LGBT adoption

[Aught3]

1. I think we are agreed that this point is no longer relevant exclusively to LGBT adoptions.

2. Seems very unlikely. As you said there is no ecvidence that this would cause any harm. In any case I can't think of a single time I saw my own parents 'tongue kissing'.

Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families.

This seems to be a common theme in the literature. There is no apparent difference between children raised in heterosexual vs. homosexual homes. I couldn't find any studies showing lesbians were the best parents, possibly I was mistaken about this.

3. Could you clarify this point for me. Are you saying one parent is not as good as two parents, either hetero or homosexual. Or are you saying it is better to have both a mother and a father than any other combination?

4. It is well accepted. See a recent review on lesbian parenting by Bos HM, van Balen F, and van den Boom DC (2005) titled 'Lesbian families and family functioning: an overview.'

OBJECTIVES: In the last 30 years a growing body of studies on lesbian parents and the development of children has been published. METHODS: Four computerized databases were identified studies for inclusion in this review of research on lesbian families, namely PsychInfo, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Medline, and the Social Sciences Citation Index. RESULTS: Forty-four empirical studies on lesbian families published between 1978 and 2003 were reviewed. In the research on lesbian families two phases were identified. To begin with, systematic studies on lesbian families focused on lesbian families with children who were born in a previous heterosexual relationship. More recently, studies included lesbian families whose children were born to the lesbian couple (planned lesbian families). In both phases, articles reporting results on children's development (such as sexual identity, emotional/behavioral development, social relationships and cognitive functioning), and parental functioning (such as mental psychological health and parenting skills). This paper presents and discusses major finding of the reviewed articles. CONCLUSION: Studies in both phases have emphasized that lesbian and heterosexual families are very much alike. However, it is the stigma of lesbianism that makes the family situation of lesbian families different. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare workers should be informed about the similarities and differences between lesbian families and heterosexual families, and about the non-traditional family situation of planned lesbian families.

I think this makes my point for me. No difference between the children of heterosexual or lesbian homes. Admittedly, there may be a slight difference due to stigma associated with being a child of lesbian parents. This advocates less rather than more discrimination, however.

Another commonly accepted theory is that homosexuality often stems from some kind of psychological disturbance (I do not subscribe to the belief it is immutable and I think Greeks approach to pederasty is compelling evidence in favour of that), however you can say that about alot of things, ie alot of people say being gifted at art requires some level of disturbance.

I doubt this. Could you post some evidence.

 

[WolfAU]

2. I disagree with your inferance that the 'romantic psychology' (and thus behaviour) of a homosexual couple is comparable to a heterosexual couple (ie heterosexuals do this, therefore one assumes gays would do the same) to be questionable (though for a fair few this is the case). As for the research I'll concede the point that studies backing that up exist and I'll look into it when I get a chance.

3. What I'm saying is that all things being equal, a heterosexual couple in a stable relationship is the most ideal, with both homosexual couples and single parents being less ideal, because of their tendancy to present PROBLEMS in child raising (though these may not necessarily be unsolvable). I am also saying that if a couple lacks both a male and female role model, this can also present a PROBLEM in the childs ability to develope balanced social skills in terms of issues regarding gender (gender identity, attitudes to or relationships with the opposite sex etc).

If the ideal setup a long term heterosexual relationship of both mother and father (ideally living together) is not possible, then a single parent or gay couple should acknowledge the presence of this issue and address it as best they can (ie having well adjusted, good role models etc). I also argue that once children are involved, divorce should be argued against in favour of reconcilliation when that is possible, and that single parents should actively attempt to persue stable relationships to present their children with that benefit... but this is shifting from theory and into my own attitudes.

Evidence of which? Homosexuality is not immutable? Again this borders more on my own musings regarding societies like the Greeks who treated homosexuality as somewhat useful. They basically adopted the practice of 'shaping' new recruits into the army into a homosexual relationship with an older man, and then if they left the army to have children, they 'shaped' their behaviour by doing things like having the women cut their hair into a mans style, covering their breasts and having sex in the dark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_pederasty#Military_aspects
The article also indicates women frequently engaged in socially condoned lesbian relationships, though this is news to me.

As for the idea of the psychological disturbance, I am not aware of compelling evidence in favour of that, but it is a belief that is held by several mental health professionals which I know personally (without going into too much detail, I have been present at several informal debates among mental health workers in my hometown on topics such as homosexuality, antisocial personality disorders, ADHD etc).

 

[RestrictedAccess]

1. Many gays are emotionally disturbed (either being the cause of or caused by their homosexuality or completely external to), as such before I would allow gays to adopt I would insist they recieve a psychological evaluation.

Many heterosexuals are emotionally disturbed, as well. Were I social worker, I know of several people (who currently have children), who I would turn down for mental/emotional problems, and some of those people are immediate family members. Every potential adopter should be checked for psychological problems, not just the gay ones.

2. I am not convinced that certain issues of overt homosexuality would not be harmful to a child, and as such would expect them to follow some guidelines on the matter.

This is a very broad point, and needs elaboration. I don't know of any problems of homosexuality that actually stem from homosexuality itself. Usually the problems stem from the lifestyle of the person.

3. Healthy psychological developement of children requires a variety of strong male and female role models in their life. As such a male homosexual couple I would expect to have some kind of regular female involvement (ie a woman friend who helps them raise it etc) and the same for lesbian couples. This could even take the form of lesbian and gay couples kind of 'pairing up' to help each other raise both sets of kids.

Well it's not like they'll never see a member of the opposite sex of their parents.

4. Regularly checking on the childs performance.

This should be a given regardless of the parent's sexuality.

I think trials on the issue have some warrant, particularly if the mother/father can personally be contacted for their approval, with an initial group of them being trialed to exam how they fair compared to a heterosexual control group.

Why would they need the approval of two people who gave up legal custody of their child? Furthermore, since children are usually either given up willingly, taken for reasons of neglect or abuse, or taken in after the death of original parents, is it really wise to consider the opinion of the people who obviously did not want/were not fit to raise the children in question?

Also what is to be gained from allowing LGBT adoption? Are we arguing in favour of it because it is in the best interest of the child (ie better a gay family than a lifetime at an orphanage) or because we feel it is a basic human right to allow individuals the opportunity to adopt?

It provides the child with a home and a family to love and care for them. Honestly, if there is any damage to be done to a child with LGBT parents, I don't think said damage would in any way surpass the damage that can be done by being shifted from foster home to foster home, and waiting for years in an adoption system for someone to want them enough to take them in.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Definitely LGBT should be able to adopt, and should be restricted by only the same guidelines other couples are restricted by. This should include restrictions about being smart, caring, observant enough to seek outside help if your child is having clear identity issues because of lack of a male role model or female role model.

As for 'role model' arguments: First, the whole concept of male and female role models is partially just a continuation of naive inherited concepts of sexuality. Second, there are plenty of children of heterosexual couples with one main caregiver that still have issues with not having a 'good role model' of one sex or the other, and often I think homosexual couples seek a lot more outside help raising their children because they truly care about this issue. I would bet that it is very rarely a problem in reality, just something bigoted people use as an example as to why LGBT couples should not adopt.

I have not seen a study that children of LGBT parents are less well adjusted, except in that they are sometimes persecuted by bigoted children who have been made bigoted by their parents. THOSE parents are the ones that should have their children taken away.

 

[felixthecoach]

Thank you Ozy, restricted and aught. I'm completely put off by this discussion and have to back out because I don't wanna start calling people names. I can generally let people debate over gun laws, capitalism, and religion. However, when someone says stupid shit like,

Many gays are emotionally disturbed (either being the cause of or caused by their homosexuality or completely external to), as such before I would allow gays to adopt I would insist they recieve a psychological evaluation.

I start to loose my cool.

Proposition 8 in California, and the one in Alabama to stop LGTB adoption were the last straw for me. I mean tons of states, including my own Tennessee, have taken away their right to be married.

Have fun debating with idiots in this thread, I can't read it anymore. I'm getting a headache.

 

[WolfAU]

Felix, I stand by my statement that changes in sexual behaviour can be the result of traumatic experiences, I think many psychiatic professionals would agree with that statement. Is homosexuality one of those changes? I believe for some people this is the case. This is not to meant to demean them or argue in favour of 'curing' them of their homosexuality.

I understand that there are alot of passions on this topic, but alot of people arguing that homosexuality does not change the persons behaviour or persona external to their sexuality I am hardly convinced of. Is that revelent to the topic of adoption? Maybe yes, maybe no (all parents have their baggage).

Ozy I agree there are plenty of heterosexual couples that have trouble raising their children, I suspect you misinterpret what I am saying, I am not saying 'gay cannot adopt because of...' merely that it is foolish to say that gay and straight couples who are caregivers face the same issues when they raise a child. As such society should approach the matter carefully.

Restricted: I feel alot of your questions/statements I adressed in my previous responses to Aught and Felix.

I think I need to clarify my stance. It is not 'gays should not adopt', and I believe my comments have made that clear. Instead these points.
1. Gay couples and straight couples face different issues when raising children.
2. Gay couples cannot have children by natural means, which in my previous statement makes it an 'additional right' they are arguing for. Which means that society is not really obligated to give it, and as such society should give it if and only if its benefits outweigh any risks. This may well be the case (I would be inclined to say yes, but would like to look into it further). The reason I bring this up is again, 'why are you in favour of gay adoption?' are you arguing in favour of gays having the 'right' to be care-givers, or for a child in the state system to have a loving family?
3. Also entering the debate I was not aware of any compelling research into the matters of homosexual adoption (understand that tmk this is illegal in all Australian States and territories, making it something few Australians have knowledge of). Aught insists the research exists and I intend to look into that.

I am not in favour of any kind of legislation banning or restricting homosexual relationships, I do not believe it is 'unnatural' or some kind of abomination to objective morality (which I do not believe in), I am fairly confident I am not a homophobe (having dated a bisexual woman for a considerable period and being friends with her to this day) and do not consider myself particularly closed minded in terms of sexuality (ie I have kissed guys, ie as party dares).

I do however feel that alot of people arguing in favour of (and against for that matter) certain outcomes regarding homosexuality are doing so more out of a mix of penance for the homophobia of previous years and as something of a dogma, rather than weighing any evidence. As I said above if the evidence supports gay adoption than I have no further objection (ie morality), if not then I don't.

 

[Ozymandyus]

1. Do they face different issues? I say they face the SAME issues, and can handle it the same way if they so choose(i.e. no female role model, get a female relative or friend to come over as often as possible). This could be a solution for a working mother whose schedule doesn't allow them enough interaction, or for a male homosexual couple. The only real different issue that MIGHT face is biggotry, which cannot be used to deny ANYONE any right. There are people who hate children of blacks, latinos, indians, chinese, whatever. Should none of those people get to adopt because someone might tease their children? WTF kind of argument is that? What are the different issues?

2. It would only be an additional right if other people could not adopt. In other words, Heterosexual couples have the right to adopt already, and are seeking to deny that right to homosexual couples. It is not an additional right at all - the right is adoption, and both groups should have equal rights in this area. If society gives the right to Adoption to straight couples they are obligated to give that right to homosexual couples.

3. There's something I will accept as reasoning - you should have just said this point and you wouldn't look quite as silly to me.

I am not doing penance, and you are a complete jackass for implying that is our reasoning. I know homosexual people that would be great parents. I know kids that need to be adopted. End of story. I don't even need to weigh evidence - if we allow heterosexuals to do something by law then homosexuals get the same right. I don't care if its adopting or waterboarding. However, I am happy that evidence is on my side too.

 

[Aught3]

I do however feel that alot of people arguing in favour of (and against for that matter) certain outcomes regarding homosexuality are doing so more out of a mix of penance for the homophobia of previous years and as something of a dogma, rather than weighing any evidence.

No this is not true at all. If the kids were coming out of these homes screwed up as hell I would not support LGBT adoptions. The fact is they don't; they are indistinguishable from children from heterosexual homes. There are only two consistent differences that I have found. One is that these kids are more likely to be bullied by other children. The other is that the children of homosexual parents are more accepting of homosexuality (and other issues of gender identity in general). Looking at this, I would say the advantage lies with the children coming out of the homosexual homes at the moment.

Also I looked up the Australian laws on homosexuality, homosexual adoption is legal in ACT and WA. I also looked up the laws for NZ, apparently it's not allowed here :shock: But of course, as is always the case with NZ law, there's an easy way to get around it. Single parent adoptions are totally fine even if the parent is homosexual.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I do however feel that alot of people arguing in favour of (and against for that matter) certain outcomes regarding homosexuality are doing so more out of a mix of penance for the homophobia of previous years and as something of a dogma, rather than weighing any evidence. As I said above if the evidence supports gay adoption than I have no further objection (ie morality), if not then I don't.

Are you sure you aren't trying to simply cover up your own bigotry, since you would obviously like to believe you are above those sorts of feelings, even though the weight of your words puts you squarely on the wrong side of the issue? Food for thought at least?

 

[WolfAU]

To ImprobableJoe: I am quite comfortable with the statement I am not a homophobe. From the beginning this thread to me was an intellectual debate and if you truly believe my arguments stem from simple homophobia I cease to see how that can be the case.

The weight of my words I assume you refer to the 'homosexuality MAY stem from (or cause) psychological disturbance' I believe I have clarified that. And even from the first post I never intended to say that I believed that gays should not adopt, only that these are the issues which I still have reservation about (ie things that IN MY MIND, had not been sufficiently covered in the forum of public debate, understand this would be different in America and Australia), and that once covered, I would be completely fine with that.

I stand by my statement that many of the 'pawns' in the push for gay rights have no real understanding of the psychological or sociological factors in play in the issue and hope you can agree on this much (though this is true of many issues such as environmentalism).

Also, considering I have been trying to choose my words relatively carefully, the passionate level of some responses argues to me that this topic may be too sensitive for any kind of real public debate (though some would argue this has already come and gone).

Re Aught (and Ozy) I did not mean to imply that gay rights is wrong because people who argue in favour of it are doing so for bad reasons, merely that this factor about it gives me pause. I also did not mean all people who argue in favour of it do so for this reason, only enough people I've met to whom gay rights advocacy was clearly a dogma to does kinda tarnish its image.

Re Ozy, I spose the best way to make my point is gays '...are different, just like everyone else'. Again, when children are involved to me the 'bigons be bigons' goes out the window and that to me gay adoption is about childrens welfare rather than gay rights (as I adressed before). And the 'different issues' statement was not specifically referencing the male/female role models issue, but was more of a general statement. I also object to the comparison to racism which again, I feel I have adressed (mixed heterosexual couples can have children, but may choose to adopt of may adopt if physically unable, ie something they should be able to do, but can't).

 

[Ozymandyus]

The problem you are not getting is there isn't a person here that doesn't care about the best interest of the child. Being homosexual is a simply diversity, one that has little bearing (or perhaps a positive effect even) on how good a parent you will be. The only thing stopping us from realizing that is a silly outdated picture of this 'picture-perfect family' that has been pounded into our heads for so long. That family does not exist, and its not even Desireable... If we want a perfectly homogeneous society where everyone is exactly the same, has the 'perfect little family' as designated by majority rules... I'm very scared for our future. Your hesitations stem from bigotry, its as simple as that.

Your 'heterosexuals are able to have children, which extends them adoption rights' argument is beyond silly by the way. Homosexual couples can choose to father/mother children too. It may require a more round about way of conceiving, and may not involve both parents, but they are certainly within their rights and abilities to have as many children as they might want. The comparison to racism is completely apt.

 

[WolfAU]

I agree the 50's esque 'picture perfect family' idea is both rediculous and often undesireable, that is not why I'm arguing that it is desireable for the biological parents to raise their children in a stable relationship, I'm arguing it because of evidence that unhappy family life (domestic violence, divorce etc) fucks with children, and that being estranged from one (or both) biological parents can cause identity issues etc. You can't say we should encourage family diversity simply for its own sake because it makes society more interesting.

Again I resent you coming to such rash conclusions about what I am arguing in favour of or my attitudes towards homosexuality in general. My 'hesitations' come from a desire for us to make the right decision based on evidence and a clear goal, rather than arguing its wrong because sky-daddy says so or some vaunted notion of equality for all (Since we all have our bias, who's view of 'equal rights' do we use?). Also these kinds of social changes have a habit of leading to awkward transitional periods.

I mentioned the issue of gay parents having a biological child external to the relationship. If they choose to do so obviously no one can really stop them (though again, I argue that they keep the biological parent in the childs life).

Anyway, since this is becoming quite pointless... I'm having to constantly remake the same arguments and defend against critisisms of views I don't have. For the MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME, I am not opposed to gay adoption, I simply think more information/observation is required, and have absolute confidence that many gay couples are both capable and loving parents. I am also not a homophobe. And with that in mind I cant see much point in me responding to this thread further.

 

[IBSpify]

I'm arguing it because of evidence that unhappy family life (domestic violence, divorce etc) fucks with children, and that being estranged from one (or both) biological parents can cause identity issues etc.

Nobody is advocating ripping the child away from the biological parents to give them to homosexuals, the cases in question here the child has already been estranged from one or both of their parents. We are arguing that it's better to have a family then no family at all.

For the MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME, I am not opposed to gay adoption, I simply think more information/observation is required

and for the MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME why should a homosexual couple be placed under more scrutiny than any other couple? Nobody is arguing that we allow them to adopt for the sole reason that they are gay, we are saying that being gay should not be a disqualification to be a potential adopter

 

[orpiment99]

Just to drop in my two cents... I am a single parent and I am far from perfect at it. Almost all children are raised in a less than perfect environment. Parents, as human beings, make errors. If we cannot hold "natural" parents to a set of ideals, we should not hold adoptive parents to them, either.

I do believe that all adoptive parents should be screened and psychologically evaluated, because we are choosing to put children in their care. But their sexuality shouldn't be viewed any more than their race, ethnic background, or eye color should. A child should have a right to a loving home. In the long run, the children would be better to be in a loving family than a foster home or orphanage. But even if they weren't, refusing to allow LGBT couples to adopt because of their sexuality or "concerns" related to their sexuality is just discrimination, in my opinion, of course.

 

[Distructica]

Didn't vote, because like all issues worth discussion, it is hardly black and white. Without going into too much complex shit, I'll adress a few issues.
1. Many gays are emotionally disturbed (either being the cause of or caused by their homosexuality or completely external to), as such before I would allow gays to adopt I would insist they recieve a psychological evaluation.

so are many straight people we do not withhold adoption for them. The majority of gays are not disturbed as are the majority of straights, this meens that simple screenings can be done to prevent someone who really should not be adopting from adopting.

2. I am not convinced that certain issues of overt homosexuality would not be harmful to a child, and as such would expect them to follow some guidelines on the matter.

Yes and straight people should fallow the same guide lines, the best interest of the child is in mind here.

3. Healthy psychological developement of children requires a variety of strong male and female role models in their life. As such a male homosexual couple I would expect to have some kind of regular female involvement (ie a woman friend who helps them raise it etc) and the same for lesbian couples. This could even take the form of lesbian and gay couples kind of 'pairing up' to help each other raise both sets of kids.

Really? In my abnormal psych class which I am currently in we were taught that all it takes is one loving parent to reduce the chance of any disorder, having 2 does not better the chances much. This leads me to believe that your "gender roles" are sexist archtypes left over from the stone ages. Like religion.

4. Regularly checking on the childs performance.

Yes, as should be done for all parents, straight parents can be just as fucked up as gays, don't pretend like sexual preference makes you a baby eater.

I think trials on the issue have some warrant, particularly if the mother/father can personally be contacted for their approval, with an initial group of them being trialed to exam how they fair compared to a heterosexual control group.

I agree, this kind of information is of course, invaluable. I would also concede that if it is found that an over whelming amount of gays are unfit for parent hood then gay adoption should remain illegal.

Also what is to be gained from allowing LGBT adoption? Are we arguing in favour of it because it is in the best interest of the child (ie better a gay family than a lifetime at an orphanage) or because we feel it is a basic human right to allow individuals the opportunity to adopt?

what is to be gained by letting black people sit in the front of the bus? It is a civil rights issue because sexual preference has no bearing on your ability to parent.

I have nothing to say in regard to the last part.

 

[WolfAU]

Theres no doubt many straight people are fucked, what I am arguing is there is some evidence of a correlation between homosexuality and mental illness (a bad ex, gays have a higher suicide rate, esp in their teenage years), there are several explanations for this (eg bigotry doing psychological damage, issues of self esteem), but enough to warrant care with adoption. I am fine with this being applied to all couples seeking adoption, I also agree with regularly checking up on all parents, however I believe extra care should be taken AT FIRST, because homosexual adoption IS NEW and therefore less accepted protocols exist (ie fathers/mothers have some idea about what is expected of them because these are beaten into us by society).

Agreed that some forms of overt heterosexuality can be damaging. The reason I bring this up is that thousands of years have shaped our understanding of etiquette on that topic, this is not so much the case with homosexuality (again, over time this will change).

I do not equate 'no psychological disorder' with 'well adjusted'. What I am arguing is more subtle things like self worth (ie divorce's main harm to children is the 'why doesn't he/she love me?' doubt).

I don't mean we should or shouldn't allow gay adoption, only have a clear idea about WHY we have decided to allow it (ie potentially risking childrens wellbeing because 'gays demanded equal rights' is not good enough for me). With that in mind I think the argument of giving a child a loving parent and getting them out of the state system is a fine reason with a clear goal.

 

[Distructica]

I would agree rigorous screenings should be applied. I'm just saying it can only help if you do it to gays and straights.