gay parents "comparable" to straight parents

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977
"I have a feeling that research will eventually find that overall, gay parents are better parents that straight parents."

Sorry, gang. But the emperor really has no clothes on this one.

We really aren't talking about equality at all here, are we?

Nathan? did you read the post?

it's making the point that parents who want their children are the best parents. most straight peopel want their children, but not all. ALL gay parents want their children, since they have to fight so hard and so long to become parents. there are no accidental births to gay parents.

i'd also like you to address my much earlier post.

you've talked about how the optimal/ideal situation should be what's in mind for adoption. so, by this logic, since Jewish and Indian-American kids do better than even their white and East Asian peers, by your logic, the only adoptive parents should be Jewish and Indian, and there is no way we should let a child of any color wind up in the hands of an African-American couple since, on average, African-American children do "worse" than their peers, followed by Hispanics.

[martha]

Irvine, you're clouding the issue with facts and logical thinking again.

[yolland]

While I don't at all agree with nathan's position, to be fair his claims are about "optimal environments," not intentionality; he hasn't disputed the fact that *anyone* who seeks to adopt presumably really wants kids. I would be wary myself about making blanket assertions that planned child=better brought up child, because I'm not sure the evidence would unambiguously support that--any more than it supports attempts to reduce good parenting to any other factor (such as the sexual orientation or marital status of prospective parent[s]). Parenting is always a bit of a gamble, and adoption agencies will always have to contend with that "experimental" uncertainty, for better or for worse. I would agree that that placing a child with any parent(s) who want them and can demonstrate relative financial, mental and social stability is better than leaving them in foster care; beyond that, though, I think "optimization" is generally chimerical and a lost cause. It is unfair, inevitably, that parents who conceive children the "natural" way aren't subjected to such tests; but then that too is based on a gamble: that biological claims to parenthood are morally significant enough to override theoretical concerns about optimal environments. Throw that assumption out, and you would really have an intractable mess. Since biological claims are out of the picture where adoption is concerned, alternate criteria have to be developed, and there's the rub.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511

it's making the point that parents who want their children are the best parents.

Irvine, read the quote again. What she meant may be one thing, but what she said was something else.

There are some interesting posts that have been made on this board, however, which repeatedly indicate that what she said is actually believed by a large majority of people here -- namely, that many (if not most) hetero families are abusive, highly dysfunctional, destructive, etc. Knock hetero families enough, and of course a gay family seems ideal by comparison -- perhaps even "better."

Statistics don't prove any of these points true, incidentally, but don't let reality get in the way of a good straw man.

It's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in favor of gay adoption if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by radical activists who want to dramatically reinvent how we consider gender, sexuality, family, etc. It's posts like these -- however Freudian the slip may have been -- that keep me on the other side of the divide on this issue.

i'd also like you to address my much earlier post.

Your earlier post had nothing to do with what I was talking about, and since it was attempting to make inferences (which you yourself chastised me for), I skirted it. At the developmental level, you're the one who's proposing a racist criteria for creating families. (I'm surprised you'd suggest such a thing.) The scenario you propose seems to consider the "optimal" situation for a child strictly from an economic level. From the developmental one, which is the best barometer for a healthy environment for a child, there is no study yet that states that gay parenting -- nor a family's racial or economic makeup -- is the best or optimal situation. Even the policy statements Melon has repeatedly posted admit that -- as I pointed out earlier.

[yolland]

Originally posted by nathan1977
It's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in favor of gay adoption if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by radical activists who want to dramatically reinvent how we consider gender, sexuality, family, etc.

You might just as well argue that it's being used by reactionaries who simply don't want to acknowledge that broad shifts in attitudes about homosexuality are taking place, and will continue to do so--just as earlier shifts have (for example) led to a rethinking of whether women can work outside the home and still be good mothers, whether interracial families can be functional, etc. Those "dramatic reinventions" had consequences for attitudes about families--including adoptive ones--too. Seeking the right to love and raise a child isn't tantamount to seeking a passive vessel into which to pour one's own purported social agenda, and it flies in the face of everything their posts suggest about their own priorities and commitments where children's welfare is concerned to accuse Irvine and martha of doing so. Both of them have devoted a large part of their lives to working with and for children.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977
[B]

Irvine, read the quote again. What she meant may be one thing, but what she said was something else.

i'll let Martha respond, but i think we all knew what she meant, and she was getting to the broader point which everyone has agreed with: what makes one a good parent has nothing to do with sexual orientation.


[q]There are some interesting posts that have been made on this board, however, which repeatedly indicate that what she said is actually believed by a large majority of people here -- namely, that many (if not most) hetero families are abusive, highly dysfunctional, destructive, etc. Knock hetero families enough, and of course a gay family seems ideal by comparison -- perhaps even "better."[/q]


this is a highly selective reading of the posts. the point that people are making, in order to counter your repeated inferences that heteros are by definition superior parents to homos, is that many, many, many hetero families are highly abusive, highly dysfunctional, etc., and that children in such homes would be better with parents who loved them and wanted them, regardless of sexual orientation.

the other point is that if we do outlaw gay adoption, and reduce the potential number of adoptive parents, we are going to see more kids wind up in less than optimal homes.

[q]It's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in favor of gay adoption if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by radical activists who want to dramatically reinvent how we consider gender, sexuality, family, etc.[/q]

please, only speak for your self. where does the "we" come from? and how does gay adoption, in any way, reinvent the rules? we're simply expanding the rules, we're simply bringing more people into the fold and giving more kids homes and enabling more people to create stability in their lives. nothing is going to happen to procreation, straight adoption, or heteroseuxal marriage.

it's this "sky is falling" mentality that, to me, belies a fundamental discomfort wtih anything contrary to the typical, especially when it comes to homosexuality.



[q]Your earlier post had nothing to do with what I was talking about, and since it was attempting to make inferences (which you yourself chastised me for), I skirted it. At the developmental level, you're the one who's proposing a racist criteria for creating families. (I'm surprised you'd suggest such a thing.) The scenario you propose seems to consider the "optimal" situation for a child strictly from an economic level.[/q]

Nathan, re-read. i'm taking your logic and extending it. if we are to choose "best" criteria, how do we measure what is "best" for a child? socio-economics, academic success, community, all strike me as fine criteria, as fine a criteria (and far less nebulous than your notions of "natural" sexuality, gender, family, etc.) as the sexual orientation of one's parents, and therefore, using your own logic, the most successful group in the United States are first generation Indian-Americans. i know many of them. and they are enviable families to come from. since they can be shown to be "optimal" by a variety of criteria, only they should adopt.


[q]From the developmental one, which is the best barometer for a healthy environment for a child, there is no study yet that states that gay parenting -- nor a family's racial or economic makeup -- is the best or optimal situation. Even the policy statements Melon has repeatedly posted admit that -- as I pointed out earlier.[/q]

and this is precisely where your thinking gets really mixed up, and you're putting the burden of proof on the pro-gay adoption, and then denying them the ability to prove your point -- youre trying to make sure that the assumption that straight parents are superior can't be falsified

what you're missing is that there is no empiric support for your assumptions, which are homophobic -- and homophobia is made of the same stuff as racism, sexism, and anti-semitism -- at the core.

[beegee]

Originally posted by Irvine511
ALL gay parents want their children, since they have to fight so hard and so long to become parents. there are no accidental births to gay parents.

i could argue this one, but i won't.

[Irvine511]

[q]There are some interesting posts that have been made on this board, however, which repeatedly indicate that what she said is actually believed by a large majority of people here -- namely, that many (if not most) hetero families are abusive, highly dysfunctional, destructive, etc. Knock hetero families enough, and of course a gay family seems ideal by comparison -- perhaps even "better."[/q]



let's unpack this.

i think you're getting hung up on hetero vs. homo. i think we can say, probably accurately, that unwanted children are probably more likely to grow up in families that are "highly dysfunctional, destructive, etc." since there's no souch thing as an accidental homosexual pregnancy, it stands to reason that all of these families, where the status of being unwanted increases the likelihood of abuse, are going to be heterosexual.

but no one is going to use this as a criteria to prevent heterosexuals for adoption. they are going to evaluate each individual on their own merits regardless of their heterosexuality.

[q]It's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in favor of gay adoption if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by radical activists who want to dramatically reinvent how we consider gender, sexuality, family, etc.[/q]

it's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in receptive to arguments against gay adoption if i didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by religious fundamentalists who use their religion to justify and then to feel virtuous about exercising their own prejudices.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by bonosgirl84


i could argue this one, but i won't.

i know, i know ... but you're hardly a typical situation ...



how about, ALL gay parents who strive to adopt with their partners want their children.

[martha]

Originally posted by nathan1977


It's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in favor of gay adoption if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by radical activists who want to dramatically reinvent how we consider gender, sexuality, family, etc. It's posts like these -- however Freudian the slip may have been -- that keep me on the other side of the divide on this issue.

yolland's reply was far more articulate than I could ever hope to be, but here goes.

Replace "gay" in this quote with "single parent" or "bi-racial" and see if it still flies.

It takes new thinking to make new thoughts. People who like the status quo because it serves their interests are usually those who oppose new thinking.


And, to be fair, I was stating unequivocally that when research is finally done, encompassing all hetero and homo families, that eventually homo families will turn out better, simply because more of them will have wanted children.

And using posts (and thoughts) like mine to deny people the right to have children is simply inexcusable. Please use religious intolerance or outright fear; these are much more honest reasons for the use of prejudice.

[AliEnvy]

Originally posted by nathan1977

It's unfortunate, because I would honestly probably be more in favor of gay adoption if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion -- born out, incidentally, by posts such as these -- that the adoption issue is simply being used by radical activists who want to dramatically reinvent how we consider gender, sexuality, family, etc. It's posts like these -- however Freudian the slip may have been -- that keep me on the other side of the divide on this issue.

Actually what's unfortunate for many children is that your opinion (and others who share your opinion) is formed not by what situations may be in their best interest in a given family circumstance but rather your opinion of radical activists.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Did anyone see the Rosie O'Donnell special on HBO about her gay family cruise? I highly recommend it, I think it truly shows how loving and good gay parents are and can be.

[BAW]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Did anyone see the Rosie O'Donnell special on HBO about her gay family cruise? I highly recommend it, I think it truly shows how loving and good gay parents are and can be.

I saw it and thought it was awesome. I felt so bad when the cruise was over and some of the kids were crying







btw, I went to the Angel-Yankee game last night and sat pretty close to a certain Mr. Damon in center field. I thought of you everytime his face came up on the jumbo-tron

[Carek1230]

Originally posted by martha


yolland's reply was far more articulate than I could ever hope to be, but here goes.

Replace "gay" in this quote with "single parent" or "bi-racial" and see if it still flies.

It takes new thinking to make new thoughts. People who like the status quo because it serves their interests are usually those who oppose new thinking.


And, to be fair, I was stating unequivocally that when research is finally done, encompassing all hetero and homo families, that eventually homo families will turn out better, simply because more of them will have wanted children.

And using posts (and thoughts) like mine to deny people the right to have children is simply inexcusable. Please use religious intolerance or outright fear; these are much more honest reasons for the use of prejudice.

Amen, Martha!

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by Bono's American Wife



I saw it and thought it was awesome. I felt so bad when the cruise was over and some of the kids were crying

btw, I went to the Angel-Yankee game last night and sat pretty close to a certain Mr. Damon in center field. I thought of you everytime his face came up on the jumbo-tron

I thought it was awesome too, I wonder if it could change some peoples' minds. Maybe. So many kids who looked and seemed so happy-and they certainly seemed so well adjusted and intelligent. How can anyone be opposed to good and loving families? I don't understand. My straight family certainly had and has so many problems.

And thanks for the Johnny mention even though he's an evil traitor