Re:On Geeks and Gays
by dzorz on Monday April 26, 2010 @10:41PM
(#1297024)
Devils advocate: a child raised by the gay couple might be stigmatized by its peers, so in the best interest of the child it might be better for the child to be raised in traditional nuclear family. If you look at it that way it is also a chicken and egg problem.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
The same argument was made against interracial marriage - that the children would be stigmatized, or harmed in some other way. (In fact, one good first step toward removing the stigma is to stop treating the parents differently under the law.)
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.
There are lots of ways some kid's straight parents could be stigmatized too. Your argument doesn't really hold any water.
Re:On Geeks and Gays
by theBobMcCormick on Monday April 26, 2010 @10:46PM
(#1297034)
By that logic, we shouldn't allow ugly couples to adopt either. WAY too stigmatizing. :-)
I'd actually like to see the statistics on acceptance rates of ugly couple vs good looking one. I'll bet they're pretty damning.
Are you saying being raised in a foster home makes for a better childhood than having two loving (same sex) parents?
Where did anyone mention love? I think you've just presented us with a false dilemma.
I was accentuating the difference between foster care and growing up with parents. Foster care provides for little to no genuine love.
But foster care wasn't what dzorz was arguing for.