<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now I see why you and especially Dulcinea are so confused.Originally posted by Lew:
Reason-
this may come as a shock to you, but in fact, there are heterosexual couples who are denied in their attempt to adopt. So no, heterosexuality is not enough. Technically, sexual orientation is, in and of itself, not a factor at all (as I said, I can't see any reason to deny a single gay parent the opportunity to adopt, if we're going to agree that singles should be allowed to adopt)
But you hardly defused any argument. It isn't about procreation and the purpose of sexuality or any of that. It is about the best interests of the child, first and foremost. And yes, if you have two couples, and they are equal in their abolities to raise the child, and one is hetero and the other gay, I can't envision how the argument could be made that the best interests would be served by favoring the gay couple. But I'll grant you I'd give them the opportunity to argue it in court, simply because it is rare that all things are equal.
And no, I'm not saying the gay couple couldn't or wouldn't love the child and raise him right (nor am I suggesting that the hetero couple isn't capable of doing a terrible parenting job). What I said was, this is one area of the law, perhaps more than any other, that is a guessing game. It's not like you're determining what happened in the past (e.g. did he rob the bank or didn't he) you're making a determination as to what is the best course of action for the future. And at the end of the day, that's what it is- a guess.
But you don't make it a blind guess, you look at various factors that you hope guide you in the best direction. You look for stability. You look for financial ability (not necessarily wealthy, but at least capable). You look for education (again, not necessarily a PhD, but is this a smart couple or a pair of idiots). And of course natural law comes into play to an extent. A couple is going to have an advantage over a single person. As they should. I'd keep typing but there are now beds rolling past my window with weirdos driving them. It's a bed race, this is ridiculous hold on
Neither of you understand what the law intends to do. Or if you do understand what the law intends to do, you haven't really thought through all the ramifications.
The law strives to make it illegal for same sex couples to adopt solely because they are a same sex couple. Their ability to raise a child has absolutely nothing to do with it; their status as a same sex couple is the single determining factor to ban adoption.
So your two or so paragraph essay on the various factors to determine parental suitability is addressing something that isn't even part of the equation. And that's the point. When you said the following, you seem to agree on the procreative point:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It boils down to this: Stating that same sex couples cannot adopt regardless of their abilities to raise children means their status as a same sex couple is the sole factor in determining their fitness to be adoptive parents. They could be the best parents in the universe and it wouldn't matter.I can, however, see plenty of reasons why a gay couple should not be able to adopt. You can't have two natural fathers, how can you have two adoptive fathers?
In other words, same sex couples - under law - are unfit parents. That's what this law says.
You can technically say sexual orientation isn't the issue here, but ultimately it is. I'll break it down later, but first things first.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ June 30, 2005 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're damn right I am, and I make no apologies for it.Cap'n, you seem incensed about this.
My two best friends are fathers of children, and I know many other gay people who have children.
You think I'm hot under the collar? Try talking to a few gay people who have children of their own and see how they feel about such an adoption law.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ June 30, 2005 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]</font>
I'm back to this. I simply do not understand how a gay couple has their "own" children.
It's basic biology, Cap'n. Two men or two women CANNOT procreate. Either quit trying to tell me differently, or give the science that I've missed.
That said, I don't care. If you and whomever want to adopt a child, go for it. If the girls across the street want to adopt, god bless them, too.
Why do you have such a problem with me?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm glad both you and greg are on the same level, giving me a biology lesson. Two men can't have their own kids? WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN!Originally posted by gae:
I'm back to this. I simply do not understand how a gay couple has their "own" children.
It's basic biology, Cap'n. Two men or two women CANNOT procreate. Either quit trying to tell me differently, or give the science that I've missed.
That said, I don't care. If you and whomever want to adopt a child, go for it. If the girls across the street want to adopt, god bless them, too.
Why do you have such a problem with me?
What's your point?
You and trav can't have your own kids. Should you be able to adopt?
You are at least the third person to point out that a gay couple can't have their own children. Somebody please tell me in a concise manner what the relevance is and maybe we can progress from here.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have NEVER asserted nor implied a gay couple can procreate. They can use a "third" party, but nowhere in anything I've written have I said that two men or two women can create their own children. Nowhere.Either quit trying to tell me differently, or give the science that I've missed.
But that hasn't stopped you, lew and greg from pointing this glaringly obvious observation out.
OK...I repeat. WE KNOW TWO MEN AND TWO WOMEN CAN'T PROCREATE. SOOOOO WHAT?
I'm thinking that WHAT IT MEANS is that Ohio is not ready to deal with the whole gay adoption issue. I'd bet 7 out of 10 people know someone who is gay, but choose to not give any thought to their lifestyle. Kind of a "don't ask - don't tell" thing.
They may have seen footage of one too many gay pride parades. The idea of putting children into that mix seems as taboo as incest.
Maybe in another 10 or 20 years.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ June 30, 2005 06:39 PM: Message edited by: LAKE ]</font>
Reason, I don't know how many times I've said this, but I DON'T CARE IF GAY PEOPLE ADOPT.
I was questioning your statement about gay folks having "their own children". Which is a medical impossibility.
I think that all adoptive parents look at the children as "theirs", but they know that the child was conceived and carried by another woman.
And as to Trav and I having children? Between the two of us we have six. Having a child or children together was briefly discussed at one point, but not only are we both surgically sterile (by choice, after the third child each; not that it couldn't be reversed), but we're too old. If we assume that Trav and I had decided to have a child when we first met, we'd both be pushing 70 by the time said child got out of college.
I agree with what Lake said; too much footage of too many flamers in gay pride parades. Much like the constant and recurring racial tension. I've never seen my neighbors (gay or black) mug for a TV camera. If the only thing middle America knows about gay people is the flamboyant cross-dressers (or in the case of black people, the militants) in parades, it's just ain't gonna play in Peoria.
Oh, and Reason, <font size="6">I DON'T CARE IF GAY PEOPLE ADOPT</font>
Being a parent is probably the biggest responsability that a person can have.
I think that the question of being able to handle even being a parent at all should come before worrying about the sexual preferance of the person/persons who are trying to adopt.
With that being said, I'm sure that one of the major concerns is how the "lifestyle" of the parents will impact the everyday life of the child, especially when interacting with other families and children from "typical" families with striaght parents.
Ok, it figures that it would take a subject like this to bring me back.
Why should it be illegal for gays to adopt? Someone give me one good solid reason for it. Guess what, you can't. If Janey & Suzy or Jimmy & Johnny wanna raise a child, and they meet the criteria then they should be able too. Who they are 'partnered' with should have no bearing on it whatsoever. And spare me the "social stigma" bullshit. If social stigma were truly a consideration then fat people and ugly people would not be allowed to adopt either, since the kid would be made fun of for having fat and/or ugly parents.
If you are able to love a child, care for the child and take care of the child, then you should be able to adopt the child. Sexual orientation should NOT play a role in determining who gets to adopt and who shouldn't.
GS-
you can denigrate the 'social stigma' argument as BS, but in the courtroom it does come into play, I've used it (not in the gay context but others) and I've had it used against me.
It is one of many factors the court considers. As I said, this is ultimately a guessing game, so you try to take all the information you can get and hope you make your best guess. The crux of a social stigma argument is that the court isn't going to force some child to be a sacrifice for social change.
Reason-
I never said I support the proposed law because you are correct that it serves as an absolute prohibition. But I do feel the presumption should be towards married couples over singles, young over old, etc. And I'm pleased to report that, for the most part, that's how it is.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks