Uechi-Ryu.com

On another thread on Bill's forum, a claim was made that homosexuals are being "given" too many rights, and that its unwise to let them adopt. This thread is meant to be a place where anyone who has evidence (preferably) or a rational argument (at least) suggesting why same sex couples shouldn't be able to adopt just like opposite couples can present their case. It's worth pointing out that a lot of the "research" in this field is likely to come from people with agendas, on both sides (for example, The Family research council, focus on the family, or researcher Charlotte Patterson, a UVA researcher and former professor of mine who's testified on this matter in courts BUT was living in a same sex relationship) and these biases will have to be sorted out.

Why not start the other way, and ask same sex couples to prove they should be able to adopt? Well, I'm starting from the principle that we ought to have rights unless there's some reason we shouldn't have them. That fundementally, we're free. Innocent until proven guilty. Posters are welcome to challenge that concept, too, if they want to make the case that minority or underprivileged groups should have to prove they deserve equality rather tha the other way around, for example, that women should had to prove they should get to vote, or that racial minorities should have to prove they should be allowed to marry, or adopt, or so on.... or that same sex couples are exempt from that logic.

_________________
--Ian

Seems to me that the biggest criteria for raising a child should be to give him/her a loving and stable environment. I could give a rat's a$$ about the colour of your skin, your faith or your sexual preference - they don't mean anything in comparison to raising children. Just be a good parent.

Thanks Mary! I don't have kids in my immedaite future... but if and when I do, there will be legal complications to navigate, mounds of paperwork, a lot of searching, and above all, a conscious decision to have the kid. It will be a bit like one of my coworkers, who swore off caffeine and any medication no matter how uncomfortable she is, and started taking prenatal vitamins months ahead of her planned pregnancy. Those are truly loved children, loved before they were conceived. We should all be so lucky.

_________________
--Ian

Well, I'm totally in favor of same-sex adoption rights, but I guess I'll try taking a devil's advocate position, since it's doubtful anyone is going to come argue against you.

Whether it should be or not, homosexuality is stigmatized in our culture. Children of gay parents are likely to be made fun of and ostracized from their peers as a result. Growing up as an adopted child is difficult enough without adding further layers of trouble. The benefit to the gay couple that get to have a child is not outweighed by the increased likelihood that the child will have a difficult time fitting in.

A heterosexual couple that finds they are unable to conceive faces a greater level of emotional distress than a same-sex couple. The same-sex couple probably will not have been assuming all their lives that they will be able to have children, as any opportunity to do so is a special benefit conferred by modern society. By comparison, the ability to rear children is a reasonable expectation for a male/female pair. Because adoption times are very long as it is, any homosexual couple is taking a child away from a heterosexual couple. Therefore, a same sex couple should only be able to adopt a child if there is no waiting list.

Most children are likely to be heterosexual. Adolescence is a hard time in a person's development, and children need as much help as they can get. Having one parent with the same sexual orientation as the child maximizes their ability to help with relationship issues, which can be a significant issue in a young teen's life. A gay parent can certainly offer relationship advice, but is certainly less experienced in dealing with the particular issues of courting the opposite sex. Therefore, a same sex couple should only be able to adopt a homosexual child. Unfortunately, this means waiting until the child is an adolescent, as his or her orientation will not be known beforehand. Thus the conclusion must be that a same sex couple should only adopt a child that has reached puberty.

Homosexuals are more prone to breakups than heterosexual relationships (see citation below). Consistency is especially important for an adopted child, so it is important to maximize the chance that the adopting couple will be a permanent relationship.

Kurdek, L.A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553-568

_________________
- Justin Powell

This thread began with a quote:

"a claim was made that homosexuals are being "given" too many rights, and that its unwise to let them adopt. . ."

Here in Massachusetts, and presumably in many other jurisdictions both in and out of the USA, it is unlawful to discriminate against somebody based on their sexual orientation. M.G.L. c. 151B lists many types of commercial situations where discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful.

In any event, it is somewhat dangerous thinking to assume that basic rights and laws do not extend to gays and lesbians unless specifically extended to them. For instance, we have a right from unreasonable search and seizure. This right extends to everybody, not just heterosexuals. There is no gay rider or enabling legislation extending this right to gays or lesbians. The converse would be just as ridiculous. A gay person could not argue that drunk driving laws don't apply to him because they were never specifically extended to cover gays.

And there you have my 2 cents.

Sincerely,

Norm Abrahamson

Welcome to the thread, oh ye noble recent participants.

"Children of gay parents are likely to be made fun of and ostracized from their peers as a result. Growing up as an adopted child is difficult enough without adding further layers of trouble."

This is a legitimate concern. It's something that is quantifiable, however. We also know that people are teased for their race, religion, their dress, their mannerisms, and their income--parents with differences in these attributes adopt, so society have decided there's some level of "nonsupernormality" in adoptive parents that's acceptable to still allow adoption. This is also a highly variable situation; as you can imagine, things are quite different in San Fran as they are in, oh, Kansas City. It might also depend upon other details, such as whether the lesbians in Kansas City are sending their kid to a private school attended by the children of other well to do / educated or progressive parents, which might make it a nonissue. It's also something that changes vastly with time... there was NO way I planned to tell anyone but close friends in high school, and there was no recognition of my presence in any class, including health, nor was there any support available to me from the school or outside of it. Now there are lots of places with more welcoming peer groups, educational platforms, and support groups in and out of schools, even if they are long distance / internet groups. So this "risk" to the kid has to be defined and found to justify a separate adoption scheme. That would take a bit of work.

"The benefit to the gay couple that get to have a child is not outweighed by the increased likelihood that the child will have a difficult time fitting in."

Just drawing attention to the assumption that this is for the parent's benefit. Doesn't being taken from an orphanage or temporary foster situation and being placed in a home where a stable couple who wanted you enough to jump through a ton of hoops involve a benefit to the child?

"Heterosexual couple that finds they are unable to conceive faces a greater level of emotional distress than a same-sex couple. The same-sex couple probably will not have been assuming all their lives that they will be able to have children, as any opportunity to do so is a special benefit conferred by modern society."

Actually, all you need is a turkey baster. Nothing modern required. Be cautious with the assumption that a given heterosexual family WANTS a kid more than a given same sex family... I've met infertile straights who were delighted and there are several physicians in my group who just don't ever want kids. If they change their minds (and medical women are often starting late just because of the training) I see no reason why their desire would be greater just because they have opposite sex partners.

"Therefore, a same sex couple should only be able to adopt a child if there is no waiting list."

Sadly, my understanding is the demand for parents exceeds the demand for children, and is likely to remain so, given how easy it is for people to have unintended kids. If that ceases to be the case in the USA, there are legions of orphans in other countries.

"Most children are likely to be heterosexual. Adolescence is a hard time in a person's development, and children need as much help as they can get. Having one parent with the same sexual orientation as the child maximizes their ability to help with relationship issues, which can be a significant issue in a young teen's life. A gay parent can certainly offer relationship advice, but is certainly less experienced in dealing with the particular issues of courting the opposite sex. Therefore, a same sex couple should only be able to adopt a homosexual child. Unfortunately, this means waiting until the child is an adolescent, as his or her orientation will not be known beforehand. Thus the conclusion must be that a same sex couple should only adopt a child that has reached puberty."

Couple of issues. The converse, here, is that opposite sex couples can't adopt kids for fear they might have to raise a homosexual child and be inefficient counsel for that kid. The risk is smaller, but the needs are likely greater. I don't think kids get too much advice on dating technique from the 'rents these days (all parents should be able to give them advice about safety / birth control, mutual respect and honesty, and such things, but that's sexuality neutral). Gay kids need a lot of support, and other their parents aren't able to provide it due to utter unfamiliarity. This kind of "wait for the perfect match" mentality isn't feasible, and it also would mandate same race adoptions and so on. I just don't think people are that incompatible that they can't adapt. Well people raise unexpectedly sick or developmentally delayed kids all the time, and they do a great job usually. Plus, this analysis excludes the reality that child rearing is unlikely to be a >2-person deal. What about the heterosexual friends, siblings, aunts and uncles of the parents? And what about all the people who ask me for opposite sex relationship advice?

More later--it's Jiujitsu time. Thanks for the well reasoned posts.

_________________
--Ian

Here's the abstract from the title mentioned above. Couldn't get the actual article.

Data from partners of 236 married, 66 gay cohabiting, and 51 lesbian cohabiting couples were used to assess if members of married couples differed from those of either gay couples or lesbian couples on five dimensions of relationship quality (intimacy, autonomy, equality, constructive problem solving, and barriers to leaving), two relationship outcomes (the trajectory of change in relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution over 5 years), and the link between each dimension of relationship quality and each relationship outcome. Relative to married partners, gay partners reported more autonomy, fewer barriers to leaving, and more frequent relationship dissolution. Relative to married partners, lesbian partners reported more intimacy, more autonomy, more equality, fewer barriers to leaving, and more frequent relationship dissolution. Overall, the strength with which the dimensions of relationship quality were linked to each relationship outcome for married partners was equivalent to that for both gay and lesbian partners.

Issues worth noting:

1) Dissolution was "more frequent" but was that in a statistically significant way, or a clinically significant way, both, or just in author opinion? For example, if women had on average a highly statistically significantly .1 point higher IQ, (p<.0000001) that finding would be irrelevant when judging any men or women. How much more likely would relationship dissolution be for a whole class of people to be cut off from adoption privileges?

2) Is this an apples and oranges comparison? Cohabitating gay and lesbian couples are just cohabitating; married straight couples have moved from cohabitation to a higher level of committment in almost all cases I can imagine... I suppose a few live together without marriage on principle (Jonie Mitchell's "My Old Man": "We don't need a piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tied and true..."), but perhaps a more valid comparison would be LGB couples Vs only cohabitating straights OR married couples vs LGB couples in a civil union or after a committment ceremony. Those are, afterall, the people likelier to apply for adoption.

3) Is the real distinction here the LGB factor? For example, coffee drinking is associated with lung cancer. But you wouldn't want to vary your clinical suspicion of lung cancer based on coffee exposure, because the link is there only because coffee and smoking go together. Similarly, is there some identifiable attribute of the couples that is a better predictor of breakup than sexual orientation? Perhaps every couple that will breakup argues at the initial meeting, and every couple that will remain together doesn't, and more LGB couples argue. You would want to select the nonarguing rather than the straight couples for stability. Is this plausible? Sure, LGB couples face pressures to dissolve, for exmple, lack of state support and family pressures, but these are not unique to LGB couples.. So those stressors could be identified in the screening process.

4) How were the couples identified? A lot of times you hear that STDs are VERY prevalent in LGBs. But those samples are often recruited from bathhouses and STD clinics and can't be considered representative. With couples, this issue is less likely to be a factor, but given self identification and honesty issues getting a good LGB sample can be hard.

5) Is this issue time sensitive? A freshly outed LGB is not the same as an LGB living as an LGB for 20 years. It is reasonable to imagine that after that chaotic period has ended, relationships and plans stabilize. I've seen it happen. There might be a relationship duration that is fairly sensitive and specific for longterm stability, whether in straight or LGB cohabitating couples or married/CU'd couples, or both, and thus that might be the criterion to pursue at adoption application.

This is complicated stuff. Unfortunately, on the national debate level, all we get is Bush saying "studies show the best place for children is in a married family" and so on, and no one ever gets citations from the man. Instead, people hear, and if you hear enough, you believe, and sometimes, you vote.

_________________
--Ian

I went to the Kinsey Sex Institute to find out if I'm gay or bi. They asked which men I was attracted to and I said "only one, Fedor Emelianenko". They said "you're not gay-you're perfectly straight".

He's kind of Fug. I can point you to much better alternatives

_________________
--Ian

As ugly as he is, he has some moves that no other alternatives have..........

Here you go Adam[/url]

_________________
I was dreaming of the past...

That clip made all martial artists love that show.

yeah never let any guy shoot the triple Adam

I think that show got cancelled though.


But hey, BJJ is an easy target for gay jokes, more then even wrestling.