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.
Like you say, a "nuclear" or "ideal" family is a heterosexual, mom + dad, etc. However, who decides this? WE do. We decide that this is this is the acceptable, stereotypical family, and thus it is OUR fault that homosexual adoption or even marriage is criticized.
I believe the only way that it can be finally treated equal is if more people do it; it will eventually become the norm, like any other family. It's our fault the stereotypes are the way they are, saying that it breaks the stereotype is very...well...hypocritical.
Homosexuality is just as genetic as heterosexuality. So why should it be contemplated if homosexuality is genetic? Should we not, thus, be trying to find if heterosexuality is genetic?
And I've heard of many problems a homosexual family can have, for example: a lesbian couple decides to go a sperm donor, the woman who gave birth leaves her partner and her partner gets no rights to see the child. I believe, as I can't find any other alternative that I can think of, that there should be a different type of union of people in which isn't exactly "marriage." IMO, marriage is simply a title, and the only title we've come up with thus far. Why can't we create some other type of union in which gives equal rights to couples yet is more understanding to the homosexuals or other types of unions' situations that come about in their union.
Now, I agree with it, but is it a good idea? At the moment, maybe no. But we can't stay the same forever, eventually there needs to be change, and gradually changing it is the key. Of course kids are going to be criticized for their parents' lifestyle, things they can't choose. But are they not NOW? The rich kids in school are always the popular ones, the ones that have good looks, the ones that live nice lifestyles. The ones that don't live nice lifestyles get put into another group and criticized based on that. It really isn't much of a difference.
I was also watching that 30-day thing where the Christian woman is put in a homosexual household...it mentioned how MANY children NEED people to house them, whether they are homosexual or not - it would be much better than their current situation. That's a very good point, I would much rather be put in a stable, nice household than have none at all.
I'm not sure if the whole "union of couples by a union different than marriage" will soon, if ever, come into being, but it would seem to answer so many questions. I know a lot of people would simply say "Why do we need to go do a different union just because we're different, we should be able to marry just the same." But like in the 30-day thing, the Christian woman said her opinion was that "marriage" is for a stereotypical family. I agree with that, because that's been the view for SO long. I believ the best answer to this is just a different kind of union that doesn't have that stereotype marriage has. It's hard to explain, but makes sense to me.
Hmm, this is seeming to me as a big heap of thoughts of myself, not organized... Hopefully it helps in the debate somehow. >_<
-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.
Ok, children DO get persecuted by other children. That's life. Children are none to shy about making fun of every abnormality they see in a person. It's as if children have learn to discriminate between normal and abnormal, but haven't yet learned to discriminate between good, ok, and bad; anything abnormal = bad in a child's mind. Children will get persecuted by other children for being heavier than the average child, being uglier than the average child, acting differently, having some abnormal mark (A very attractive friend of mine got made fun of as a child, because in her head of long black hair, she has a patch of blonde hair on the back of her head. Kids called her a skunk for this), or hell, missing a limb, as I've told you all before. ;P
If you mean persecuted by anything other than another child...that's ignorance on their part. No grown adult should be holding some sort of prejudice towards a person because of their parents.
Now, what exactly do you mean by not having a role model? Do you mean a boy not having a father, or a girl not having a mother? Hell, I wouldn't want my father as a role model. In short, he thinks like a child, he's selfish, and he's an asshole, who corrects every little mistake made by anyone he shares the same roof with.
Honestly, there's a pretty damn fair amount of people like me, who never had a father there for them, cause fathers run sometimes. :V To my knowledge, there isn't some disorder or bad personality trait common among men who didn't grow up around their fathers. So if we already know a man can become a man with only a mother there to support him, why can't a man become a man with two mothers there to support him? Hell, honestly some homosexuals can be quite similar to the gender they're attracted to; no where near all are, but point is there are some. And just because a parent doesn't match their child's gender, DOESN'T mean the parent doesn't make the child aware of the stereotypes and roles tied to each gender.
Look, in all honesty, there are plenty of kids who grow up to be pretty screwed up, simply because their parents sucked. I don't see why the hell we should not treat bad parenting like an issue, but treat homo parents like an issue; you can't call out one without the other. Therefore, I don't see how homo parents could be any worse than some of the bad parents we have already. Plus the way I see it, growing up knowing you're not a normal situation makes you more open-minded, and open-minded people are much more likely to be able to acknowledge their faults in their actions and lifestyles and correct them.
Linear Mode
