« To The Rescue | Main | Let's Be Friends » Orphans: At Least They're Not Raised By Homos14 Jul 2008 08:44 am Ann Friedman highlights something I'd missed from this article. Here's John McCain on gay adoption: "I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption." I think that's a great argument against allowing gays and lesbians to steal children from happy two-parent heterosexual families, but why on earth is the importance of both parents a good reason to prevent gay couples from adopting orphans? Comments (25)
"where the supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt exceeds the number of orphans available" is that even true? 
Huh, I guess no one told my Mom that lesbians make horrible parents. I do wish my Dad/Stepmom read the memo that said they were supposed to be super-parents though. Would have made my life easier, that's for sure.
McCain's statement isn't meant to be an argument. It's just an attempt to make assholes feel righteous.
but I think it's pretty obvious that McCain meant something along the lines of: "Children benefit from having both a male parent and a female parent in the home, so gay adoption is a bad idea in countries, such as this one, where the supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt exceeds the number of orphans available." That was obvious to you? Because to me, it was obvious that McCain was basically saying "what I think about the issue is far less important than what my base thinks I think about the issue, so I'm going to give some milquetoast response, one that I probably don't even really believe, that sounds like one of the base's lame-ass arguments against gay adoption so that I can a) look pretty good for the homophobes, and b) not sound like too big of a dick." At least, that's the way I read it.
"where the supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt exceeds the number of orphans available" The supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt a healthy infant excedes the number of such infants. However, there seem to be plenty of toddlers, pre-teens, teens, disabled kids available for adoption
One of the things that has always amused me about the argument that same sex couples are ipso facto unqualified to adopt children is that those making the argument refuse to take it to its logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that same sex couples are ipso facto unqualified to raise children, even if such children are the biological offspring of one of the couples' members. For instance, one doesn't hear the gay bashers demanding that Mary Cheneys' child be taken from her because her lesbian relationship makes here unqualified to raise it.
Someone should follow up with this question: do you believe it should be illegal for single, unmarried heterosexual individuals to adopt?
I've been raised by one female parent my entire life. Should this be illegal, too or do conservative politicians such as McCain just have a problem with homosexuals as productive members of society with happy families...?
I'm with you on the merits, but I think it's pretty obvious that McCain meant something along the lines of: "Children benefit from having both a male parent and a female parent in the home, so gay adoption is a bad idea in countries, such as this one, where the supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt exceeds the number of orphans available." No, that interpretation is not obvious. McCain is too chickenshit to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt just because they're gay, so he goes with the bogus argument that he does not "believe" that unmarried people should not adopt. It's also worth noting that "not believing" in something is different from saying it should be illegal. More mealy mouthed BS from the Straight Talk Express.
and both parents are present when gay couples adopt.
"where the supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt exceeds the number of orphans available." That is so laughably far from true that if it is what McCain meant, it is worse than if he meant "kill the fags".
We have science on this now: look at children raised by same-sex couples and by opposite-sex couples, and they appear to be identical. No difference in mental illness, financial troubles, anything related to making a successful life as an adult. (In pure numbers children of same-sex couples are actually less likely to be gay, but I assume that's within the margin of error.) The only difference was that they were more likely to have experimented outside their primary orientation, i.e. if gay they might have had a teenage crush on a member of the opposite sex, if straight vice versa. To erb's point, no, it's not true. There is a surplus of orphans or effective orphans, thus the number of wards of the state in foster care. There is a shortage of healthy infants available for adoption in this country.
Deborah, last I checked the shortage was only of healthy white infants, though that could have changed. Not to slight single parents and their children, but I do think it's much easier to parent when there are two adults in the house-- you have a 'check' when you're going too far, a backup when you're tired or upset, two incomes or the possibility of same. But I don't think it has much to do with the gender of the parents.
Old enough to have been a parent for nearly thirty years. Ten years ago or so I worked with a lesbian, now married thanks to the grace of the city of San Francisco, who was raising her two (biological) children with her partner. As I got to her know her a little, I realized that I found her ability to articulate her experiences as a parent and integrate the challenges of her role as a parent with the other roles in her life was genuinely inspiring. There are not that many heterosexual parents about whom I've said that in my life. (For what it's worth, most of the others were quite religious, sometimes but not always conservatively so.) Predictably, most of the back-biting bigotry concerning this woman came from the ostentatiously childfree heterosexual set.
"I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family..." I ran this through an online doublespeak translator and came up with the following: TWEEEEEEEET! Interesting.
I'm not sure what I feel about this issue myself. On the one hand I don't want to keep a gay couple who loves and wants to raise children from perhaps providing a happy and loving home for a child who needs one. On the other hand I do think it's best for a child to grow up with both male and female role models in the home, and with an appreciation of the fundamental psychological, spiritual and social differences between men and women. I think that when children are raised to view men and women as simply interchangeable individuals, instead of complementary aspects of the whole, then something is lost for all of us.
Hector - surely you have to realize how insulting your argument sounds to a gay couple that wants to adopt. One one hand you've got their very concrete desire to raise and care for a child, form a family, and become a respected social unit in the eyes of the community. Yet you try to negate that with your vague, unsubstantiated concern that the child will lose its conception of gender roles, which will cause us all to lose "something", whatever that is. Unless you're prepared to think through your fear and come up with something more substantial (I doubt you will - the social science literature does not bear you out), you really should give the benefit of the doubt to the couple.
Hector, I don't see why children raised by same-sex couples would come to view "men and women as simply interchangeable individuals", or why they wouldn't have access to both male and female role models. (Role models come in all flavors, not just the parental kind.)
Hector, doesn't insisting that a child be raised by one man and one woman reduce the parents to interchangeable individuals within their genders? It makes it look like ANY male + ANY female will do, rather than the specific individuals within the loving couple. The child may learn that the genders of the individuals in a couple aren't as important as some believe - that's true, though, or gay couples wouldn't be trying to get married. But they will also learn that individuals are not interchangeable, and that one parent would never exchange the other, even for a member of the socially preferred gender.
On the other hand I do think it's best for a child to grow up with both male and female role models in the home, and with an appreciation of the fundamental psychological, spiritual and social differences between men and women. Shorter Hector: "I want to make sure that children believe all sorts of BS antifeminist right wing social constructions about how different men and women are, so we can't allow those sodomites to adopt."
And of course, if there's anyone who knows about successful families, it's a guy who cheated on his wife with a millionaire heiress, then got divorced to quickly remarry. Thanx 4 the tip, John. Now tell me the one about how an upright, totally honest guy got caught in the Keating Five scandal. Oh, sorry, media. Did I just demean his war record? Guess I'm an icky homo after all.
"The supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt a healthy infant excedes the number of such infants. However, there seem to be plenty of toddlers, pre-teens, teens, disabled kids available for adoption" Kinda proves my belief that babies are basically toys for adults. Not that evolution wouldn't select for that. Culturally that makes sense, too, at least in the case of older children - since few parents would want to adopt a child that has already been conditioned by either previous parents or an orphanage - which in itself is an excellent argument against the "nuclear family".
Culturally that makes sense, too, at least in the case of older children - since few parents would want to adopt a child that has already been conditioned by either previous parents or an orphanage
seksshop
Comments closed July 28, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm with you on the merits, but I think it's pretty obvious that McCain meant something along the lines of: "Children benefit from having both a male parent and a female parent in the home, so gay adoption is a bad idea in countries, such as this one, where the supply of opposite-sex couples who want to adopt exceeds the number of orphans available."
Posted by Gryph | July 14, 2008 9:47 AM