The Instigator
Armani_Renae
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jdtroughton
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

homosexuals and adopting children

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
jdtroughton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 45822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Armani_Renae

Pro

If u look at everyday life you see people with kids. Rather it be strait or homosexual your going want a baby. some people come into a homosexual relationship with a kid and others arent fortunate enough. And of course to of the same sex kids cant have children so adoption is a good answer.
Why should homosexual people be unable to adopt a child if they want one . Theres nothing wrong with it
jdtroughton

Con

I am presuming this is in the case of totally orphaned, uncontestedly alone children, and not foster children, or some situation where the biological parents are involved or interesting in getting their kids back. Which removes a lot of good material for a 'con' argument here. I'm also presuming two parents of whatever kind (male, female, space-faring otherkin).

I cannot, intellectually or morally argue an outright "never" in this question. To create any possibility for my "victory" (a silly thing to seek in a debate, where what I'm after is the sharing of new information, and giving someone a "hey, never thought of that, good point" is my victory), I will argue for it being possible, and maybe (only in some cases) necessary that the fact of the prospective parents' homosexuality (I will exclude other, darker paraphilias and complexities such as polygamy, etc.) should impede their adopting a child.

**DISCLAIMER:
It is of utmost important to recognize this issues as one of the child's well-being, and only secondarily of the political rights of adopting adults. That is to say, where the child's well-being and a political play are in contest, the child's well being takes precedent. This is not about whether or not the reasons people have for resisting gays adopting are valid, but, given the political and cultural climate that exists, what choices represent the best interests of children up for adoption. I'm not "defending bigotry", I've taken up the con position on a frankly hard point for me to argue, and wish to do that the most intellectually honest justice I can.
***

The moral considerations in the adoption of a child, as I see them:
-The objective well-being the child; food, water, shelter etc.
-The subjective well-being of the child; emotional, mental health, resilience, and sense of security
-The unique culture of the child, insofar as they have been taught/imprinted/conditioned/indoctrinated, and both how this affect the previous point, and respect for it on its own merit

I can see very little necessarily threatening the objective well-being of the child; gays of any colour (rainbow, not skin) are as likely as anyone to be able to support a kid physically, and likely being in the position for consideration by an agency would find them well-enough off in this case anyhow.

The subjective well-being is a highly conditional case. There could be a best case scenario, wherein a couple of people used to facing both some seriously shitty treatment (and growing and coping as a result, creating resilience and wisdom) and a kind of support community only present for those who have the idea of themselves as worthy of and requiring support would have. This could be a very enriching, character-building, responsible-citizen creating environment. However, this could likewise go the other way. While this is true of ANY parents (and that's another debate altogether), there are factors specifically related to homosexuality that could lead a parent/parents to be a risk to the child's health. If they had not emerged from their upbringing stronger for any potential abuse faced, it is the case that mental health issues, domestic abuse, and drug abuse sees a high incidence among gay couples. Again, this not being entirely unique to them, but in this case inextricable from the pressures of homosexuality in a culture still trepidatious of their inclusion.

The "two fathers/mothers" teasing at school, a virtual given to some extent, though varying wildly depending on the locale, is a much more solid potential risk to the subjective well-of an adopted child. Having a potential "outsider" feeling already (this my own experience being without stable parents in my upbringing), but even if not, the unskilled parent and/or school environment could fail the child in creating a sense of value or worth. Given that these kids are at a higher risk than average for mental/emotional issues, it is arguably in good conscience to avoid as much unnecessary risk to the child's sense of personal security. Setting them up for the inevitable battles to be fought, though I personally am one to embrace the character-building of adversity, can be seen fro ma policy perspective as questionable. The age of the child at adoption would affect this consideration, the younger the child, and more similar in demographic the less "friction" one might reasonably predict in adjusting to the reality of their difference from other children, etc. Consider the benefit to a black child going to black parents, vs. white, or a white child to white parents, vs. black. A sensitive child is given less to deal with when put in an un/less controversial situation (this is not to argue for the validity of that controversy, merely to accept that it exists and will affect the child, as reference in the above disclaimer), and the parents have more energy to focus on the child's core needs, rather than defending and upholding all manner of extraneous political and cultural baggage. A child's formative years are no ground for political battles that don't concern them.

So if the child is an infant, then adopt them out to responsible, stable people of any orientation if you're in New York, or Oregon, but maybe not in Oklahoma, or Alabama.

Finally, if the child has grown to the point where they have begun to construct their own identity, or has been raised partially by their family or cultural/subcultural group/narrative, then this must be respected in the decision. Both the potential trauma of a forced paradigm change upon mental/emotional condition of the child, and the right of the child to cultural security as an end to itself are to be considered. Where a child of moderate liberal-ish upbringing (this most kids not specifically guided, I find, as they've steeped in that as the dominant attitude of our society) is concerned, this doesn't really conflict with homosexuality of any stripe. They're pretty open-minded, and where you meet resistance of belief, it is more likely to be "boys kissing boys? that's weird!" and less like "That's wrong, stop it!" It'll be a mind-opening experience, if they're in the place to handle it.

And here comes the best arguments you (ahem, I) can make against gays adopting kids. If the child has grown to self-identifying, and their identity or culture conflict with homosexuality in any way (and especially BUT NOT ONLY where trying to "correct" this conflict would result in identity crisis, the trauma of rejection, oppression, etc.), then it is inappropriate to give this child to gay parents. Many religious orders, as well as simply undefinable attitudinal acculturations, and even merely the specific tenet of opposing homosexual behaviour/approval having been instilled in the child would fall under this category.

More fundamental than tolerating any specific group (necessarily, logically, by the process by which individual rules and values derive their valid from higher order first principles) is the principle of tolerating different perspectives because -ultimately- it's all relative. The same reason that makes respecting people's right to their sexuality their right, makes anyone right to any perception or beliefs or lifestyle their right (you can't decide for others the goals in life that are valid or worth pursuing, validly. I mean, you can do it, but you can defend or support it, logically, philosophically. And the goal in one's life dictate what's right and wrong, not some objective measure. Hence, depending on the goals, two mutually contradictory behaviours are "right" relative to the goals they seek to fulfill).

As a side, if we know they child is not straight, it could be beneficial to them to have gay adoptive parents.

With 200 characters to spare, it is back to you!
Debate Round No. 1
Armani_Renae

Pro

Armani_Renae forfeited this round.
jdtroughton

Con

Since there hasn't been any argument posted, I've simply found some sources to cited for some of my arguments last round.

Adoption of children by LGBT people is an issue of active debate. In the United States, for example, legislation to stop the practice has been introduced in many jurisdictions; such efforts have largely been defeated. There is agreement between the debating parties, however, that the welfare of children alone should dictate policy. (Charlotte Patterson, et. al, "Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, November 7, 2007, pg. 2)

Opponents of homosexual adoption suggest that the alleged greater prevalence of depression, drug use, promiscuity and suicide among homosexuals (and alleged greater prevalence of domestic violence) might affect children. (William Satetan,Adopting Premises, Slate, 7 February 2002)

Another interesting point that I didn't bring up is that of the need for both genders as parents. This has actually been discredited by the social science literature (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). However, it is important to note the chauvinistic attitude of such departments of universities, specifically glorifying and elevating as much as possible anything that renders disposable and unnecessary the heterosexual male. A critical eye could be cast as the very evident ideological bent of modern academia (one that I don't wish to cast at the moment, for the time and effort of the research, as well as it being seemingly superfluous to winning this debate).

We'll see what the other side has to say, if anything.
Debate Round No. 2
Armani_Renae

Pro

Armani_Renae forfeited this round.
jdtroughton

Con

Remember to vote, folks!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jdtroughton 3 years ago
jdtroughton
bubbatheclown That's exactly where I'm coming from. Who you like to sleep with is nice, but what does the context of that preference, and the culture it's embedded in (and the culture of the child) mean for the safety and health of the child? There are special considerations for non-straight homes in this regard, and from those stem the best "arguments against", though I thin kthat's a brute way of looking at it. Not much a fan of the combative, competitive debate format, more about sharing information, and fleshing out understandings of diverse perspectives.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Let's see...
When you decide to engage in a sexual relationship that has absolutely no possibility of reproduction, then you might as well make yourself sterile.

Also, adoption isn't about the parents, though children may bring them joy. It's about the children being given a home. I ask the following question to homosexual couples seeking to adopt: would your home be a safe and healthy environment for children?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Armani_RenaejdtroughtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Armani_RenaejdtroughtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF