What are the legitimate reasons for disagreeing on gay adoption? But more importantly, what are the justifications for legislating upon those disagreements?

In a society where some disagree with divorce, certain religions, and interracial couples, among others, should we consider legislating on those basises? Since a near majority of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, society wouldn't consider barring the former group from adopting. And since the latter two groups are protected by the Constitution, we wouldn't consider barring them from adopting. Why should gays be treated differently?

I do look forward to your response, especially when one of the gay parents are the genetic parents, and in light of the fact that many children are not being adopted.

Sam, as you know (tho I know you disagree) a not insignificant proportion of people who have any view whatsoever on gay parenting and gay adoption believe a child is best raised by a heterosexual couple. (I am NOT saying I buy that right now, I want to learn more).

That many hetero marriages end in divorce or separation is, in my view, somewhat beside the point. Many serious, monogamous gay relationships also end, including ones where the partners are parents. I know of such cases firsthand, as you probably do too.

There are dueling studies and strong feelings about whether children are harmed or not in their social and emotional development by growing up with same-sex parents, and this issue is a larege part of the backdrop for the debate over gay adoption.

Obviously, gay kids growing up with disapproving, censorious hetero parents, can experience great strain too, but that does not make the other issues (above) go away.

I haven't made up my mind on gay adoption or same-sex couples raising kids, but I think nobody should get bent out of shape that some people are against both practices.

You have acknowledged as much, specially regarding gay marriage, in conversations we have had: that many Americans are opposed, and yet that does not de facto make them bigots or homophobes at all. Gay rights activists need to keep such charitable thoughts closely in mind, everyone is sick of the way personal accusations and attacks of all sorts fly around so easily these days in the public sphere.

At this point (with the Florida anti-gay adoption law ruled OK by the U.S. Supreme Court)I am simply concerned now we'll see a taste of the same "homophobia!" hysterics which occured with the online outing last summer of gay U.S. Senate GOP staffers who were supposedly self-hating 'hypocrites' because their bosses were OK with a U.S. constitutional amendment against gay marriage - subject to state by state ratification or rejection, with 3/4ths of state legislatures required for approval.

As to why legislate at all on such issues? We could argue about the propriety of "legislating morality" but it happens. I don't see that impulse ever totally disappearing among legislators and their constituents.

With Utmost Respect,

Matt

Part of the problem is that reasonable people can disagree on cultural issues, of course, and the gay community will nevertheless want to label anyone with an opposing view a bigotted gay-basher.

I think the deeper problem, though, is that our society is unwilling to accept the idea that saying that one circumstance is generally better than another, and that this is not necessarily a criticism of the latter. Our egalitarian streak makes us want to define ALL things as equal and hence we can't seem to see things in degrees.

An orphan child with no other place to go is definitely better off with a stable gay couple than in an orphanage. That just seems a matter of logic. If a stable heterosexual couple had been available at the time, though, that would be even better, ON AVERAGE.

So, what's the problem with saying this is true - on the whole - about adoption?

The response would be a litany of angry statements from the gay community about how a gay couple is just as good at raising a child as a straight couple. Numerous scientific studies would be noted. And, we are still left with most people saying that one circumstance is preferable to the other. The simple fact is, this is so because most of society says it is so.

It would be very refreshing if the gay community accepted that there are matters of degree here and, instead of demanding perfect "equality" (for themselves, not the children) in the arena of adoption, allowed that the home environment they could provide is not generally going to be accepted is the gold standard, but can work for many foster children and we should work to make sure these foster children have such opportunities available to them when the gold standard cannot be met.

Iguana, well put, in my view. Sam, any reactions?

Matt,
"Reasonable, non-bigoted" people could disagree in the 1950s over whether people of different races should be allowed to marry. "Reasonable, non-bigoted" people have disagreed in the past over whether blacks should be citizens and women should be allowed to vote. What you are employing here is just conservative "political correctness." You are saying that it is impolite to call a bigot a bigot. And it may be very impolite. And it may alienate people. The truth often does.

Pierre:

You wrote:

"'Reasonable, non-bigoted' people could disagree in the 1950s over whether people of different races should be allowed to marry. 'Reasonable, non-bigoted' people have disagreed in the past over whether blacks should be citizens and women should be allowed to vote."

Yes and "reasonable, non-bigoted" people think today that an incestuous marriage is wrong. Following your suggestion, does it mean that they are wrong today and we, as a society, will legalize marriages among siblings in the future?

Your logic has a fault, which is that, at some point, there is a limit to moral relativism.

I am personally in conflict about implications of affording marital status to homosexuality. I have read research about homosexuality that suggest that it is inborn and others that suggest that it is a choice with at least some of them. Either way, I do not wish to interfere on bedroom practices of others.

Yet, to what extent must the society as a whole confer ritualistic and spiritual (as non-"civil ceremony" marriage is) legitimacy on such a relationship, I cannot answer. I just don't know.

I do know that good people of conscience differ on the matter. It does not make one a homophobe (one who fears homosexuality) to disagree that homosexual couples should be able to form nuclear families by adopting. Nor does it make one a bigot.

I think that was Matt's point, though he doesn't need me to make his points.

You missed the real problem - kids needing good homes.

You want gay people to be polite in calling the negative stereotypes and open homphobia something other than biogtry? Whew, look up the word, think what you are saying.

Knowig what I know now, in this life, and assuming I were about to be born - and could choose what home - there would be no better choice for any kid than TWO moms. I know a few of these families, and the are the best.

Bigots go away. Time to end homophobia as polite conversation.

I do not think that gay MEN should be allowed to adopt children, Lesbians however, should. What I do find interesting, is to ask a gay man who wants to adopt a child his reasons WHY he wants a child. Could it be that his lack of self esteem with his sexuality , and his need for acceptance in a str8 society is what is fueling his need to be part of the larger community? I think what gay men need to do, is to define themselves as a part of society, as well as be ok with being different. When we as gay men stop trying to act like breeders do, then we will be accepted as a culture different from the mainstream.
Lesbians, however, are wired for children. They are hormonally predisposed to the job. I know several lesbian couples who have raised 2 children,and they turned out quite nicely. I am sure lots of gay men will of course disagree with me, and thats ok, since I know how gay men act in private, and put on a show of stability and upstanding citizenship. Get them away from the public eye, and many of them act as their character is, a human attracted to the same gender and all of the trappings that go along with that. I ask the question one more time, WHY would any queen, want a child? WHAT could be the reason>>>>>>>> ?

there is know reason y gays or lesbians cannot adopt! they are juss like ne one else.. just becuz they are dating someone of the same sex doesn't meant that they cannot have their own way of life, opinion and so on nd so forth! these kids that do not have a home do not have the opinion of choosing between a mother and father or some other type of marriage. most people say that lesbnians or gays will molest children or sexually abuse children.. isn't that just like any other sickl o in this country? i know quit a few people that molest chioldrena nd sexually abuse their children and are not gay or lesbian. hell i ahve one that live right down ther streret from me. this has nothing to do with y gays and lesbians should not adopt a children. they will give all the needs andf loving thawt a child needs.. no matter if they arfe gay or lesbian!

To declare that gays should have less rights in any regard is bigotry. Many Queens have no desire at all to have kids, however to be told because ur gay if u do u will have less rights is discrimination=bigotry. If u feel that my kids who are being denied the rights that kids from hetro couples get because I am gay then u r a bigot, so own up to it.The only differnce between u and a gay-basher is u do it with words.