Homosexual couples and adoption

February 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm (ethics)

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. agnes wolf said,

    Homosexual couples should not be entitled to adopt children. They have made a choice of sexuality that involves the interaction of individuals with identic genitalia. The interaction of individuals with identic genitalia does not result in birth. While an anus might superficially resemble a vagina for a confused observer, it is not. Nature does not contemplate the possibility of two individuals from the same sex to create descendants.
    It might be debatable whether the expression of homosexual love itself is not natural but that is not the object of this text. I would pragmatically consider that the choice of two consenting adults to love each other has to be respected.
    But it has to be said also that choice involves consecuences. Birth is not a consecuence of that choice.
    A child brought up by his natural parents might like them or not but he or she has been created by them.
    The purpose of adoption is to provide an environment for a child that resembles as closely as possible the natural one. It is cheap sophistry to argue that two homosexuals can be good people (no doubt about that). No matter how good they are, they will never resemble a heterosexual couple even if liberal amounts of silicone are used.
    There is no doubt that a child is a gifted simian, and the process of learning-knowledge, emotions, social interaction-involves a great deal of imitation. While it can be argued that it is not deterministic, the conditioning is strong enough. Notice that it’s irrelevant whether the adopting homosexual parents engage in open expression of emotion or sexuality that could vary from holding hands to kissing to anal penetration. Children don’t need to see explicit expressions of affection to be influenced by that affection as it is the basis of the relation between those adopting parents. The affection of two homosexual adopting parents don’t result in birth.
    Children ideally should be brought up by natural parents. In the event of death of divorce of one of the parents, they should be brought up by one with the possible addition of another. In case of adoption the agencies involved should procure the best reasonable heterosexual couple. There are also orphanages where children can be brought up with male and female figures.
    Any possible disagreeing contributor, please should refrain from offering one of those “what if your mother died and your father married another man” stretching reality exercises. While they are doubtless possible-some people should consider their suitability and maturity for parenthood before these sort of situation arises-there should never provide a basis for social ethics.
    It would be like arguing that Cannibalism is an acceptable practice because the 1972 Andes survivor ate meat to stay alive.

  2. soniarott said,

    Agnes Wolf wrote:
    ‘Homosexual couples should not be entitled to adopt children’.

    All right, let’s see what arguments you summon up to support this contention…

    ‘They have made a choice of sexuality that involves the interaction of individuals with identic genitalia. The interaction of individuals with identic genitalia does not result in birth. While an anus might superficially resemble a vagina for a confused observer, it is not. Nature does not contemplate the possibility of two individuals from the same sex to create descendants’.

    So what? The ‘interaction’ of sterile heterosexual couples also does not result in birth — ‘Nature’ clearly does not ‘contemplate’ sterile couples giving birth. If your above argument precludes homosexual couples from adopting then it also clearly precludes heterosexual couples who are sterile (or where the female is past the age of reproductive fertility). Do you also want to ban sterile heterosexual couples from adopting children?

    ‘The purpose of adoption is to provide an environment for a child that resembles as closely as possible the natural one’.

    Is it? I thought the purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests and further the welfare of children whose biological parents are either unwilling or unable to raise them. From that standpoint, all of the longitudinal studies thus far conducted have demonstrated that children raised by homosexual couples are no worse off (or better off) than those raised by heterosexual couples.

    ‘It is cheap sophistry to argue that two homosexuals can be good people (no doubt about that). No matter how good they are, they will never resemble a heterosexual couple even if liberal amounts of silicone are used’.

    So what?

    ‘There is no doubt that a child is a gifted simian, and the process of learning-knowledge, emotions, social interaction-involves a great deal of imitation. While it can be argued that it is not deterministic, the conditioning is strong enough. Notice that it’s irrelevant whether the adopting homosexual parents engage in open expression of emotion or sexuality that could vary from holding hands to kissing to anal penetration. Children don’t need to see explicit expressions of affection to be influenced by that affection as it is the basis of the relation between those adopting parents’.

    What is the point of the above paragraph? Is this an expression of the fear that children raised by homosexual couples will be more likely to be (or to “choose” to be) homosexual themselves? If so, then you a) need to show this is a bad thing which society ought to prevent, and b) provide evidence actually demonstrating this effect — so far none of the studies have found such an effect.

    [I snipped the rest, because it does not argue for the contention at hand]

  3. kid said,

    Agnes Wolf wrote:
    ‘They have made a choice of sexuality that involves the interaction of individuals with identic genitalia’.

    Unless they are clones, I assure you that their genetalia are quite different. What you really mean, of course, is that they have chosen to accept their sexual identity.
    The interaction of individuals with identic genitalia does not result in birth.

    Well, duh. But neither does the majority of intercourse between those of “defferent” genitalia. Even if one means by this “standard male and female genitalia”. Of course, there are many beings out there without genitalia that can be called male or female.
    ‘While an anus might superficially resemble a vagina for a confused observer, it is not’.

    I don’t think that anyone confuses an anus for a vagina. Many male homosexuals would not be interested in an anus that they mistake for a vagina. Many heterosexual men are more interested in anuses than they are in vaginas, so this is a strange point to use in this argument.
    Nature does not contemplate the possibility of two individuals from the same sex to create descendants.

    This is kinda true. Nature doesn’t contmplate anything. However, there are many cases of homosexual acts in other species, and there is even homosexual reproduction in nature.

    Ignorance really is funny.
    It might be debatable whether the expression of homosexual love itself is not natural but that is not the object of this text. I would pragmatically consider that the choice of two consenting adults to love each other has to be respected.

    Oh, come on, we know that’t not true.
    But it has to be said also that choice involves consecuences. Birth is not a consecuence of that choice.

    And…..
    A child brought up by his natural parents might like them or not but he or she has been created by them.

    He or she might also be beaten by them, or raped by them, or even killed by them. One would probably have to jude this thing on a case-by-case basis. It seems here that the argument is that no adoption should take place. That just sounds stupid, as there are many orphans… are they to be drowned?
    The purpose of adoption is to provide an environment for a child that resembles as closely as possible the natural one.

    Is it? If the natural one is a home of rapists, I don’t think that anybody would support that. I suspect that adoption is really about making sure that children get raised.
    It is cheap sophistry to argue that two homosexuals can be good people (no doubt about that). No matter how good they are, they will never resemble a heterosexual couple even if liberal amounts of silicone are used.

    So flat chested women shouldn’t have children?

    What about parent who die? Does this mean that we kill the children of single parents? Or do we adopt them to couples that can have children? How old do children have to be before they must be killed or forcibly adopted?
    There is no doubt that a child is a gifted simian, and the process of learning-knowledge, emotions, social interaction-involves a great deal of imitation. While it can be argued that it is not deterministic, the conditioning is strong enough. Notice that it’s irrelevant whether the adopting homosexual parents engage in open expression of emotion or sexuality that could vary from holding hands to kissing to anal penetration. Children don’t need to see explicit expressions of affection to be influenced by that affection as it is the basis of the relation between those adopting parents.

    And…..
    The affection of two homosexual adopting parents don’t result in birth.

    See, this is what we call a non sequitor. This sentence has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.
    Children ideally should be brought up by natural parents. In the event of death of divorce of one of the parents, they should be brought up by one with the possible addition of another. In case of adoption the agencies involved should procure the best reasonable heterosexual couple. There are also orphanages where children can be brought up with male and female figures.

    This is an answer. Joy of joys. But why? The affection between the parents is lost.
    Any possible disagreeing contributor, please should refrain from offering one of those “what if your mother died and your father married another man” stretching reality exercises. While they are doubtless possible-some people should consider their suitability and maturity for parenthood before these sort of situation arises-there should never provide a basis for social ethics.

    Hunh? Homosexual people have natural children all the time.
    ‘It would be like arguing that Cannibalism is an acceptable practice because the 1972 Andes survivor ate meat to stay alive’.

    Well, maybe in that case it would be acceptable. But this isn’t the issue. You haven’t identified any real problem.

  4. agnes wolf said,

    “So what? The ‘interaction’ of sterile heterosexual couples also does not result in birth — ‘Nature’ clearly does not ‘contemplate’ sterile couples giving birth. If your above argument precludes homosexual couples from adopting then it also clearly precludes heterosexual couples who are sterile (or where the female is past the age of reproductive fertility). Do you also want to ban sterile heterosexual couples from adopting children? ”

    AN STERILE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE RESEMBLES A PRODUCTIVE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE INFINITELLY MORE THAN A HOMOSEXUAL ONE.

    “The purpose of adoption is to provide an environment for a child that resembles as closely as possible the natural one.

    Is it? I thought the purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests and further the welfare of children whose biological parents are either unwilling or unable to raise them. From that standpoint, all of the longitudinal studies thus far conducted have demonstrated that children raised by homosexual couples are no worse off (or better off) than those raised by heterosexual couples.”

    UNNECESARY AND GRATUITUOUS PARAPHRASE (AN ENVIRONMENT THAT RESEMBLES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE NATURAL ONE IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, OBVIOUSLY-ADOPTION BEING BASED PRECISELY IN OFFERING THE CHILD SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE) FOLLOWED BY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (ALL LONGITUDINAL STUDIES) WITHOUT CITING SOURCES. USUAL NAIVETY AND FAITH, ANYWAY. YOU CAN ALWAYS QUOTE A UNIVERSITY OF BOURDEAUX STUDY THAT CONCLUDES THAT RED WINE MAKES PEOPLE LIVE LONGER, OR ONE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SAO PAULO THAT CONCLUDES THAT COFFEE IS A PANACEA. USUAL SELECTIVE COMPILATION OF DATA, USUAL DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT/CRITERIA, ETC.

    “It is cheap sophistry to argue that two homosexuals can be good people (no doubt about that). No matter how good they are, they will never resemble a heterosexual couple even if liberal amounts of silicone are used.

    So what? ”

    SO THAT.

    “There is no doubt that a child is a gifted simian, and the process of learning-knowledge, emotions, social interaction-involves a great deal of imitation. While it can be argued that it is not deterministic, the conditioning is strong enough. Notice that it’s irrelevant whether the adopting homosexual parents engage in open expression of emotion or sexuality that could vary from holding hands to kissing to anal penetration. Children don’t need to see explicit expressions of affection to be influenced by that affection as it is the basis of the relation between those adopting parents.

    What is the point of the above paragraph? Is this an expression of the fear that children raised by homosexual couples will be more likely to be (or to “choose” to be) homosexual themselves? If so, then you a) need to show this is a bad thing which society ought to prevent, and b) provide evidence actually demonstrating this effect — so far none of the studies have found such an effect.”

    ONCE AGAIN AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND NOT TO LOGIC. IT’S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT CHILDREN ARE EXTRAORDINARILY INFLUENCED BY THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY GROW IN. WHY PROVIDE A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE FOR ADOPTION WHEN THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING A HETEROSEXUAL ONE?

    [I snipped the rest, because it does not argue for the contention at hand]

    I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU SHOULD DO THAT, AFTER YOUR METICULOUS QUOTING. JUST AN EXAMPLE THAT EXTREME PHENOMENA SHOULD NOT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR ETHICAL CONSENSUS.

  5. soniarott said,

    :
    First, please do not use capital letters. Use the quote tags:
    Text you want indented
    …except use square brackets like [ ] instead of .
    Agnes Wolf wrote:

    ‘AN STERILE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE RESEMBLES A PRODUCTIVE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE INFINITELLY MORE THAN A HOMOSEXUAL ONE’.

    Infinitely? And how did you come up with that particular quantification?

    ‘AN ENVIRONMENT THAT RESEMBLES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE NATURAL ONE IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD,’

    Is it? Provide evidence for this please.

    ‘OBVIOUSLY-ADOPTION BEING BASED PRECISELY IN OFFERING THE CHILD SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE) FOLLOWED BY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (ALL LONGITUDINAL STUDIES) WITHOUT CITING SOURCES’.

    Link to abstract of meta-analysis.
    Though I should note that the burden of providing evidence for the contention at hand is upon you. You claim that adoption by homosexuals is somehow not in the best interests of children. You need to provide actual evidence for this claim, not just peremptory dismissals of the evidence that contradicts your claim.

    ‘IT’S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT CHILDREN ARE EXTRAORDINARILY INFLUENCED BY THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY GROW IN’.

    Uh huh, and….? How does this support the claim that being raised by homosexuals is not in the best interests of children?

    ‘I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU SHOULD DO THAT, AFTER YOUR METICULOUS QUOTING’.

    I snipped the rest of your post because it was all a bunch of totally unsupported ‘should’ statements after that point. My interest is in your arguments and evidence, which thus far you have neglected to provide.

  6. agnes wolf said,

    ‘First, please do not use capital letters. Use the quote tags:
    Text you want indented
    …except use square brackets like [ ] instead of ‘.

    Thanks fro advice on quotes.

    AN STERILE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE RESEMBLES A PRODUCTIVE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE INFINITELLY MORE THAN A HOMOSEXUAL ONE.

    Infinitely? And how did you come up with that particular quantification?

    As infinitely different is a penis from a vagina.

    AN ENVIRONMENT THAT RESEMBLES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE NATURAL ONE IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD,

    Is it? Provide evidence for this please.

    A man and a woman , sterile or not, resembles a child begetting couple (who happen to be a man and a woman) much more than two men or two women. Go to parents day in any school and you will observe it without a study from any university needed. It’s common sense.

    OBVIOUSLY-ADOPTION BEING BASED PRECISELY IN OFFERING THE CHILD SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE) FOLLOWED BY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (ALL LONGITUDINAL STUDIES) WITHOUT CITING SOURCES.

    Link to abstract of meta-analysis.
    Though I should note that the burden of providing evidence for the contention at hand is upon you. You claim that adoption by homosexuals is somehow not in the best interests of children. You need to provide actual evidence for this claim, not just peremptory dismissals of the evidence that contradicts your claim

    the burden of proof lies in those who advocate homosexual parenting: they contend agaisnt nature. No contest, no matter a manufactured “study”

    IT’S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT CHILDREN ARE EXTRAORDINARILY INFLUENCED BY THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY GROW IN.

    Uh huh, and….? How does this support the claim that being raised by homosexuals is not in the best interests of children?

    The best interest of children is to be raised by natural parents. If that is not possible, the next best alternative is adoption by heterosexual parents. Isn’t that obvious.

    I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU SHOULD DO THAT, AFTER YOUR METICULOUS QUOTING.

    I snipped the rest of your post because it was all a bunch of totally unsupported ‘should’ statements after that point. My interest is in your arguments and evidence, which thus far you have neglected to provide

    Seeing that you answered even a “so what” to something that you could not answer, I don’t see why you don’t understand a simple analogy to explain why extreme phenomena should not be the basis for consensual ethics.

    Moral comes ultimately from Lat. “mores”, customs. The history of humanity so far has being consensual (in every culture) that homosexual couples should not raise children.
    You may want to deconstruct it all you want; but the history of humanity, in that department, has been consistent in following Nature.

  7. soniarott said,

    Agnes Wolf wrote:

    T’hanks fro advice on quotes’.

    As I said, surround the text you want to be in a quote box with a pair of these: Text except instead of using marks use the square brackets [ ]. Alternatively, hit the quote button on the top right hand of the post you want to quote.

    ‘As infinitely different is a penis from a vagina’.

    Hyperbole is the worst thing in existence; please do not use it.

    ‘A man and a woman , sterile or not, resembles a child begetting couple (who happen to be a man and a woman) much more than two men or two women. Go to parents day in any school and you will observe it without a study from any university needed. It’s common sense’.

    This does not answer my question in the slightest. You asserted that providing an environment that is ‘as close as possible to the natural one’ is in the best interests of the child. I asked you to support this assertion. You have not.

    By the way, how do you know that a couple composed of a man and a woman is the “natural” environment for raising a child? Yes, a man and a woman are required for reproduction, but reproduction is an entirely different matter from actually raising a child.

    the burden of proof lies in those who advocate homosexual parenting: they contend agaisnt nature. No contest, no matter a manufactured “study”

    You raised the claim in the OP, the central claim of this thread — i.e. that homosexual couples shouldn’t have the privilege of adopting. As the person who raised the claim and wishes to advocate for that claim, you have the obligation to actually support it. Thus far you are woefully deficient in this regard, and indeed you do not appear to be interested in trying to defend your views. If this is true then I suggest you find some other corner of the internet to piss in — I won’t interact (for long) with people who can’t be bothered to defend their assertions.

    ‘The best interest of children is to be raised by natural parents’.

    No argument here — though i would also include the other blood relatives. Blood relatives, including and perhaps especially the biological parents, are on average more likely to love and care about a child than the average non-relative.

    ‘If that is not possible, the next best alternative is adoption by heterosexual parents. Isn’t that obvious’.

    No, it’s not obvious.

    ‘Seeing that you answered even a “so what” to something that you could not answer’

    I said “so what?” because the points you were making did not support the claim at issue. They were, as far as I could tell, irrelevant non-sequiturs. In other words, I was asking you to show that your comments logically supported your central claim.

    , ‘I don’t see why you don’t understand a simple analogy to explain why extreme phenomena should not be the basis for consensual ethics’.

    I have no idea what that sentence means.

    ‘Moral comes ultimately from Lat. “mores”, customs. The history of humanity so far has being consensual (in every culture) that homosexual couples should not raise children.
    You may want to deconstruct it all you want; but the history of humanity, in that department, has been consistent in following Nature’.

    And up until fairly recently it was a universal custom among the many human societies for people to own other human beings, and to force them to work without compensation. Indeed, this state of affairs was hailed by many as the natural order, and even that it was ordained by God.

    Appealling to longstanding custom, and the supposed ‘Natural Order’ of things, is not a particularly compelling argument.

    It’s a meta-analysis. You do know what a meta-analysis is, don’t you?

    Especially one published (and one that you have to pay to read) in the Journal of Homosexual Studies.

    I do apologise for not providing a study that one can examine for free, though you are hardly one to criticize, seeing as how you haven’t even provided that much in the way of evidence to support your claim.

    As for the article having been written by two contributors from the U of Milwaukee for a journal dedicated to Homosexual Studies, I don’t see why that justifies your contemptuous dismissal of their findings. Is it your allegation that they are so biased that their results cannot be trusted? What actual evidence do you have to support that possibility?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: