Homosexuals Adopting

brightmorningstar · #31 28th October 2009, 12:03 PM

To Polycarp1,

I have been told repeatedly on this forum that it is absolutely essential that there be two adopting parents, and that one have a penis and the other a vagina, and that this is necessary to be proper role models. A sense of parental love for the child, a sense on the child's part of filial love for the prospective parents, adequate financial resources, the ability to discipline within appropriate limits, the ability to teach life skills, the ability to mentor the child as he/she matures -- none of these are ever mentioned.

Why would they when that’s not the question. Assume therefore that the parents, one with an penis and the other a vagina have a sense of parental love for the child, a sense on the child's part of filial love for the prospective parents, adequate financial resources, the ability to discipline within appropriate limits. So what is your point?

the ability to teach life skills, the ability to mentor the child as he/she matures

That’s a reason why the couple should be male and female.

My conclusion is that it must be that the heterosexual-couple adoptive parents are supposed to engage in sexual intercourse in front of their children, in order to better demonstrate how to do so to them.

Heterosexual is sexual attraction and seem to be looking at this from the point of view of sexual attraction and sexual intercourse of the couple, not the best interests of the child.

levi501 · #32 28th October 2009, 12:14 PM

People think that opposite-sex couples are ideal because culturally that's been the norm. This is falacious. Just because this is what our society/culture is accustom to doesn't make it inherently better. Those that assert differently have the burden of proof... which has yet to be shown in this thread.

Psudopod · #33 28th October 2009, 12:21 PM

But we’re not talking about reproduction are we?
Yes of course we are, Its a requirement, otherwise where do you think the children come from in adoption?

No, we’re talking about children who are already in existence. Their birth, their parents etc are entirely irreverent to the discussion at hand.

We’re talking about adoption. The child is already born. I’m asking if you have any evidence that a same sex couple would do worse at raising a child, compared to an opposite sex one.

And my answer is as it takes both sexes to reproduce the children nature has provided two sexes so a same sex couple is at odds with what nature has provided.

But does raising the child require two parents, one of each sex? Given that historically, a child may have be raised by a group of related females (mother, grandmother, older sisters, aunts etc) or completely unrelated adults (wet nurse, nanny, tutors, governess etc); and in modern societies studies have shown that children raised by same sex parents suffer no detriment mentally, physically, educationally etc when compared with peers raised by opposite sex parents, why do you think it is necessary to restrict the number of potential adoptive parents. This is especially pertinent when you consider same sex couples are on average more likely to adopt “difficult” cases – children with physical or mental problems, from traumatic backgrounds etc.

My question to you is why propose a one sex only couple when the whole question of children requires both sexes?

I’m not proposing it like it’s a new thing. Same sex couples exist, many raise children, some of whom are adopted. Why should this stop?

ToddNotTodd · #34 28th October 2009, 01:06 PM

"the ability to teach life skills, the ability to mentor the child as he/she matures"

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar

That’s a reason why the couple should be male and female.

Why? What life skills can't I teach because I'm a male?

keith99 · #35 28th October 2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Every child deserves the best and the best is both a Father and Mother. A child in an orphanage is there because he or she has already lost his or her real parents for wharever reason.

I do not feel that it is rewarding to subject such a child to further complications that need not be. Adoption should be allowed ONLY for a married couple, and that couple should represent as natural and as wholesome of an environment as possible.

There should be a balance of both a male and female role models. That can only be provided where there is a husband and a wife. A child that may already feel as being disadvantaged, should not be subjected to the fashionable whims of society. The needs of the child must be placed as the most important, above those who may either be seeking a "pet" or attempting to prove something to society or themselves...

So are you saying a child should remain in an orphanage until the ideal couple comes along (or until the child turns 18)?

Back in the real world children remain in orphanages or foster care, which are far from ideal.

A reasonable ideal for a child would be a couple where only one works (at least for the early years of the childs life) a good income. A working parent who is able to take time off to spend with their child. A racial match (if for no other reason than to not have it obvious the child is adopted).

Put all those in place and very few children would ever get out of the foster care system.

LittleNipper · #36 28th October 2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by keith99

So are you saying a child should remain in an orphanage until the ideal couple comes along (or until the child turns 18)?

Back in the real world children remain in orphanages or foster care, which are far from ideal.

A reasonable ideal for a child would be a couple where only one works (at least for the early years of the childs life) a good income. A working parent who is able to take time off to spend with their child. A racial match (if for no other reason than to not have it obvious the child is adopted).

Put all those in place and very few children would ever get out of the foster care system.

Well, I do not believe single women, single men, or homosexual couples should be in the foster care system. The ideal would be for a child to go to a foster care home and that child and those foster parents (a married husband & wife) coming to an agreement that they should remain as a family.

The reality is that most get adopted unless there are serious medical complications with the child that would require extreme measures, or the child is emotionally dangerous. My guess is that even most homosexual "couples" wouldn't want their decor ruined...

LittleNipper · #37 28th October 2009, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Polycarp1

I have been told repeatedly on this forum that it is absolutely essential that there be two adopting parents, and that one have a penis and the other a vagina, and that this is necessary to be proper role models. A sense of parental love for the child, a sense on the child's part of filial love for the prospective parents, adequate financial resources, the ability to discipline within appropriate limits, the ability to teach life skills, the ability to mentor the child as he/she matures -- none of these are ever mentioned. My conclusion is that it must be that the heterosexual-couple adoptive parents are supposed to engage in sexual intercourse in front of their children, in order to better demonstrate how to do so to them. I can't see any other logical reason why those physiological requirements are held in so high regard.

I hope it's obvious that I don't agree with this position.

The man is a male role model and the woman is a female role model. A guy who acts like a girl will never be as good of a female role model as a real woman. And the guy who would get himself hooked up such an individual would not be a very sober male role model.

What one ends up with are stereotypes of "normal," and not reality.

brightmorningstar · #38 28th October 2009, 02:17 PM

To levi501,

People think that opposite-sex couples are ideal because culturally that's been the norm. This is falacious.

It’s the norm because it is the norm. The arguments many put forward is the benefit the norm has.

Psudopod · #39 28th October 2009, 02:22 PM

The arguments many put forward is the benefit the norm has

But this benifit has not been shown. Just because something is normal does not make it right.

cantata · #40 28th October 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by jcook922

Same thing really. No need to mince words.

Mincing words in this case is important, because a) not all same-sex couples are composed of two homosexual people, and b) it draws a bizarre degree of attention to the sexual orientations of the prospective adoptive parents, rather than merely to their sex, which is the issue at stake. Calling it ‘homosexual adoption’ implies that there is an argument to be had about whether homosexual people can be good parents. But there is no such argument to be had. The only argument to be had is whether two people of the same sex can provide as good an environment for raising a child as can a couple of different sexes.

In short, it is sex, and not sexual orientation, that is the issue when discussing adoption by same-sex couples, and the way we talk about the issue should reflect this.