Should gays be allowed to adopt children?

[Blademaster!]

I REALLY NEEDS PEOPLE TO TAKE THIS SURVEY! It should only take 10 min at most, and in all honesty you can just BS everything. Please, just take the survey. It is for my socialogy final

"Link removed since survey is now closed"

It discusses what defines marriage, certain aspects of divorce, and whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids.

I really need people to help me out with this. The final is due tomorrow and like I said, feel free to BS the survey (It's all multiple choice anyway)

Also, feel free to discuss the topic that the surveyed talked about since it can be quite interesting. I mean, should non married gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

I apologize if I broke any rules in posting that survey. It's for my final, and I REALLY need to get some people to take it so I'm posting this everywhere I can...

Edited December 15, 2009 by Blademaster!

[Junkhead]

Yes indeed, they should. There's nothing wrong about children being adopted by adopted couples, it's prefferable for them to be with someone they are loved by than someone that doesn't want them.

[uguu]

This poll doesn't really ask 'should they be allowed to adopt children?'

[Blademaster!]

Oh... Well, that poll is for my final. I just need people to take that survey.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Blademaster!

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I'm just not gonna do the survey and give my opinion about this topic: I don't see any reasons why they shouldn't. So yes, I think it's up to them.

[Ectricark]

Right. I think gays should be allowed to adopt children so long as when said children grow up they are allowed to make their own sexuality choices. I have nothing against the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transexual (LGBT) community and figure that so long as they as individuals and as a couple can provide up-to-par parenting, then they should be able to have children in the household.

[uguu]

Right. I think gays should be allowed to adopt children so long as when said children grow up they are allowed to make their own sexuality choices. I have nothing against the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transexual (LGBT) community and figure that so long as they as individuals and as a couple can provide up-to-par parenting, then they should be able to have children in the household.

I'm feeling an urge

[Hero]

I think that a family with a gay couple as "parents" is a legitimate family. Essentially, my current view on the subject is that it's not a particularly desirable social situation and that there's a greater risk of the child growing up with somewhat warped moral values, but it's no worse than a child being adopted by parents of a different race or with extreme political beliefs. Neither of the latter situations are even controversial these days, so I don't see why the first one should be.

About the survey. It seemed like several questions assumed an answer of "yes" to the second question, whether a married couple is considered a family. I answered "no" to that question, since I consider a couple without children to be a meeting point of two families rather than a new one on its own. My belief is that to be family requires a connection of blood, or failing that at the very least the connections formed between a child and its parental figures.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to? I say more power to them.

[Junkhead]

I took the survey, it was easy and replied to all the queastions reasonably.

[Blademaster!]

Thank you everyone who took the survey. The survey is now closed. Hopefully my group will get a good grade on my project.

[Fëanen]

Too late, but...I'm a social work major, and this has come up in almost every sociology and psychology class I have taken. Having gay parents, whether via adoption or other means, doesn't seem to make a person more prone to be gay themselves (especially since there's a large body of scholars arguing that people are largely born with a predetermined orientation). It hasn't been found to cause any particular psychological problems, either. Basically, most studies seem to agree that a stable, loving family is more important than the genders of the parents involved. Since in my view, the state's role in adoption is basically to ensure the child is placed in such an environment (to the best of the authorities' ability) the sexual orientation shouldn't be considered.

If anybody wants the name of some of the studies cited in the textbooks, by the way, I'd be more than happy to dig them up.

[Hero]

Too late, but...I'm a social work major, and this has come up in almost every sociology and psychology class I have taken. Having gay parents, whether via adoption or other means, doesn't seem to make a person more prone to be gay themselves

From the very limited level of studies there are about this, it seems that the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by homosexual couples is anywhere from about four times to twenty times the incidence of homosexuality among the general US population. This statistic depends on a solid statistic for the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, which varies wildly depending on who you ask. I like to say 2%, which I think is just about the most generous number possible without being unreasonable.

It's not important for the numbers to be exact, the limitations of surveys like this and the recentness of the whole phenomenon make that impossible, what's important is that we see the big picture--that children raised by homosexual couples are a lot more likely to become homosexuals themselves.

(especially since there's a large body of scholars arguing that people are largely born with a predetermined orientation).

I think this is politically correct nonsense aimed at putting sexual minorities into the same category as racial minorities. I've heard it all before, I live in an area that has perhaps one of the largest proportioins of gay people in the world and went to high school in Berkeley. During which time I saw enough kids switch their sexual orientation back and forth to know that it's nothing preset from birth. One of my classmates came to school in eleventh grade thinking he was bixexual, then became convinced he only wanted men after a few months. A year later he decided that it was all wrong and that he was 100% straight, and got a girlfriend. These days he has a boyfriend. Two other classmates knew that they were gay from birth, but then decided that they were straight after fucking each other and hating it. One of them accidentally got a girl pregnant senior year.

And even if this is all superficial, the fact that there's so little homosexuality among working-class people and in the developing world seems evidence enough that it can't be genetic.

It hasn't been found to cause any particular psychological problems, either. Basically, most studies seem to agree that a stable, loving family is more important than the genders of the parents involved. Since in my view, the state's role in adoption is basically to ensure the child is placed in such an environment (to the best of the authorities' ability) the sexual orientation shouldn't be considered.

I agree, with the one reservation that a traditional couple should be given precedence over a nontraditional one when all other things are equal, simply for the sake of giving the child as "normal" a life as possible.

[Hero]

You don't think that's a good thing?

[uguu]

You don't think that's a good thing?

I have my own reasons for believing that people who think being 'normal' is good are fucking stupid.

[Hero]

I have my own reasons for believing that people who think being 'normal' is good are fucking stupid.

I have my own reasons for believing that people who name themselves 'The Rape Flight Mallard' are fucking stupid.

You tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Too late, but...I'm a social work major, and this has come up in almost every sociology and psychology class I have taken. Having gay parents, whether via adoption or other means, doesn't seem to make a person more prone to be gay themselves

From the very limited level of studies there are about this, it seems that the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by homosexual couples is anywhere from about four times to twenty times the incidence of homosexuality among the general US population. This statistic depends on a solid statistic for the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, which varies wildly depending on who you ask. I like to say 2%, which I think is just about the most generous number possible without being unreasonable.

It's not important for the numbers to be exact, the limitations of surveys like this and the recentness of the whole phenomenon make that impossible, what's important is that we see the big picture--that children raised by homosexual couples are a lot more likely to become homosexuals themselves.

(especially since there's a large body of scholars arguing that people are largely born with a predetermined orientation).

I think this is politically correct nonsense aimed at putting sexual minorities into the same category as racial minorities. I've heard it all before, I live in an area that has perhaps one of the largest proportioins of gay people in the world and went to high school in Berkeley. During which time I saw enough kids switch their sexual orientation back and forth to know that it's nothing preset from birth. One of my classmates came to school in eleventh grade thinking he was bixexual, then became convinced he only wanted men after a few months. A year later he decided that it was all wrong and that he was 100% straight, and got a girlfriend. These days he has a boyfriend. Two other classmates knew that they were gay from birth, but then decided that they were straight after fucking each other and hating it. One of them accidentally got a girl pregnant senior year.

And even if this is all superficial, the fact that there's so little homosexuality among working-class people and in the developing world seems evidence enough that it can't be genetic.

While homosexuality may not be ENTIRELY genetically driven, genetics DO have a fair influence on it, and it is certainly not a "choice" for the majority of people. The things you have brought up are easily explained by the fact that people tend to take a while to really figure out their sexuality, and of course the fact that homosexuality is generally still considered somewhat taboo.

It hasn't been found to cause any particular psychological problems, either. Basically, most studies seem to agree that a stable, loving family is more important than the genders of the parents involved. Since in my view, the state's role in adoption is basically to ensure the child is placed in such an environment (to the best of the authorities' ability) the sexual orientation shouldn't be considered.

I agree, with the one reservation that a traditional couple should be given precedence over a nontraditional one when all other things are equal, simply for the sake of giving the child as "normal" a life as possible.

What is a "traditional couple"? A straight couple? A white-white couple? A thirty year old man marrying a 12 year old girl? I assume the first because that IS what we're talking about, but I am interested if that was ALL you were referring to, or were you would draw the line on when it's still traditional. Then of course, why should we say homosexuals are "not normal"? Aren't they fighting to be considered normal? Again, what is normal? And why is normal so necessary?

Do you think rich people and poor people should have less ability to adopt because they "aren't normal"? Do you think intellectuals should be given less ability to adopt because they "aren't normal"? Is it homosexuals specifically that you have deemed "not normal"?

Edited December 16, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Hero]

While homosexuality may not be ENTIRELY genetically driven, genetics DO have a fair influence on it, and it is certainly not a "choice" for the majority of people. The things you have brought up are easily explained by the fact that people tend to take a while to really figure out their sexuality, and of course the fact that homosexuality is generally still considered somewhat taboo.

I'm not so foolish to think that someone can simply say, I want to change my sexuality, and have it be so. That's been tried a hundred thousand times without success. This doesn't mean that the only other explanation for homosexuality is genetics. The "genetic" explanation has just as many holes in it as the "choice" explanation of the 1980s did. My personal belief is that a person's sexuality is determined as they grow up, since it is almost always solid by adulthood. I can't say what causes it, nor can I prove that I'm right. This just appears to me to be the most logical explanation.

As for figuring things out and experimentation, for a guy that requires at least a small amount of predisposition toward the idea at hand.

What is a "traditional couple"? A straight couple? A white-white couple? A thirty year old man marrying a 12 year old girl? I assume the first because that IS what we're talking about, but I am interested if that was ALL you were referring to, or were you would draw the line on when it's still traditional. Then of course, why should we say homosexuals are "not normal"? Aren't they fighting to be considered normal? Again, what is normal? And why is normal so necessary?

Do you think rich people and poor people should have less ability to adopt because they "aren't normal"? Do you think intellectuals should be given less ability to adopt because they "aren't normal"? Is it homosexuals specifically that you have deemed "not normal"?

I really didn't expect that part of my post to attract to smuch attention.

When I talk about a "normal" family environment, I'm talking about the image that comes into most peoples' heads, at least in this country, when they think of the word "family". For the vast majority, this involves parents of different genders. I think it's better for kids who are already going through the trauma of being adopted to be brought up in as close to a "normal" environment for many reasons, such as that the child will not feel as much like an outcast, the child will understand and be able to more fully integrate into society, the child is less likely to be picked on, etc.

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear about this, I'm not educated in psychology or familial sociology so it's hard for me to find words that don't say more than I mean to express.

[Der Kommissar]

I was scrolling through this thread with my hand on my cheek, thinking I'd make a mildly sarcastic remark about how I clicked on this thread for the opportunity to shit down someone's throat, but found myself dismayed and pleased to find nothing to shit on.

Then I got to Hero's post, which goes to show that persistence pays off.

Psych research has generally not supported a significant influence of homosexuality on a child's own sexuality. There is an apparent greater degree of tolerance, however, and if I remember the research correctly, more open-mindedness concerning sexual experimentation. Whatever difference is made doesn't appear to be sensational, however.

Sexuality is a complex trait, and we're only beginning to acknowledge our own construction of sexuality as being false. Examples from the animal kingdom and our own past indicate that occasional homosexual behavior (and, more rarely, exclusive homosexuality)is not some strange modern fad, but a persistent, recurring trait of sexuality. Kinsey's famous scale, though not without its flaws, is a pretty iconic representative of current thinking on sexuality - that is, it operates on a spectrum, and tends to be far more flexible than our "you're gay/you're straight/you're bisexual" attitudes as of late. No research by any reputable academic source supports the theist-espoused idea of "sexuality by choice," and studies have shown that there is some definite genetic correlation (twin studies are magnificently useful).

Since it wouldn't be a post by me if I didn't include an unnecessary ad hominem attack, I'd like to close by implying that Hero votes Republican and listens to Rush Limbaugh.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Der Kommissar

[Hero]

Psych research has generally not supported a significant influence of homosexuality on a child's own sexuality. There is an apparent greater degree of tolerance, however, and if I remember the research correctly, more open-mindedness concerning sexual experimentation. Whatever difference is made doesn't appear to be sensational, however.

The last time I'd looked into this stuff was when I was fifteen, so just for you I've searched and gone over several opinions on the issue. Its all incredibly politicized, with Christian right types comparing gay parents to jobless single mothers and LGBT advocates saying that gay adoptive parents change nothing for their children. Predictably there are academic studies supporting both sides. I have a hard time buying the argument that having gay parents means nothing but I'm also familiar with how hysteric the religious right can be when it comes to these issues, so I'm left with less of an idea about what's true than I had before. As usual it's probably something in the middle. Like I said before, though, I don't consider this to be too important. There are doubtless a lot of gay couples out there that would do better with a lot of kids than the parents they were born from.

Sexuality is a complex trait, and we're only beginning to acknowledge our own construction of sexuality as being false. Examples from the animal kingdom and our own past indicate that occasional homosexual behavior (and, more rarely, exclusive homosexuality)is not some strange modern fad, but a persistent, recurring trait of sexuality. Kinsey's famous scale, though not without its flaws, is a pretty iconic representative of current thinking on sexuality - that is, it operates on a spectrum, and tends to be far more flexible than our "you're gay/you're straight/you're bisexual" attitudes as of late. No research by any reputable academic source supports the theist-espoused idea of "sexuality by choice," and studies have shown that there is some definite genetic correlation (twin studies are magnificently useful).

I don't see the relevance of this part of your post. I've heard this all before. In earlier posts I've rejected the ideas that sexuality can be determined either by choice or by genetics.

I suppose I should make it clear now that I don't reject the idea that genetics can be a factor in determining sexual orientation, with genes making one more or less likely to "occur". What I reject is the idea that you're born with your sexual orientation, and there's no changing beyond that point. I think it's a lot more complicated than that, and it will probably be a long time before it's fully understood.

Since it wouldn't be a post by me if I didn't include an ad hominem attack, I'd like to close by implying that Hero votes Republican and listens to Rush Limbaugh.

I just bought Sarah Palin's book, and it's excellent. I only regret I didn't go to one of the book signings.

[Hero]

Double post.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Hero

[Crystal Shards]

From the very limited level of studies there are about this, it seems that the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by homosexual couples is anywhere from about four times to twenty times the incidence of homosexuality among the general US population. This statistic depends on a solid statistic for the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, which varies wildly depending on who you ask. I like to say 2%, which I think is just about the most generous number possible without being unreasonable.

It's not important for the numbers to be exact, the limitations of surveys like this and the recentness of the whole phenomenon make that impossible, what's important is that we see the big picture--that children raised by homosexual couples are a lot more likely to become homosexuals themselves.

I'd like to see where you're getting your statistics. As soon as I get my lifespan book back from my resident I'll cite the specific studies that show that children are no more likely to be gay just because their parents are, and even if that WERE the case, so what? If anything, the deciding factor on any of that is not that the parents are gay but that the parents are going to be more open-minded about homosexuality, which would not cause the child to hide his or her sexuality if he or she happens to be gay.

I think this is politically correct nonsense aimed at putting sexual minorities into the same category as racial minorities. I've heard it all before, I live in an area that has perhaps one of the largest proportioins of gay people in the world and went to high school in Berkeley. During which time I saw enough kids switch their sexual orientation back and forth to know that it's nothing preset from birth. One of my classmates came to school in eleventh grade thinking he was bixexual, then became convinced he only wanted men after a few months. A year later he decided that it was all wrong and that he was 100% straight, and got a girlfriend. These days he has a boyfriend. Two other classmates knew that they were gay from birth, but then decided that they were straight after fucking each other and hating it. One of them accidentally got a girl pregnant senior year.

And even if this is all superficial, the fact that there's so little homosexuality among working-class people and in the developing world seems evidence enough that it can't be genetic.

And I'd like, again, to see some actual proof. I can tell you tons of stories about chicks who make out with other chicks at parties but it means nothing in the long run.

I agree, with the one reservation that a traditional couple should be given precedence over a nontraditional one when all other things are equal, simply for the sake of giving the child as "normal" a life as possible.

Normal? What the fuck does normal even mean?

[Allan's Aokage]

I'm going to steer away from the Serious Business happening to answer the poll.

I see no reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt children if they want. It'd be somewhat similar to stopping straight people from adopting children; 'course, a lot more people would be annoyed by that happening :/

[Esau of Isaac]

When I talk about a "normal" family environment, I'm talking about the image that comes into most peoples' heads, at least in this country, when they think of the word "family". For the vast majority, this involves parents of different genders.

For the majority, this also involves mainly white parents. I don't think you'd state that black individuals should not be incapable of adopting as a result of this, however.

I think it's better for kids who are already going through the trauma of being adopted to be brought up in as close to a "normal" environment for many reasons, such as that the child will not feel as much like an outcast, the child will understand and be able to more fully integrate into society, the child is less likely to be picked on, etc.

So essentially, fat and ugly individuals should not be allowed to adopt any children (along with those carrying any physically notable issue, including say amputees), white individuals should not be allowed to adopt if living in a black neighborhood, black people should not be capable of adopting in a white neighborhood, and so on and so forth.

So when does this stop being about stupid shit and actually about the validity of the individual as a parent? Do you have any backing whatsoever that shows a homosexual parent is necessarily incapable of raising a child in a fair environment?

Edited December 16, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Hero]

To Crystal Shards-- For my response to the second part of your post reread the portion of my post that you quoted before it. For my answers to the questions in the first and third parts of your post you should read the rest of the thread. You'll see each has already been discussed.

For the majority, this also involves mainly white parents. I don't think you'd state that black individuals should not be incapable of adopting as a result of this, however.

I can't really understand what you're trying to say I'd think in the second part of your post, there's a double negative that I'd guess was unintentional. I think I agree with your meaning, though. Anyway, what does this have to do with my post?

So essentially, fat and ugly individuals should not be allowed to adopt any children (along with those carrying any physically notable issue, including say amputees), white individuals should not be allowed to adopt if living in a black neighborhood, black people should not be capable of adopting in a white neighborhood, and so on and so forth.

So essentially, setting up straw men is the same as good debating.

You're usually better than this. I didn't say any of that bullshit, which by the way is all illegal.

So when does this stop being about stupid shit and actually about the validity of the individual as a parent?

Do you have any backing whatsoever that shows a homosexual parent is necessarily incapable of raising a child in a fair environment?

These questions really don't belong next to each other, even if they are connected in that you'll find answers for both in earlier posts I've made.

So what's up with you and Crystal Shards that you're having so much trouble reading my posts? Maybe you should try increasing the text size. I'd also be happy to clarify what I was saying if you're confused, but I'd like this to be the last time that you put words in my mouth. This has also been a problem in that other topic, "Question about the Christian God". It's never been in good faith and it sidetracks discussions just when they're starting to make progress.