, and probably still do.  You took immediate offense to my issues with single parent homes, but you went on the attack too soon, without really knowing my position or what drives my concerns.

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.

[nlm]

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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[MaC]

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

explain, please

[afleitch]

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

[AkSaber]

Option 1 for me.