equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[Diemen]

a left-wing social experiment.

How charitable of you.

 

[AEON]

Again, issues of placement are relevant to each individual adoption case and prospective parents. Unless you know the facts regarding a specific case and the judgment of the adoption professionals involved, how can you make a blanket statement as to whom is the best fit for the child?

Are you therefore suggesting there is no real importance to the gender roles (mother and father)?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why is that gender essentialism so important for marriage?

Should kids in single parent families be put into foster homes?

 

[Diemen]

I believe what he's suggesting is that it is impossible to tell whether a willing heterosexual couple will be better than a willing homosexual couple unless "you know the facts regarding a specific case and the judgment of the adoption professionals involved," among other things.

 

[financeguy]

This a good point. I would like to understand more about why you think a biological parent is so important.

It seems pretty logical, frankly, that a biological bond will tend to strengthen overall bonds between child and parents. I assume there are studies that show this, but, really, to me, it's pretty commonsense stuff, and we all know studies can be politically influenced by both sides of the fence.

 

[financeguy]

How charitable of you.

I don't see why questions of charity enter into it.

 

[Irvine511]

It seems pretty logical, frankly, that a biological bond will tend to strengthen overall bonds between child and parents. I assume there are studies that show this, but, really, to me, it's pretty commonsense stuff, and we all know studies can be politically influenced by both sides of the fence.

instead of thinking you're wrong, i'm now just thinking you're naive.

 

[financeguy]

instead of thinking you're wrong, i'm now just thinking you're naive.

So, you're arguing that a child having and being raised by biological parents does not, in any way, strengthen the bonds?

 

[phillyfan26]

It seems pretty logical, frankly, that a biological bond will tend to strengthen overall bonds between child and parents. I assume there are studies that show this, but, really, to me, it's pretty commonsense stuff, and we all know studies can be politically influenced by both sides of the fence.

Nope. A child born to biological parents and a child born to parents that adopted the child right from birth will form equal bonds if both parents care for them the same way. Any basic psychology course covers this.

 

[Irvine511]

So, you're arguing that a child having and being raised by biological parents does not, in any way, strengthen the bonds?

i'm arguing that you don't know a thing about adopted children and their parents.

 

[AEON]

I believe what he's suggesting is that it is impossible to tell whether a willing heterosexual couple will be better than a willing homosexual couple unless "you know the facts regarding a specific case and the judgment of the adoption professionals involved," among other things.

But the question was based on the assumption there were no observable problems.

If you have two couples willing to adopt - one is heterosexual and one is homosexual - would it not be more beneficial to place the child in the home that also has the added benefit of a mother role and a father role. Or are you of the opinion that the mother role and father role is not important?

 

[financeguy]

Why is that gender essentialism so important for marriage?

Very few posters are arguing that it is.

Should kids in single parent families be put into foster homes?

Only in the minority of cases - as with married couples - where the parent or parents is provably incapable of bringing up the kids.

Perhaps a better solution is to discourage marriage break up in the first place or even, dare I say it, discourage non-protected sexual intercourse outside of wedlock. That said, that might involve such politically 'unpopular solutions as discouraging divorce, which seemingly is a big no-no, as it's probably 'anti-freedom', or 'anti-human rights', or some such.

 

[Diemen]

I don't see why questions of charity enter into it.

You don't see anything harsh about reducing gay marriage to a left wing social experiment?

 

[phillyfan26]

If you have two couples willing to adopt - one is heterosexual and one is homosexual - would it not be more beneficial to place the child in the home that also has the added benefit of a mother role and a father role. Or are you of the opinion that the mother role and father role is not important?

I'm of the opinion that there are many ways to raise a child well.

 

[financeguy]

i'm arguing that you don't know a thing about adopted children and their parents.

I see. But I'm afraid that your subjective value judgement on what I know or do not know regarding the raising of adopted children has no relevance to answering AEON's original question.

 

[phillyfan26]

I see. But I'm afraid that your subjective value judgement on what I know or do not know regarding the raising of adopted children has no relevance to answering AEON's original question.

AEON's entire line of thinking is based on things like "ideal" or "optimal" upbringings. There's no such thing, and the sooner we get past that, the better.

 

[AEON]

Why is that gender essentialism so important for marriage?

Should kids in single parent families be put into foster homes?

A_Wanderer, you are a self-proclaimed scientist - certainly you can follow the discussion to see it is currently revolving around what is optimal and not merely what is acceptable.

 

[financeguy]

You don't see anything harsh about reducing gay marriage to a left wing social experiment?

If you read my posts properly, you'll see that that was not remotely what I was saying. In fact, I was merely pointing out the social reservations that still exist with regard to artificial techniques of generating human life.

 

[financeguy]

AEON's entire line of thinking is based on things like "ideal" or "optimal" upbringings. There's no such thing, and the sooner we get past that, the better.

So you see no difference between, for example, being borne to a crack whore in Harlem as opposed to a regular middle class family?

Get real.

 

[AEON]

I'm of the opinion that there are many ways to raise a child well.

Are any of those ways "better" than another - or are you suggesting all of the ways are essentially the same?

 

[BVS]

So, you're arguing that a child having and being raised by biological parents does not, in any way, strengthen the bonds?

No, in fact there is evidence that adopted children can often feel a bond that biological children don't, there is never a question if they were an accident or burden because they were "chosen", that their parents went out their way financially and emotionally "have" them.

Yes there are medical issues and physical issues such as Deep mentioned, but the "bonds" can go both ways.

 

[phillyfan26]

So you see no difference between, for example, being borne to a crack whore in Harlem as opposed to a regular middle class family?

Get real.

That's not at all what I was saying. I think you're confused as to what question AEON asked. AEON proposed a question in which he said all four of these couples are upstanding citizens with secure financial situations, and then asked me to rank them as to what is "optimal." That was the question I thought you were referring to. I don't recall Harlem crack addicts being asked about before this.

Are any of those ways "better" than another - or are you suggesting all of the ways are essentially the same?

You said they're all good people with secure homes, why do we need to go any further? Those are by far the most important factors, aren't they?

 

[BVS]

So you see no difference between, for example, being borne to a crack whore in Harlem as opposed to a regular middle class family?

Get real.

I'm assuming you missed AEON's setup with "all things being equal". Or did you just choose to ignore again?

 

[A_Wanderer]

A_Wanderer, you are a self-proclaimed scientist - certainly you can follow the discussion to see it is currently revolving around what is optimal and not merely what is acceptable.

I can see that you want to treat same-sex couples as inherently inferior to heterosexual couples, you have explicitly stated this belief is religious, and have been trying to justify it by clutching at any argument you can find.

 

[anitram]

That said, that might involve such politically 'unpopular solutions as discouraging divorce, which seemingly is a big no-no, as it's probably 'anti-freedom', or 'anti-human rights', or some such.

You do realize that before divorce laws were re-written in the West that women had basically no means of leaving a marriage with an equal split of property and a variety of other issues?

 

[financeguy]

I'm assuming you missed AEON's setup with "all things being equal". Or did you just choose to ignore again?

My post was in response to a post that stated "There's no such thing [as ideal or optimal upbringings], and the sooner we get past that, the better."

 

[Diemen]

But the question was based on the assumption there were no observable problems.

If you have two couples willing to adopt - one is heterosexual and one is homosexual - would it not be more beneficial to place the child in the home that also has the added benefit of a mother role and a father role. Or are you of the opinion that the mother role and father role is not important?

I'm of the opinion that children raised by responsible, loving parents (not the lack of orientation qualifier) who take an active role in their child's development tend to grow up just fine. So if there's a homosexual couple willing to adopt, and all signs indicate that they are responsible adults who will take a loving and active role in their child's development, then no, I do not believe they should be moved to the back of the line until all heterosexual couples are sorted through first. That strikes me as a bit barbaric, frankly.

"Gee, we appreciate your interest in adopting a child, Mr. and Mr. Smith. You seem like a very loving, responsible couple who are eager to start a family. Unfortunately, there's a slight possibility that a better, more straight couple is out there. So if you wouldn't mind waiting a few months/years until we either find that couple or decide to settle for you, that'd be just swell. No hard feelings right?"

Seriously, AEON, do you realize the implications of what you're proposing here?

 

[Irvine511]

Or are you of the opinion that the mother role and father role is not important?

i'm told i'd make a great mother.

 

[melon]

Perhaps not per se, But there are also studies which show children of gay couples are sometimes disadvantaged by being bullied at school, for example.

And women who wear sexy dresses are just asking to be raped, right? Do you not see the trouble with your above logic?

Overall, I personally think that with moves towards reducing population growth, scientifically possible but controversial techniques of generating life by means of such processes as IVF to allow for gay couples that demand kids 'of their own' may become socially unpopular.

But, of course, if heterosexual couples use IVF to demand kids "of their own," that's perfectly fine? I'm sorry, but this entire line of argumentation reeks of heterosexism.

 

[financeguy]

You do realize that before divorce laws were re-written in the West that women had basically no means of leaving a marriage with an equal split of property and a variety of other issues?

Certainly. But there are also divorce cases where the husband has exploited the system to renege on his responsibilities.

I am definitely not arguing for getting rid of divorce entirely, I'd be in favour of making it more difficult however.