Welcome to Gaia! ::

Totally missed this topic a week ago.

I find it disappointing and, frankly, aggravating that there are regions that continue to exclude GLBT from adopting.

There are really two issues at hand in that small quote. Firstly, the very fact that they're taking in children that would otherwise be seen as "undesirable" which is better than leaving them as wards of the state. And better yet, one seroconverted, and that still isn't reason to declare them fit to be adoptive parents, which they technically have been since they have been raised since infancy. Secondly, there is the stigma of HIV. It really is telling when suddenly a seroconverted child is suddenly "more desirable" and perhaps pervcieved as somehow better as a potential adoptive child. What about the people that upped the "desirablity," as crude as that sounds? Doesn't that say anything about them?

Other than the fact that they are gay, there seems to be no reason why they should be denied adoptive rights. Three of those children didn't get to even know their biological parents, and this couple is really all they have. It's ridiculous, but then again, so is me preaching to the choir. sweatdrop

Interesting. You make the same argument as my opponent in the debate anecdote I love to relate. To which I reply:
Gays shouldn't parent because it will embarass their kids in school or invite ridicule? Yeah, you're right, meanness, ignorance and prejudice should define how we live our lives and what kind of family we build, if any. So, I guess fat people shouldn't reproduce or adopt. Or stupid people. Forget ugly people, and those mixed-race couples don't dare! On the subject of race, all your kids had better be the same as you and each other, mixing and matching is a no-no. People with funny names definitely shouldn't be allowed to pass them on to their children. And if you want to be a parent, you'd better not have an uncool job, especially at the school, so no families for the lunch lady, the substitute teacher, or the janitors( thanks, television! TGIF!).
My opponent stood there for about 30 seconds, said "good point" and sat down. I went on to get an A in that class from a man who, previously, had been the first director ever to not cast me in a show I auditioned for.

I know I shouldn't get into this arguement even if it is for "fun"... oh well

I think we can safely assume that the key issue of why gay parents should be allowed to adopt has shifted to their ability to raise a child, and not the social impact of the parents themselves have on the child. This movement is based on the fact that children are consistantly ridiculed for their parents physical appearance, employment, social status, and the child own attributes. Bullying although adverse to an optimal growth situation can force children to adapt coping mechanisms well before their peers and eventually help manage the stress of adjusting later in life. Ultimately children will be pressured for various attributes about their lives reguardless of the sexuality of their parents, and therefore it is not substantial to deny the adoption of children for gay couples on their sexuality alone.

The key issue is the ability of same sex couples to rear children that can develope into well adjusted functioning members of society. The optimal developement for children is generally agreed to be a man and woman in a monogamous relationship. So, if we want children to be raised in only a optimal envirotment than single parents, and divorced parents should not be allowed to raise children. As it is impossible to raise every child in a optimal enviroment it is acceptable to place children in a satisfactory enviroment. Though it may not be the best possible option, it is a enviroment capable of producing children that become functioning memebers of society.

To determine whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to rear children we have to identify in any way they don't meet a satisfactory situation for child development. First is the issue of not having a male and female role model. It has been shown that children turn out acceptably adjusted from a single parent home where both sex models are not available. So, thou the absence of each sex modle is not optimal it is acceptable. It is shown that children from families that do not have are more abusive and do not love produce children that are not always considered acceptable. However, being homosexual does not affect the capacity for love and affection. Being gay does not affect a parents ability to be a parent.

~end
I'm going to end at this point cause I grow weary, but I suggest that for further and better debate into whether gay parents are capable parents read the court findings of Baehr v. Miike. They can be found here http://www.bidstrup.com/hawaii.htm