Should queers be allowed to adopt anything other than goldfish...?

...and other lifeforms generally considered expendable?

I don't know how to make threads. (Am I even doing this right?)

I'm sure you're all tired of anything even remotely related to what two consenting adult members of the same sex do in private.

Well, I'm here to ruin your day.

----

Topic: the adoption of children by LGBT parents.

I propose that the criteria used to determine whether a person or persons is fit for adoption be the same for all members of society, regardless of sexual orientation. I also propose that the criteria follow a form of methodology that is rational and less prone to personal bias and subjective judgments of ill-defined and unmeasurable conditions. Lastly, I think the criteria should follow pre-existing criteria for adoption and for government intervention in domestic situations.

As a disclaimer, these statements are based off of the American system.

Argument:
The discrimination that a child is projected to experience based on his/her parents' perceived sexual orientation is not acceptable criteria on which to judge the prospective parent(s)'s fitness for adoption rights.

Specific points:
1. Current factors determining abuse and unsafe living conditions for children.
2. Current qualifying factors for adoption by non-LGBT persons.
3. Social stigma and "gay empowerment."

Background1:
Currently, Child Protective Services may remove a child from the custody of his/her biological parents if those parents are found to be negligent or abusive. CPS has a methodology in use to determine when a case warrants that the child be removed from that home. Criteria for this includes:

1) Physically injury by other than accidental means.
2) Willful cruelty or unjustifiable punishment.
3) Sexual exploitation.
4) Inadequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision.

All of these criteria are applicable to the primary caretakers (http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/pg93.htm).

Analysis1:
The discrimination that a child may experience from society outside of his/her home is not a part of the criteria currently used by CPS to define abuse or neglect. To my knowledge, there have been no cases in which a child was ever removed from his/her biological parents because of the discrimination that the child faced from sources outside the home as a result of the child's race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation, or as a result of the parent(s)' race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.

It is to be expected that adoption criteria will almost always be higher than the guidelines used to decide when a situation is abusive or harmful to a child. However, it is reasonable to expect that the qualifications are not to be set above what is reasonably achievable by persons of average capabilities.

With the current methodologies in place for determining whether or not a home situation is safe or suitable for a child, the criteria used for child adoption by LGBT parents should not deviate too far from it, unless all existing methodologies are to be re-evaluated and applied to all sectors of society that deal with child welfare (this refers to public agencies only; private agencies are permitted favoritism on the basis of such factors as religious affiliation and ethnicity).

If discrimination from sources outside of the home is considered to be a negative factor serious enough to warrant that a child not be adopted by LGBT parents, then the reasoning follows that all children who face discrimination outside of the home are in serious enough danger that they must also be put up for consideration for removal from their current homes by government agencies so that they may be placed in environments in which they will face less discrimination.

On the other hand, if it is the opinion of society that children who grow up facing discrimination--due to such conditions as the racial heritage of their own biological parents, for example--are not in enough danger either physically or mentally to warrant their removal from home, then it is illogical to implement the notion that children who face discrimination due to the sexual orientation of their adoptive parents warrant being denied a permanent home.

Background2:
Current qualifications for adoption vary by region and agency. Based on a few summaries (the most comprehensive being: http://adopting.adoption.com/child/...rements-for-prospective-adoptive-parents.html), neither racial nor ethnic minority status, nor any other factor which may lead to discrimination outside the home, is given as a disqualifying factor.

However, one common qualifying factor for adoption is a prospective parent's health. The basis of this factor is to avoid unnecessary trauma that would be brought on by a parent's early death before the child has a chance to mature. However, the type of occupation that a parent is employed in (as long as it is legal employment) rarely warrants consideration, even if one parent is employed in a high risk field. This is because a severe medical condition is simply more dire, and the outcome is more easily predicted and reliable. Death while working in a risky profession is circumstantial; the chances of it happening merge in with what is generally considered an acceptable risk that is an unavoidable part of life.

Analysis2:
Discrimination is circumstantial. There is no guarantee that a child with LGBT parents will certainly experience it, or to what degree, just as there is no guarantee that a child with a police officer for a parent will absolutely lose that parent before a certain age. If allowing a police officer to adopt a child is acceptable, if the risk due to that parent's profession is deemed an acceptable risk because it is circumstantial, then the risk of discrimination due to a parent's perceived sexual orientation is no less a disqualifying factor, as it is also circumstantial.

Also, facing discrimination is not considered to be detrimental to a child on the level of experiencing the death of a parent at a young age, or enduring abuse and neglect. The current criteria takes parent medical history, criminal history, and income status into account to avoid these situations, and such conditions may be disqualifying factors. But to apply a higher standard to LGBT parents than what is commonly used to disqualify other applicants is an inconsistent practice. If discrimination is to be made a factor because it is deemed serious enough to be a factor, it makes no sense to withhold that factor from other circumstances in which it might come into play.

Such circumstances would include the status of the child and/or of the parent(s) as racial or ethnic minorities. If discrimination were a disqualifying factor, should minorities be allowed to adopt at all, even children of their own race or ethnicity? Wouldn't a white couple be preferrable because the parents would be less subjected to discrimination?

However, even if the parents are white, if the child is a minority, the child will be subject to prejudice. Then this raises the question of whether or not parents of the same race would be more able to relate to what their child is going through. But if both the parents and the child are minorities, wouldn't that make them as a whole more disadvantaged in society, regardless of how they are able to relate to each other?

Given the above scenario, if discrimination were a disqualifying factor, any choice would be a bad choice. If facing prejudice in society is to be taken to be as detrimental as abuse or negligence, then logic follows that all minority children, regardless of the race or ethnicity of their parents, are SOL.

Are we?

None of these considerations are quantifiable. The decision is too subjective and too reflective of personal bias. The variables cannot be isolated. As a general rule, this factor cannot be applied to all circumstances, and not with any consistency.

Minority children didn't get to choose their biological parents. And it is arrogant to presume that we would have chosen differently had we known the circumstances prior to birth.

Every person is born as something that is offensive to someone else. Everyone is open to scrutiny by society. Everyone is judged. The possibility of facing discrimination is unavoidable. There is no one who lives free from that risk. So it is not a part of the established adoption criteria because it is a factor that extends beyond what is reasonably controllable by the average person.

It is also unreasonable to project that for every LGBT couple denied adoption rights, there will be an equally suitable heterosexual couple available to assume the vacated role. Currently, the number of children in foster care generally outnumber the number adopted (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm). As such, denying suitable LGBT candidates on the basis of sexual orientation alone would be denying a child a permanent home and family.

Background3:
It has been argued that allowing LGBT adoption is a political move for "gay empowerment" that occurs at the expense of the child.

Analysis3:
If the main detrimental factor to a child of LGBT parents is the social stigma attached to LGBT-ism, then "gay empowerment" is a movement that would benefit adopted children by helping remove the stigma. Allowing members of the LGBT community to take on responsibilities deemed "normal" would promote the view of the community as "normal." Like the rest of the "gay empowerment" agenda, the aim is to further the cause of tolerance by assimilating certain LGBT persons into mainstream society. Allowing LGBT adoption and furthering "gay empowerment" could help make life easier for those families by helping remove the one barrier that is often brought up against them.

Conclusion:
I like pie. And goldfish.

Nice post. I think this is a very reasonable stance, and I can't really see why anyone wouldn't take it.

In the real world, the more people that are allowed to adopt, the more children who need adoption get adopted. As you said, denying kids families, is very nasty.

Thanks. I'm actually surprised you read through the whole **** thing. Sometimes I write too much.

El Nino said:

Thanks. I'm actually surprised you read through the whole **** thing. Sometimes I write too much.

Click to expand...

Well... It was a long post, and reading it wasn't exactly easy. The use of numbered headings confused me a little, and the lack of a meaningful conclusion was a little annoying. However, some of the points raised were interesting.

I'm trained in scientific writing, and I guess the effects show here. I probably should have used a more accessible tone. The conclusion was a cop out because I just ran out of fuel. Not my best presentation, I'll admit.

El Nino said:

I'm trained in scientific writing, and I guess the effects show here. I probably should have used a more accessible tone. The conclusion was a cop out because I just ran out of fuel. Not my best presentation, I'll admit.

Click to expand...

Ah... That's why there are the headings and so forth. I find a well written essay far easier to read, at least when you're trying to argue a point. I think the text type is better suited.

Also, did you do all of this in one go? If so, you probably should have taken a break and finished the conclusion another time.

A part of me dislikes persuasive essays. I always want to see the evidence first. But for debate, essay format is probably best.

I do most of my posts all in one go. If I take a break, I usually don't come back to it. Maybe I should have written the conclusion first and filled in the rest after. Lulz.

El Nino said:

A part of me dislikes persuasive essays. I always want to see the evidence first. But for debate, essay format is probably best.

I do most of my posts all in one go. If I take a break, I usually don't come back to it. Maybe I should have written the conclusion first and filled in the rest after. Lulz.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting way to do things. Yeah, I understand about seeing the evidence first and then providing the analysis. It's much more... honest and reasonable. It shows what's actually occurring. But at the same time, in a debate it's not as good as an essay.

I agree as well, particularly with the point that gay couples are held to a higher standard than others. Children can receive discrimination for all sorts of parental reasons. Should lower and lower-middle class families not be allowed to adopt? Should older couples not be allowed to adopt? How about overbearing parents? How about parents that choose embarrassing clothes for their kid to wear? The list goes on. Banning gay couples from adopting for social reasons would be a very slippery slope.

Krazy you're committing the same fallacy as the people I criticised in my OP for the PG version.

By turning it into "should lower class families adopt?" you're making the subject that class. It then becomes about empowering or punishing them, not about the child. With any type of couple, the question should always be what the child has to gain, or whether it's in the best interest of the child.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Children with poor parents (in non-poor neighborhoods) often get picked on and suffer socially.

Well that being the case, if I had the option between that and a palce where the child wouldn't suffer that, I would chose the latter.

I don't get why people are brining up "well about blacks, what about the poor" etc. it's the same principle, it's just what's best for the child.

Well, the idea is that you'd eventually be limiting the pool of people allowed to adopt enough that it's ultimately best for the child just to get adopted at all. Plenty of orphaned children never get adopted, and it's almost always better than staying in an orphanage, with the exception being if the child went to an abusive/unstable family.

Dre. said:

I don't get why people are brining up "well about blacks, what about the poor" etc. it's the same principle, it's just what's best for the child.

Click to expand...

Because people who are born black or poor don't just shrivel up and die because they experience prejudice?

The "well what about..." in my analysis (speaking only for myself here) is to point out that discrimination and prejudice happens to everyone. You won't get away from it no matter where you go unless it's some isolated cabin in the woods away from people.

The aim of adoption isn't to find "perfect" parents. It is to find capable parents. If you set the standard beyond what is reasonable for the average person to accomplish, you severely diminish the number of people who qualify to be adoptive parents. This works against the interests of the children currrently in the system because it lowers the chances of them finding permanent placement in a stable home.

Kids put up for adoption are abandoned by their parents or removed by the state from abusive environments. The issues you bring up amount to hair-splitting at the upper levels of privilege, and that it is unrealistic in light of the situations that bring children to be put up for adoption in the first place.

When you compare a capable straight couple to a capable gay couple, you are making the assumption that the former option is readily available. That would be as if we had a child already placed with a straight couple and we were taking that kid away from them and
giving that child to a gay couple, and so you argue that it would be like downgrading.

"Then let them eat cake," she said.

The reality is that kids in the system would be upgrading if they get placed in a suitable home, whether that home is with straight parents or gay parents.

The other assumption in your argument is that all other variables are constant. But you will find no situation in reality in which that is the case. Everyone is a mixed bag. Sexual orientation is just one of a number of variables.

On top of that, you make the assumption that children would be adversely affected by society's discrimination more than any other common complication that comes with growing up. My argument is that discrimination is an unavoidable part of life, no matter who or what you are.

Sometimes an adopted kid will be ostracized simply for being adopted. Kids who have been through the system are changed by that experience. By the time they end up in foster care, their psychological development has already been disrupted and altered. Often times they prove to be remarkably resilient. It can be a "make or break" type of situation. Some will survive; others seem to be broken by it.

The reasoning you propose attempts to cushion them from unavoidable situations that occur outside the home. The sentiment is understandable, but that approach is flawed because no parent has ever had full control over things that happen outside the home. Once they leave your house, they are on their own, and the playground is a testing ground in many ways. Kids are brutal to each other, and it's like baby lions learning how to hunt and kill. If you try to run around and shelter them from that, I would argue that your attempts would be futile. It is impossible to be there at every instance.

As a parent, all you can do is teach them how to fend for themselves. And that starts with providing a stable home environment. At the end of the day, they come home to you. That time is yours. You can't control what people say to them outside of the space that you own, but you can support them and teach them how to respond to adversity. That's really all you can do.

I never said they will never have any troubles, the point is to place them in the environment with the least trouble.

And I never advocated a blanket ban on gays and minorities, I said they can have the child if they're the best option for the child.

Well I think what El Nino is suggesting is that there are so many factors that go into determining the best environment for the child that we can't really determine that just based off of whether a family is gay or not.

Perhaps a child who grows up with a gay family will gain a different perspective in life that ultimately leads them to better success. There's no way of knowing whether living with a gay family will help or hurt them.

Now, if we could magically determine what is "best" for the child, then yes, I'd support giving the child to whatever family qualifies. But that family may or may not be homosexual.

Dre. said:

I never said they will never have any troubles, the point is to place them in the environment with the least trouble.

Click to expand...

In my understanding, the point of the selection process in adoption is to choose suitable parents. There is no attempt to predict which environment will cause more or less trouble. That is because there exists no criteria, and no method backed by hard evidence, by which to make that assessment.

Environments outside the home can change. The parents are the constant.

And I never advocated a blanket ban on gays and minorities, I said they can have the child if they're the best option for the child.

Click to expand...

Then I guess you just wanted to take a pot shot at "gay empowerment"?

If you can establish a criteria for parents, surely you can establish one for environments.

I also took a shot at punishing gays. The point of this thread was that I felt the discussion on homosexual adoption was about empowering or punishing gays, whereas I think it should be about what's best for the child.

I don't see the prioritizing as relevant. If we conclude that there will still be a shortage of acceptable adopting families even when including gay couples, it doesn't matter to the overall scheme of things whether gay or straight couples have preference. In the end, with or without priority, X children will be adopted by X couples. The only difference would be a difference in the arrangement of children to the couples. If you accept the premise that there is a shortage of adopting couples, then this argument can only be sustained if you value certain children more than others or you value straight couples over gay couples. Otherwise, all you would accomplish is discrimination against gays with no added benefit to the children.