In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children.

For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual people cannot adopt. So while a single straight woman can adopt a child, a single lesbian woman cannot.

Malcolm Gladwell also examines the phenomenon of implicit social adjustment in his book _Blink_ (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/031601...).

I'm not up to date on the literature regarding child development. It may be that there are studies that suggest that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual families in terms of impact on the child. I'm just throwing this argument out there because it is one of the few non-homophobic arguments against homosexual adoption that I know of. I don't personally have an opinion on this issue because I'm not qualified.

No, we don't. We like to think we do. Consider: most Americans agree that a substantial number of prisoners suffer repeated rape and abuse. This is so commonly accepted that it is a well known trope in mass market entertainment. Prisoners obviously cannot defend themselves. Yet there is zero political pressure to reform the criminal justice system to alleviate this problem. Because we really don't care that much about protecting people who can't protect themselves.

More to the point, if we did place a high value on protecting children, then child protective services organizations would not be chronically underfunded and understaffed. In most places, CPS case workers are so overwhelmed by absurd case loads, that they cannot give sufficient attention to most of their cases, so children end up slipping through the cracks.

The fact that American protection of the defenseless isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we don't care about it as a society. You gave two examples and then extrapolated from your small sample to claim American society doesn't actually care about the disenfranchised. I think you might need some perspective.

I don't think this a reasonable way to analyse societal priorities. Obviously, all human societies are going to place some value on protecting the defenceless. I mean, can you think of any human society that placed no value whatsoever on protecting the defenceless? So if that's the metric you're going to judge on, then no society can ever fail. As a result, this strikes me as a pretty useless metric.

The original comment used the phrase "especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves." The only reasonable way I know of to assess such statements is to compare America to peer nations that have similar levels of wealth and similar forms of government. I mean, "especially high" seems to require a relative comparison. Specifically, one might look at child poverty, child malnourishment, or infant morality. On any of those metrics, the US ranks dead last (or near dead last) when compared with peer nations. That result does not seem to be compatible with the notion that the richest country in the world has a greater concern for the welfare of defenceless children than other western nations. Don't you agree?

Look, you can point to my examples and claim that they're special cases, but human organizations demonstrate their values with their budgets. Talk is cheap. Paying for enough CPS staff is not. Well, actually, it is really cheap given the benefits. Underfunded CPS? American society doesn't care all that much about disadvantaged children. Or rather, American society values low marginal tax rates and absolute parental autonomy higher than providing for child protection services. That doesn't mean that American society is bad or evil or that Americans are monsters, but it does mean that you can't justify policies by talking about our unique commitment to protecting defenceless children.

There is also the question of what are considered good outcomes for children. For example, I read somewhere that children of gay parents have sex earlier or more often. Assuming that's true, is it a good or bad thing?

If there would be large numbers of cases proving that it essentially makes no difference then that would help, but you're in a chicken-and-the-egg situation.

I know of one gay couple in my circle of friends that would like to adopt a child and they've come to the conclusion that they themselves can't come to a 100% agreement between the two of them about what that responsibility exactly entails. It was a very eye opening discussion, because I think I went away a changed person, essentially form going to saying 'I don't see why not' to 'maybe it really is better, who knows'.

For me that's a weird thing because when I thought about this before I always thought that gay people would not 'overlap' with straight people on this issue but would be on the far side of a barrier that you can not cross because you can not imagine what it is exactly like to be gay when you are not.

This is a very complex issue, societal pressures are such that simply being raised as the child of two gay parents puts undue pressure on a child (for instance peer pressure), and that can cause serious damage. That's the sort of argument that they went on about and I had never even thought of it from that angle.

In another scenario, isn't it better for a gay child in foster care to be adopted by gay parents than by straight parents?

When you say "peer pressure", is that just a euphemism for bullying?

The situation I had in mind was two gay people without children adopting a child.

> In another scenario, isn't it better for a gay child in foster care to be adopted by gay parents than by straight parents?

That would probably be a good thing.

To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption.

Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area.

EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant.

"Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".

*or gestational mother in the case of a non-traditional surrogate

I think there's a tendency for people to underestimate the exposure they get to their families as compared to the exposure they get to anyone else in the world when it comes to close emotional contact.

Some of use who are aware of having had emotionally withdrawn fathers (or mothers) realise this better than others.

+ Ignoring tragedies, of course.

Edit: footnote symbol caused formatting changes.

Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'.

Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt.

I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

"Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."

> "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."

As I argued in my post, most studies are likely to effected by selection bias so it is going to be tough to get a solid "empirical foundation" either way.

The real question is who should have the burden of evidence? Should we say that 'until gay couples are proven to be good parents we won't allow adoption' or 'unless it is proven that gay couples are bad parents they should have identical adoption rights'. I don't think either is sensible position and some sort of middle ground would be best as more evidence accumulates.

We shouldn't do either of those options, they are both total horseshit. It's not a matter of what rule we should adopt, it's a matter of should we adopt a rule at all. And no, we shouldn't.

Straight parents are the origin of the our species. Everyone of your biological ancestors forms a direct and unbroken line of 'Straight parents'. It is logical to assume children are well adapted to straight parents and vice versa. In fact we have no other real choice.

When a company develops a new substance and wants to use it as a food additive we naturally ask if it has been tested properly before allowing human consumption. But we do not ask whether commonly eaten foods such as rice and bananas need testing. The have been tested throughout history.

To put it another way,

However, with the number of children in care rather than with adoptive parents being quite massive I imagine the damage done by missing one gender of parent is significantly less than the damage done by living in such an institution.

• It's not hard to argue that it's good for a child to have a mom and a dad. I'm not going to get into such, but whether or not you agree, let's just accept that it's not a wild notion.

• Adoption is one of the few places where there's any chance for society to evaluate the fitness of parents before they can have children. Usually it just happens.

• A male-male couple (edit: or single male, or infertile female(s)) is the only combination that's forced into adoption, thus with the prior two points in mind, it's the only one where they are ipso facto subjected to societal evaluation, for a coupling that some consider less than perfect for children.

Now the reality is that most sets of parents are far from ideal. No doubt two loving gay parents is healthier than quarrelsome straight parents. But if quarrelsome parents are knocked up biology, not society sets the conditions.

The APA's official stance (one borne out by my personal experience with gay families) is that there is no difference in the well-being of children raised by two same-sex parents or two opposite-sex parents.

"...the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

I wasn't answering with my belief, nor was I saying that gay parents are worse, but trying to get at where the root of apprehension might lie with liberal-minded folks, such as the case was in the article.

What I was trying to say is that such a belief is fairly prevalent and well short of nutjobbery.

I've had this debate before (strangely enough, at a faith-based LGBT family meeting with leaders of the Willow Creek megachurch in Chicago), and that particular point has been a sore sticking point. In its weak form (as you've presented) it does nothing to address the matter of LGBT parents, and in its strong form (gay parents are worse), it contradicts pretty much all available evidence.

The gender of the two parents didn't seem to have much of an impact.

That's probably more important - having both types of personality present?

Whenever I see gay couples on documentaries etc, there almost always seems to be one 'feminine' one, and one 'masculine' one. Regardless of what sex they actually are.

So no, you are not likely to find the "male"/"female" pattern among gay couples, but since it's not even common among straight couples, I strongly doubt it's relevant for raising children.

Most couples have pretty strongly defined roles. For example, if a shelf needs putting up, it's more than likely that the male will be tasked with this. If a daughter is after makeup advice, it's likely that they'll go to their mother rather than father.

Perhaps you're reading way more into what I'm saying than is actually there.

However, when it comes to gay relationships, you generally can't make any prediction about who does what or how the chores are divided. The notion that all relationships have (or worse: has to have) a "male" and a "female" is completely unfounded.

There are many reasons why someone can feel conflicted about something such as gay marriage and adopting but probably is linked most with upbringing and whether or not religion plays a factor. I'm guessing that he is personally conflicted rather than logically.

But from what I have heard adoption is a hard enough process without being gay.

Would you allow a pair of people who are not in a relationship to adopt, for example, two great friends who just happen to live together, but are not in a sexual or romantic relationship with each other?

I doubt if that is actually the case though.

But I think the 'stable family arrangement' factor weighs heavily in all this. And elsewhere in this thread I think I've shown that there can be pressure on a child simply because it is raised by two gay parents, after all, it immediately makes you the odd one out. Of course other children should be brought up to realize that it makes no difference as far as the child is concerned, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Teenagers that are gay as a rule do what they can to stay under water in plenty of cases for fear of the kind of nastiness that can come out of being 'out' at a young age. Not all schools deal with stuff like that well - in fact, most schools don't.

Long term stability is one of the very important aspects of the quality of parenting, but it's not all of them.

In fact long term stability is itself determined to some extent by the nature of the relationships between each parent and the child or children.

The point of my question was to help each person who wants to think about this issue clarify their ideas by asking themselves whether it's the nature of the relationship between the "parents" that's the issue, or whether it just matters that there is some sort of strong bond, whatever that may be.

I'm not trying to lead anyone to on conclusion or other, just point out a thought experiment that might help people understand their own points of view.

I am a person of mixed race, and I'm shocked at how many of the exact same arguments against gay marriage and adoption were also used against interracial marriage and interracial adoption. (It's unnatural; it's against God's will; it will harm the children; it will harm traditional marriages; it will destroy the institution of marriage...) I'm curious if the people making the arguments are aware of this and would also oppose interracial marriage if possible, or if they just don't see the parallels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Are a truly random sample of children brought up by gay parents? I'd expect some large selection bias there.

Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests.

What? Can it be defended?

Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not children, but rather teenagers. There can be argument about whether homosexual sex with a pre-pubescent is really homosexual behavior, but there is no argument about post-pubescent sex. This is a problem with gay priests.

At most, gay priests make up 30% of the Catholic clergy. More likely, they are in the 10-20% range. The male population is 3% homosexual (yes, I know you heard 10% and that you should drink 8 glasses of water a day and that we only use 10% of our brains; the 3% number for male homosexuality has the advantage of actual facts to back it up). So gays make up an out-sized proportion of Catholic priests and there are various reasons for that. Guilt, etc., of course, and a homosexual seminary culture that is now being rooted out by Catholics who (somewhat wrongly) blame it for lots of things that are wrong with the Church.

Regardless, the gay Catholic priests seem to be committing a far out-sized proportion of the abuse. The Church simply can't afford to keep paying out the damage settlements that it would have to in order to keep its gay clergy. The congregations don't like the clergy having sex with their young boys either. Hence, expect to see less gay priests going forward.

While many gay men make wonderful priests, a few ruin it for the rest of them.

So, adoption? While a person could make arguments about equality and fairness before the law, etc., I personally have a low tolerance for that sort of democratic cant and tune it out. It's illogical rabble-rousing. As Socrates says (I'll point out that I'm a fan of the Symposium -- yes, that's the Platonic dialogue on love with a disturbing amount of gay sex thrown in), democracies equate things that are not equal.

Throw those arguments out -- which I do, and with prejudice -- and you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption. It's not a brilliant move.

Aside: The percentage of the female population that is homosexual is harder to get a feel for, but somewhere around 1.5% seems to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexual behavior is much more common in females, or so Kinsey found. The weirdness of homosexuality in humans, a weirdness found in only one other mammal, so far as I know, is that opportunistic homosexual behavior. That happens all the time in the animal kingdom. It's exclusive homosexuality that is non-standard. That's bizarre from a fitness standpoint. There are some electrode studies (electrodes + dirty pictures, you imagine the rest) that suggest that there are no genuine bisexual males as far as desire goes, only males that are bisexual in behavior. It's harder to tell with females (30% or more are unaroused by dirty pictures of either sex, which ruins the studies).

We are not singling them out to allow adoption, unless by "singling out" you mean "including in the same privileged class as straight housewives, baristas, scientists, garbage collectors, members of the armed service, naturalists, and, depending on the state, convicted felons."

Seriously. Parents come in all shapes and sizes--surprisingly few restrictions are placed. Why are gay people barred from adopting when longitudinal studies show their parenting outcomes are basically indistinguishable from "normal" families?

- Division of child care and house routine - Ability to devote time to children - Self-reported satisfaction in childrearing relationships - Parenting awareness skills - What types of discipline techniques are used (i.e. reasoning vs. spanking) - Character of relationships with parents, peers, and other adults - Longitudinal studies of mental health factor (depression, acting out, ...)

Obviously, controls and sample distribution are complicated. You also need to separate the fact that more gay couples are adopting children from one partner's previous marriage which dissolved when they came out to themselves and/or their spouse. That can be stressful--but it can also bring a family together. I've heard stories from all over the map.

Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about allowing men (gay or straight) to be baby sitters. Because sexual abuse is an out-sized male thing. Does it bother me that men would be harmed by this restriction? No. Identity politics disgust me, even white male identity politics.

On to your argument. Why have high standards for adoption? Because there are too many people who want to adopt (white kids), and too few (white) kids to go around. Hence, we can be demanding.

Arguments to be "fair" don't go far with me.

I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man. I've been a babysitter and a church camp counselor (of children from fourth through twelfth grade).

Before you talk about the "problem gay men seem to have with sexual abuse," we should talk. A man's value is not defined by his sexual orientation.

Dude, I'm a hacker-herding atheist straight female, and that was beyond offensive to me too, so I figure between you and me we have all the bases covered :-)

First time I have hoped that somebody was trolling on HN though...

I also find his points are somewhat offensive. I say somewhat because I have learned that being offended by someones opinions (as opposed to him lashing out on you personally) is not a good thing. They are just that, opinions, ideas. Maybe thought inducing or maybe boring. Offensiveness alone, I think, should only ever be used held the offender when offensiveness was the purpose.

For that matter, why do you think scientists or armed service members are better candidates than baristi or garbage men? Late nights in the lab, relationship failure, and heavy drinking are a part of the science life. For that matter, lawyers have some of the highest alcoholism rates of any profession. Shall we conclude that they are unfit, as a class, to raise children?

(Disclaimer: I'm a gay physics major with a boyfriend in law school. I'd like kids some day.)

I... reluctantly conclude you are trolling. Strange, you don't see that often here.

Firstly it represents an important selection bias - most people would not want to promise to be celibate for the rest of their lives. Those who do do are likely to have 'outlier' sexual feeling and thoughts.

More obvious is that because they have no legitimate means to fulfil their sexual desires they are far more likely to find illegitimate means to do so.

A more sinister explanation is that they are attracted to the clergy because they are aware that it offers them the opportunity to commit abuse.

Do you mean, "Let us be willfully blind and refuse to engage our senses, not recognizing any differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals despite large behavioral differences (beyond sexual preference) which do exist."

Or do you mean, "Despite your arguments, I categorically state that no differences between these groups exist (beyond the sexual preference of each). I state this without any argument of my own, please accept it for no reason that I care to state."

Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.

Not allowing gay people to adopt because they're "more likely" to commit abuses is discrimination, whether or not you have the data to prove the logical statement.

Howver, a corollary of this tenet of modern society is that unequal representation in a given field/endeavor is prima facie evidence of discrimination, regardless of differences in group median ability. I trust I do not need to provide examples of this?

I think that sufficiently sharpens the contradictions.

But just to make it crystal clear: you're not being down voted just because people are too polite to confront the truth. You're being down voted because you're not very smart.

Dude, you essentially made up or misinterpreted the numbers you're using[1], then you make what amounts to completely irrational sweeping generalizations based on nothing but two numbers and/or your (limited) social experience.. And, admit it, you know these conclusions are offensive. Not only that, but you can't even stand by your intentionally ambiguous statements about homosexual behavior after you post them -- you're not only an asshole, but completely gutless.

i.e. Shut the fuck up, kid. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Try the average husband. When the wife asks "does my butt look big in this", there's an immediate and well acknowledged convention to be polite rather than logical ;-)

You're basing your judgments on the flamboyant feminine gay men, the ones who you know are definitely gay. That's a very biased sampling to base your judgments on.