Okay, time for a new debate, something heated and full of energy.
Hopefully.
Anyway, California recently passed the act allowing homosexuals to marry, which may or may not be overturned later on in referendum, but seems to be showing that the pendulum is swinging towards tolerance in that issue.
So, when homosexuals get married, it may seem finished. But, what about the desire to have children?
Yes, like heterosexuals, many homosexuals want children to raise. They have options, artificial insemination for lesbian couples, surrogate mothers for gay couples, but these may be more costly and undesireable than one other alternative.
Adoption.
So, how do we feel about the subject?
On the side for adoption by gay couples, it's been argued that the (mostly fictional) 1950's "nuclear family" (a family with a "nucleus" of one mother and one father, what many think of as a "typical" family) is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in any case, so adoption by a commited gay couple may be better than that by a single parent, and would be no worse than adoption by a heterosexual couple. Homosexuality is increasingly thought to be genetic, or at least only lightly tied to upbringing, so it's unlikely that the children will be "taught" homosexuality. Parents should be valued for their ability to provide a loving and stable home, not their beliefs or sexual preferences, and barring them from adoption is no better than barring blacks or muslims, is just as prejudiced in fact.
Others argue that allowing adoption by gay couples further erodes the idea of the nuclear family, which should be the societal ideal. When we grow farther apart, we tend to encounter more problems, and a gay family is less likely to be connected, whether due to homophobia or a naturally small family due to a lack of reproduction. It is natural for a child in any primate species to grow up with a father and a mother, prejudice aside it's the way things work out. Sperm and egg are needed for reproduction, and thus father and mother is a more natural pairing for humans. Many still are wary of the theory that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and worry that, much like black children raised by white parents, heterosexual children raised by gay parents won't learn enough about their own background and will become conflicted. And whether homosexuality is learned or not, it is still hated and feared in many places, and children of gay couples are almost sure to be in for a much harder time than those of heterosexual couples.
So what does FW think? Is adoption by gay parents a good idea or a bad one? Is it good in some instances, not in others, and how do we decide? If homosexuality is a bar to adoption, should race be considered as well?
Summing up pros and cons:
Pros- Families are based on trust and love, not sexual preference.
- Children look for parents, not lifestyles or races, but simply a family they belong in.
- Homosexuality is not a learned trait, children will not be "turned gay".
- Children in need of adoption can't afford to pass up a stable home.
- The Mom-Dad-2.5-children family is a thing of the past, policies should reflect the changes in society.
- Children are already being raised effectively by gay couples where one is a biological parent, homosexual couples are no less responsible than heterosexuals.
And
Cons- Adoption by gay families erodes the already fragile concept of the heterosexual nuclear family.
- Children of gay parents will be persecuted unfairly for their parents' choice or preferences.
- It is uncertain if homosexuality is 100% genetic, even if it is, being raised in a household that does not provide a natural role model will confuse and hamper children who are heterosexual.
- The law should not punish homosexuals, but neither should it reward them. Adoption is a privelege and not a right, and should be reserved for the societal ideal, the nuclear family.