Social Question

Cartman's avatar

Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

Asked by Cartman (3044points) October 7th, 2009

The world seems divided. Some parts of the world allow gay couples and/or singles to adopt whereas others don’t, rules and regulations even differ from state to state in the US.

I find that people, myself included, seem to have very strong feelings on this subject. This is all as it should be since it concerns the life and safety of young children, who should not have to fight for themselves. People I have spoken to on this issue are always in agreement on what and why certain aspects are important – the conclusions, however, are often opposing.

What are your arguments for and against?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

102 Answers

Grisaille's avatar

Yes. With respect to the poster, I can’t believe this is even a question.

Progressive country my ass.

OpryLeigh's avatar

I believe, providing a couple (gay or straight) or even a single person can raise a child in a financially stable, loving and safe enviroment then, anyone should be able to adopt a child. It shouldn’t matter about the sexuality of the potential parents or even whether they have a partner at all in my opinion.

There are way too many children without loving parents and safe enviroments to live in and I fail to see how being raised by a gay couple or a single parent is no better or even worse than spending their childhood in an orphange.

nikipedia's avatar

I don’t know, should black people be allowed to adopt? What about Jews?

What possible reason could anyone provide for not allowing gays to adopt except for bigotry?

Cartman's avatar

@Grisaille I myself think that it’s a no-brainer but I have had long, and not so fruitful, discussions on the topic and not all people think the same. I want to hear more arguments from both sides. Out of interest and to “arm” myself with a broader repertoire.

gussnarp's avatar

Yes. People who are adopted by homosexuals do not turn gay, perverted, criminal, or anything else. Better they are adopted by a loving homosexual couple that won’t abuse them than by any couple that would abuse them.

poofandmook's avatar

Only a bigot would claim that a child adopted by a gay couple would have to fight for themselves, just as bigots would be the only ones to make that statement even remotely true.

gussnarp's avatar

@poofandmook I don’t think that’s what @Cartman was trying to say. Just that children are vulnerable and count on adults to make rules that protect them, not necessarily that they need to be “protected” from gay parents and certainly not that they would have to fight for themselves if adopted by homosexuals.

poofandmook's avatar

@gussnarp: there is no way you can claim a child fighting for themselves isn’t a bigoted comment unless you’re generalizing all children with all types of parents, straight or gay. Children are vulnerable and count on adults to make rules to protect them… that’s true. What difference does it make if the parents are gay?

That statement had no place in the question if it wasn’t meant for a gay set of parents.

I am really regretting opening this question. My dad is gay and this REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF.

cwilbur's avatar

@nikipedia: There’s also ignorance.

For instance, a lot of people believe that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia; and if such a link were to exist, then it would be horribly irresponsible to allow gay and lesbian people to adopt. The premise has been pretty soundly debunked, but it’s possible for someone to not be aware that it has been debunked, and thus believe the conclusion.

As far as my own opinion on the matter: I think children need adult role models of all genders and orientations and relationship statuses, so that no matter what their own genders and orientations turn out to be, they can learn healthy adult behavior by observing it. But I don’t think that those role models necessarily need to be the children’s parents.

MissAusten's avatar

I took @Cartman‘s statement about children having to fight for themselves to mean that the child may have to deal with the bigotry of others or teasing from other children, not that the child would have to protect himself or herself from the adoptive parents.

As for the rest of the question, yes, I think gay people should be given the same consideration in adoption procedures as any other couple/person looking to adopt.

OpryLeigh's avatar

@Cartman There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding the statement about children having to fight for themselves. Any chance you can clarify?

poofandmook's avatar

@MissAusten: Children have to defend themselves against teasing for a multitude of reasons. If kids weren’t teasing them about gay parents, then they would be teasing them about black parents or tall parents or short parents or Mormon parents or whatever parents. And really, if there weren’t bigots raising their kids to think gay is wrong… then they wouldn’t be teasing them about gay parents. Kids are going to get made fun of no matter who their parents are. That’s how kids operate.

gussnarp's avatar

@poofandmook I think it just refers to adults making adoption policies on behalf of children. I think it is a blanket statement, regardless of the sexuality of the parents. That’s just me giving the benefit of the doubt.

poofandmook's avatar

@gussnarp: Everything about children is decided on by the parents. If gay didn’t matter to the poster, then the poster should not have specifically cited it in this question, in which he just-a-bit-more-than-hinted that he’s against gay couples adopting.

Qingu's avatar

The idea that children of gay couples would be subjected to more suffering in their childhoods has some merit.

But not much. Adopted children who are shuffled through foster homes suffer more than a kid with gay parents ever would. So do children of alcoholic parents (foster or otherwise), abusive parents, etc.

The presumption that some assholes might make fun of kids adopted by gay couples is simply not a good reason to prohibit gay couples from adopting.

JONESGH's avatar


Cartman's avatar

Sorry for the confusion. My meaning was that children in need of adoption, be definition, are without any parents at all and thus have to fight for themselves. Denying an adoption, for any reason, and different cultures and legal systems have different reasons, would leave a child, as if where, to fight for itself.

AlyxCaitlin's avatar

Hell yes! I would hate to see my gay best friend not being able to have a child in the future. He’s always worried about it

Bluefreedom's avatar

Of course they should. What, exactly, makes a gay couple any less responsible or loving or mature or deserving to adopt children as opposed to a heterosexual couple?

MissAusten's avatar

@poofandmook Yes, I completely agree with you. I shouldn’t post things when I’m also in the middle of making lunch and don’t have time to fully clarify or explain my view on things. Children are mean and teasing for everything and nothing. The things my own kids get teased for or say other kids get teased for completely amaze me.

It’s worth pointing out that children with a good support system at home can manage through any of that teasing without suffering lasting ill-effects. I wasn’t agreeing with the interpretation I offered or saying I think it’s a reason against gay people adopting.

FutureMemory's avatar

When I have kids, one of the children books I plan to buy is “Heather Has Two Mommies”. I think that answers the question.

mattbrowne's avatar

I believe it to be extremely beneficial if kids are raised by a woman and a man. If gay couples make appropriate arrangements (opposite sex babysitter, kindergarten worker, tutor and so forth) it could work.

johanna's avatar

You seem to equate every day playground teasing with the teasing that gay kids or kids of same sex parents have to endure. Have you ever been down south for instance? You ask ‘What difference does it make if the parents are gay?’ Kids beat each other to death for being gay in many places in the US as well as all over the world and bullying due to parents choices is legion. Regardless if one believes in equality for all and everyone’s right to adopt, the childrens’ well being must come first.

The sad thing is ‘that is not the way kids are’ but that is what their parents teach them to be and people with bigoted beliefs are very adamant that they are right and that for instance being gay is extremely bad, sinful, disgusting or whatever stupid ideas they may have been led to believe. Unless the rest of society can teach bigots that being gay is no different from anyone else the beatings and bullying will go on and unfortunately it is a slow process.

So unfortunately it is not as easy as saying everyone should be allowed to adopt. I personally believe so and hope that soon it will be so but I also understand what the implications can be for a child. A child that, being put up for adoption, already faces a life harder than many other by being abandoned and probably already feeling ‘different’ and having attachment issues. Anyone who has considered and looked into adoption knows that adopted kids often have a harder time in many areas of life. This is the reason adoptive parents are screened so diligently. So saying that asking such a question is bigoted is very close minded and only takes the prospective parents into account.

So, even though I think a good parent is a good parent regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, color or whatnot the most important thing is making sure the child ends up in a safe environment. Parents rights come second.

Qingu's avatar

@mattbrowne, why do you believe it is “extremely beneficial,” exactly?

@johanna, southern kids also torment children of straight atheist children. In years past they tormented children of straight blacks. By your logic, atheists and blacks should not be allowed to adopt kids.

Also, please rank the issue of “kids making fun of gay parents’ children” compared to all the other issues facing adopted children, i.e. abusive parents, alcoholic parents, insane cultist parents, or not finding parents period. Speaking of pragmatism.

CMaz's avatar

“What possible reason could anyone provide for not allowing gays to adopt except for bigotry?”

Now that is just not fair to individuals that are willing to and wanting to give an answer that they feel is right.
How can anyone learn if the attitude is there is one answer and one way. Or talk to the hand.

It is a touchy issue, but let people talk. Or eventually when questions like this one are asked. No one will answer or will be honest.

casheroo's avatar

Of course they should.

johanna's avatar

If you read my answer a bit slower you will see that I explicitly stated that I personally believe that anyone should be able to adopt regardless of of age, sex, sexual orientation, color or whatnot.
If you continue to read what I wrote, and not put words in my mouth, I also wrote that adopted kids often have a harder life and that the kids well being come first. I do not really see why abandoned kids should be the ones fighting for equal rights just because prospective parents demand certain rights?

Why should I rank any abuse? That is just silly.
Besides there is quite a difference between ‘being made fun of’ and being beaten to pulp daily by bigoted assholes. I can not see why any one would WANT to put a child through that.
Every adoption must be tried on a case by case basis – not just gay peoples adoptions, but everyones. If a parent can show that they have taken everything into consideration and that they understand the implications of adoption it is another matter. Having an idealistic and simplistic idea of adoption is naive and doesn’t help the child one bit. Read up on adoption and you will see that it is not that simple.

DominicX's avatar

I have to agree with @johanna in that every adoption should be tried on a case by case basis. However, that doesn’t mean that “gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt”. Of course they should be allowed to adopt just as anyone else should and I may end up doing that later in life. You can’t prevent gay people from adopting just because some kids might be treated badly; there’s no guarantee that every adoption will turn out like that and it also depends greatly on where you live and where you raise your kids. If no gay person is ever allowed to adopt because people are afraid of how the kids will be treated, how is society ever going to progress?

A gay person who is adopting should be wise and know that not everyone is accepting and should raise their kids in a better area. Hate to say it, but places like the South and Eastern California are not the best. I’d like to think areas like that will improve, but it’s going to have to be very gradual; most of the people there are not ready for change like that. But if gay people are never allowed to adopt, no one will ever get used to it and no one will ever see a gay person as a candidate for a parent, which isn’t helping anything. People need to get used to seeing gay people as parents if we’re expecting progress.

mammal's avatar

How do i go about adopting gay parents? i didn’t really hit it off with the biological, heterosexual, stiflingly conventional, material obsessed sexist ones.

jrpowell's avatar

I’m with @mammal..

mattbrowne's avatar

@Qingu – My view is based on the assumptions that

- there’s a relatively healthy partnership
– both partners show relatively normal behavior

A couple fighting constantly or an abusive alcoholic parent would of course outweigh the benefits.

Men can often relate to boys better because they once were boys. Women can often relate to girls better because they once were girls. On average men handle children differently from women. This is a generalization and there are always exceptions. Neuroscientists can observe male and female brains at work. There are differences, although sometimes greatly exaggerated.

My view is also based on the findings of evolutionary biology. Human males can follow two strategies to pass on their genes. Either impregnated as many women as possible always moving on to find the next woman or stick with one carefully selected healthy woman and make sure as many kids as possible make it so they can have sex and pass on their genes as well. The monogamous model has many advantages and effects of the oxytocin vasopressin seem to reflect this.

Women wake up at night when a babies cries. Men wake up at night when something outside the shelter happens, like the sound of a breaking twig caused by an approaching storm. There are numerous studies about this phenomenon.

JLeslie's avatar

I think where you live matters also, even though I am very in favor of gay adoption. I do not mean that gay adoption should be illegal in certain states, I think it should be legal in every state. Look, if I had a child (I am in a heterosexual marriage) who was being very bullied or teased horribly, and nothing seemed to fix the problem, I would move my child to a different school. So, it makes sense that parents should be aware that if they live in a very homophobic area, they are putting their child in a difficult situation. Maybe it will wind up ok, but I think the parents are going to have to put the childs safety and self esteem first if it doesn’t, and possibly move. Hopefully, as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted in the US, this will be a non-issue

christine215's avatar

We have a ‘foster home’ in our neighborhood, sadly a few of these kids come and go (being returned to the same circumstances that they were saved from, Goodness only knows whether they’ve REALLY improved or not) If a person has the means, and is loving caring and giving, and qualifies in every other way, what their sexual preference is should have ABSOLUTELY no bearing on whether or not they should be able to adopt a child.

People don’t have to pass tests to HAVE kids, yet when the screwed up, alcohol, drug addicted, abusive ones discard them, the people who would be THRILLED to give love and care and a supportive home life to these children are being discounted and excluded because they’re gay. It really is a shame that we as a socieity can’t get past homophobia

How far have we REALLY come from the days where homosexuality was considered a mental illness?
I’m making a disgusted face right now…

nikipedia's avatar

Round of applause @christine215.

Facade's avatar

Of course. Being gay doesn’t turn off their ability to love children.

sjmc1989's avatar

Of course! Who is to say that a gay couple isn’t capable of providing love and protection for a child. Thats all any of us really need.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@mattbrowne: I’m going to respectfully disagree with you. As a child of a single mother, I can say that children do not need a mother and a father. Also, while men and women relate to boys and girls respectively on a basic biological level, I think most of it ends there. I’ve known fathers who have only had girls who raise their daughters very well and don’t know how to deal with boys past infancy my grandfather being a prime example and vice versa. There are many mothers who relate really well to their sons. Biologically, you are correct. Emotionally, you are incorrect.

To answer the question: I don’t think anyone should be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation, but, then again, I’ve always thought is was stupid that a child cannot legally have any possible parent combo other than one mother and one father.

On a personal level, this scares me because, legally, this means some random guy could swoop in and claim to be my father.

CMaz's avatar

Here I go. Going to get flack for this statement.

I have stopped at countless stop signs. Where there was no traffic and no one around.
Plenty of times I could see all is clear before I even get to the sign. Does that make it ok for me to drive through them?
No harm no foul. Might never have a problem. Or the reason I stop no matter what, is to prevent me from eventually getting comfortable with the casualness and false sense of
insignificance of it of it, that will eventually lead to an accident.

mattbrowne's avatar

@KatawaGrey – I’m sure there are thousands of single mothers who do a much better job at raising kids compared to many heterosexual couples. I didn’t say children need a mother and a father, I just pointed out that it’s very beneficial (given the assumptions made earlier). I also didn’t say that fathers can’t raise daughters very well and vice versa. I’m also aware that there’s tons of books written by psychologists on the issue and that it’s very controversial.

My wife and I raised twins, a boy and a girl. They just turned 20. My experience is only one of many. My view is just one of many. I support gay marriages. Homosexuality is a normal thing. I think neuroscience can help explain it better. Maybe INAH 3, the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is the key.

I’m sure many gay couples will be wonderful parents for kids. Let me rephrase: If they make appropriate arrangements (opposite sex babysitter, kindergarten worker, tutor and so forth) it could work even better.

Facade's avatar

@ChazMaz I don’t get your analogy.

gussnarp's avatar

@mattbrowne I wake up when a baby cries. If you don’t wake up when a baby cries you’re deaf.

mattbrowne's avatar

@gussnarp – Tiny cries? As I said there are scientific experiments. One test subject wouldn’t be enough. You need 1000 men and 1000 women at least.

CMaz's avatar

For the sake of the discussion.

We exists to procreate.

Put aside the bad stuff and the bad things any person that is raising a child can do.
Put aside any genetic flaws that individuals are born with.
Put aside what technology can now afford us.

How much deviation (as in changing course or routine or guidelines), as subtle it might be. Will eventually get us lost.

In the case of my analogy, smack dab into an accident.

What does that have to do with adoption? Subtly? Nothing. Any good family is better then a child in foster care.

gussnarp's avatar

You don’t have to wake up from a tiny cry. And I wake up more often than my wife, most of the time. What kind of experiments? Do the results really matter? I realize my experience is anecdotal, but when you are as sleep deprived as most new parents are you won’t wake up for any tiny noise, but no one sleeps through a baby who really needs something. There may be some slight difference, but nothing that will affect the well being of a baby in a modern household.

cwilbur's avatar

@ChazMaz is arguing that if we allow gay people to adopt—or if we even accept gay people as equal members of society—then more people will “deviate,” because they won’t have the sense of social opprobrium which is the only thing apparently keeping thousands (if not millions) of people from coming out of the closet.

It’s a nonsense argument, which is why he has to come at it slantwise with analogies like stopping at a stop sign and false premises like “we exist to procreate.”

CMaz's avatar

Well in your case. I tried to keep it at a 3rd grad level. Avoiding you from and others getting so defensive. Hoping you would put your insecurities aside and understand that there is more then one way to see it.
Only through open discussion do we learn.
Too bad your way is the only way to see things. YOu are allowed your opinion. I respect that. But it seems too many times, no one can put their insight into how they see things without (as usual) being “bullied” or ganged up on.

I tend to see, especially with these discussions, we/I should consult people like – cwilbur – so to avoid any free thought.

nikipedia's avatar

@ChazMaz: You are free to have any thought you want. But when your thoughts are bigoted and ignorant, expect to be told as much. That’s the flip side of free speech: people who disagree with you get to exercise it too.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@ChazMaz: I’m sure you have a good point in there somewhere but I honestly don’t understand anything you’re saying. Your wording is very confusing. Could you say what you meant with the stop sign thing again only instead of using a metaphor, just say it?

DominicX's avatar


You can’t consider opposition to what you’re saying as “ganged up on”. People are allowed to disagree with you. I for one disagree because I do not believe we exist just to procreate and I do not believe that homosexuality is a “deviation”.

But serious, and this is the hardass realistic side of me speaking: I wouldn’t waste too much time arguing here. It’s not worth it to muck up this thread. Anyone who’s spoken to him in the past should know that. This most likely will not go anywhere, but go ahead if you want.

CMaz's avatar

“But when your thoughts are bigoted and ignorant, expect to be told as much.”

I never insulted you or anyone. That might be how you took it.
I conveyed a concept. You had a fit, and needed to be… Rude.

gussnarp's avatar

If black parents were not allowed to adopt, should we see the other side of that as well?

CMaz's avatar

DominicX – Made a point. I respect that and what was said.
Respectful and appreciated.

rabbitheart's avatar

I can’t wait for the day when questions like this will be considered rhetorical.

Naturally, my answer is yes.

KatawaGrey's avatar

Will anyone explain @ChazMaz‘s metaphor? I’m feeling a bit thick today…

MissAusten's avatar

I think @ChazMaz should have chosen a better metaphor. Instead of the stop sign, food would have worked. Like, “It’s best to live on a rounded diet of healthy foods with a lot of variety. However, if that’s not available, Spam and Twinkies will probably keep you alive.” Which translates to, “Traditional nuclear families are best, but if that’s not available to a child, having gay parents is better than foster care.”

I disagree, having grown up with heterosexual parents who probably wouldn’t have qualified for adoption. They had a hard time covering up their hatred for one another. Having my own kids and working with kids for several years convinced me that loving, involved, parents with common sense make all the difference in the world. It doesn’t matter what those parents look like or what gender they are.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@MissAusten: Thank you. I also respectfully disagree with his statement.

gussnarp's avatar

@KatawaGrey What I believe he is trying to say, and I in no way agree with this I also think it’s a clumsy metaphor at best, is that just because many kids aren’t harmed by having gay parents doesn’t mean that at least a few won’t and that maybe restrictions should exist to prevent this possible harm.

poofandmook's avatar

The bottom line is, it’s nobody’s business who’s fucking whom, except the fuck-er, and the fuck-ee. Period. Anybody who really has an issue with that statement needs to learn to mind their own business and stop choosing to be affected by lives that do not affect theirs.

CMaz's avatar

The metaphor was solid. But if you think there should be no variation in signs. Just one pink triangle and you should know what it means.
Then it is all moot. Understand I am not making a stand. I am trying to understand.
I basically put a perception out there. I firmly believe we exist to procreate. anything else is off kilter from the intent of existence That is my point of view.
I have no problem with gays adopting, it is the way it is. I have Gay friends that have raised two wonderful children.

My question is we as a society deviate from the course of intent. If you believe that about procreation. Could it eventually muck up things further down the path?

poofandmook's avatar

@ChazMaz: No, it could not. People can’t choose to be deviant in this matter because nobody chooses to be gay. It’s not like you say “hey, all these people are gay, I think I’ll be gay too because it’s okay for them.” You are born gay, just like you are born male or female. It is what it is, and you can not change it. These people deserve the same rights, because again, it’s nobody’s business who they sleep with except their own.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@ChazMaz: I accept that one of our reasons for being is to procreate, but what good is procreation if the offspring die? A gay couple may not be able to procreate, but a gay couple can take care of children and raise them and keep them safe. Someone pops ‘em out, someone else looks after ‘em.

Qingu's avatar

@ChazMaz, on what basis do you think “procreation” is the “course of intent” for loving relationships?

My fiancee and I do not plan on having children. Are we deviants?

Is someone who marries a sterile person a deviant? Should they not be allowed to adopt children?

I’m very curious to know who your “gay friends” are. I love it when bigots claim to have friends of the class they are bigoted against.

poofandmook's avatar

@Qingu: I think ChazMaz’s comment says it all.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@poofandmook: And he didn’t get modded for that? Ouch…

CMaz's avatar

Wow, how do you all live is such a bubble?

poofandmook's avatar

@ChazMaz: You are the one in the bubble with a negative view on people who do something that is none of your business.

I am done with you. I do not respond to bigots.

CMaz's avatar

Modded for what? Two people make love/haves sex. Explore anal sex.

You will end up, from time to time with butt truffles on your private part.

When a porn is being shot. Especially Gay Sex porn. It is an all day event. It gets messy.
That is what I see when I see Gay Male porn. It was a fact, made silly.

KatawaGrey's avatar

I rather like my bubble. In it, people love and are loved, bigots are ridiculed and pitied, and everyone poops rainbows and farts vanilla. So there.

poofandmook's avatar

@KatawaGrey: hey, we must share the same bubble :)

Qingu's avatar

@ChazMaz, tell us about your gay friends.

CMaz's avatar

I was not being negative. I was giving a view. But as usual any discussion about homosexuality. Is one sided and an opportunity to hetro bash.

No matter how honest and understanding that individual is trying to be.

gussnarp's avatar

Actually, it’s kind of crowded in this bubble. Could you move your elbow, @KatawaGrey?

loser's avatar

Yes, they should be allowed and they have been doing so for a long time. There are a lot of children in this world that need loving families.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@gussnarp: Sorry. I did bring some friends.

Did I mention that people are grammatically correct in my bubble?

MissAusten's avatar

I don’t see any hetero-bashing going on. Just a disagreement about ideas.

IBERnineD's avatar

I can’t remember who said it, but I don’t understand why kids have to “defend” themselves if they have gay parents. I have a gay father and frankly none of my peers were particularly interested in who my father had sex with. Also, if it did come up and people found out, I was never chastised. In fact I became “cool” girl a lot of the times. Times are changing and children if not their parents are less and less offended by the people’s sexual preference.

I think gay parents should be allowed to adopt because they are people. Plain and simple. Who they deem appropriate to love has nothing to do with how they raise their children. Actually it does, Gay men and women tend to be more compassionate because of what they had to go through. And really is there anything wrong with that?

Darwin's avatar

Yes, as long as they successfully navigate all the same paperwork and inspections my husband and I had to in order to adopt our kids. Why ever not?

Grisaille's avatar

There is no agreement to be found here, no solace. Leave the bigot, you’re poking and prodding a caged animal at this point with ad hominems. But on a closing note @ChazMaz, you’d do well to remember that hetero-bashing has never happened in this thread; what you are doing is projecting your fear and belief onto a situation and the people converse to your opinion. It’s obvious and cowardly.

cwilbur's avatar

@ChazMaz: you’re free to hold any belief you want to. But if you use your right to free speech to express an opinion that is both insulting and based on false premises, expect that other people, who also have the right to free speech, will call you on it.

Your argument is based on two things: first, the premise that we exist to procreate; second, that the principal thing preventing more people from being gay is social disapproval. Both of these are ridiculous on their face. You are not being bashed because you are heterosexual; instead, your opinions are being criticized, because they are inconsistent with what can be observed to happen.

tinyfaery's avatar

Bleepity, bleep, bleep…later…

poofandmook's avatar

and tinyfaery comes in and dares us to fill the blanks… rofl! lurve

shego's avatar

Hell yeah, I believe homosexual couples should adopt. There are tons of children here in the US, who need a family, somebody to care for them, and love them. So if their willing to take on the responsibility of a child, go for it.

ubersiren's avatar


Kraigmo's avatar

Growing up with a gay couple is generally way better for a kid, than an orphanage.
In fact, growing up with almost any subculture would be better for a kid than an orphanage.

But the religious “family values” voter types would rather the kids suffer, for the sake of political consistency.

YARNLADY's avatar

@Kraigmo I’m pretty sure that there are no more orphanages in the US, but there are many “group foster homes” which are not much better. Growing up in a loving family with two parents who love you is much better, regardless of whether they are same sex or not.

Cartman's avatar

Here everyone, almost, is very pro gay adoption but the fact is that even in the oh so industrialised and modern US gay (or bisexual) people to not allowed to adopt in some states. Thus, there must be loads and loads of people out there feeling strongly against gay adoption. I would have liked to hear more of both sides of the argument. It’s not that I rally support for one side or the other, I want to hear the arguments and counter arguments to widen my portfolio in order to be better prepared for this discussion when I next have it live with someone.

OpryLeigh's avatar

When I first read @ChazMaz post I, like everyone else, assumed that he was being ignorant and bigoted but, although I don’t agree with what he is saying he has said that he was just giving an alternative view. He claims not to be making a stand and is ok with gays adopting so why exactly are we yelling at him. Personally I don’t believe we are simply here to procreate but nothing @ChazMaz said was offensive or rude it was just another persons opinion and I am sure he is not the only person in the world to feel that way. It seems to me he was playing Devils Advocate more than anything else.

JLeslie's avatar

@Cartman How does it get decided? I mean do people vote on gay adoption? Or, is it a judicial thing? How does a state make it legal? Do you know? I lived in FL for years and it was a big deal there, because I lived in SE FL where most of the gay people live, but that state is run by North FL, which might as well be Georgia.

gussnarp's avatar

Well Cartman, I will try to provide a better argument for the pro gay adoption side. If anyone can come up with a rational argument against it, let them come. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that suggests that growing up with gay parents will change anyone’s sexual orientation, or lead to any deviant behavior, or any kind of negative long term outcome. Homosexuals are not child molesters, and they are not engaging in gay sex in front of their children or anyone else. They are just like straight people, except that they take someone of the same sex into the bedroom to do things in private. There is no reason to believe even that two parent, different sex households are the best way to raise children just because that is our common practice. Many fathers in those households might as well not be there, sometimes mothers too. Many perfect candidates for adoption will turn the child over to a nanny to raise and hardly interact with them at all. In the absence of any kind of evidence that suggests a significantly higher rate of negative outcomes from gay parents, a law against gay marriage in unsustainable except as an argument of religion or morality, which ought to be kept out of government.

bea2345's avatar

Most of the time we don’t know what happens in families. Even the experts mess up – just read the newspapers. Adoption should be managed on a case by case basis, and not by ideology.

ubersiren's avatar

Until a bunch of adult children of same-sex couples come out and say how traumatized they were being raised by their gay parents, or give evidence that they are not as fulfilled or complete as their friends raised by straight parents, I will not believe any harm is done.

This is as ridiculous as the “sanctity of marriage” argument. Straight couples screw up marriage, and they screw up their children. Gay couples have an equal opportunity to screw up their marriages, and screw up their children.

Noon's avatar

I’ll start out by saying that I do recognize that you were just trying to bring the other side into the conversation. But I personally believe your metaphor to be faulty, and your assertion that we are here to procreate overly simplified.

Firstly the metaphor. Your stop sign metaphor assumes that a mother-father-child setup is an inherent universal some how. There is actually little example of this anywhere in our history. In most cultures child raising is done by large groups of people, the infamous “village”. My understanding is that the isolated nuclear family is a rarity in most societies. The norm is to have aunts, uncles, grandparents, even neighbors taking a very significant role in a child’s raising.

Your metaphor falls short, and in actuality would look like a driver in a car stopping at an intersection assuming they need to stop, only to find out that there was no need. Or more complicated than that would be one town using red stop signs, and another using green, and both of them of the opinion the other is wrong, even though everyone is ultimately taking care of road safety in the same way.

And now for your comment on our goal on this planet is to procreate. This is true in a sense but overly simplified. Our actual goal is the continuation of the species. This involves a lot more than a guy and a girl “doing it” and raising their children. This is why we develop families and communities. The ultimate goal is not for one child to survive, not even just your children to survive, but for your community of children to survive. Of course this is also too simplified, but at least it doesn’t allow for a simplified nuclear family being the end all and be all.

evil2's avatar

i think the real question is should conservative rightwing redneck nut jobs be allowed to procreate…i say no…..we should take everyone who isof there ilk and castrate them so no more closeminded fools come into existence…

Seaofclouds's avatar

Why should we stop any child from having loving parents? Any couple that wants to adopt should be given the opportunity to try. The adoption process is already very rigorous to be sure people are “qualified”. Having a partner of the same sex should not be a reason to be disqualified for adoption.

Akua's avatar

@evil2 Like that. As a matter of fact I think that being gay should be a pre-requisite to adoption!

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther