It's research from the University of South Carolina, and I was simply posting it as it's one of a few extensive reviews done thus far. Agree with it, disagree with it, who cares. Form your own opinion!

how about forming your own as well. a well rounded one, with all the facts rather than being selective.

hi

Beeble,

I don't think you are totally wrong, but you are a bit off target. With regards to adoption, you can NOT let it get caught up in the political climate, and need to do what is best for the child in question.

Anyone who sits here and tells me that a child adopted into an average homosexual household doesn't face extra hardship and stress as opposed to an average heterosexual family is simply lying to themselves.

Now the reason you are right is because the first step to fixing the societal bigotry causing these children so much stress is for the supreme court to rule on gay marriage. That would go a long way to turning the wheels toward reducing all the ignorance in the country, but even then, it takes a great deal of time as the Civil Rights movement clearly shows.

Exactly what did I say that led you to believe I was not using all the facts? What facts do you have to support YOUR opinion? Do you even know what my opinion is?

My opinion is that the argument is exactly the same one used against interracial couples, whether having their own children or adopting, and should be regarded with the same contemp.

If children of gay parents are indeed being stigmatized, don't you think that ending the stigmas would be a better solution than perpetuating bigotry and continuing to erode the rights of gay couples and treat them like societal pariahs?

look a few posts up. and why post that essay. is that what we do now? post random essays?

Whenever there is someone breaking barriers, there will be people who don't like it and who will treat them poorly. The first blacks in professional sports were roundly criticized; the first interracial couples had problems; the first gays in positions of power as well.

The fact that some people will treat these people differently is no reason to thus refuse to make progress. You don't win against bigotry by refusing to confront it or by hiding in a closet.

The problem there is bigotry, ignorance, and hate. The solution is not cowtowing or capitulating to it but fighting against it. Same as racism. I ask again, would you hesitate to allow the adoption of children into an interracial household just because there were outside intolerances to it?



I think the Civil Rights movement also shows that you cannot wait for people to get comfortable about tolerating others. Sometimes it has to be foisted upon us as a society. Racism still isn't dead, and if we waited around for the racists to get tolerant in order to give black people equality, we'd be waiting around forever.

I would agree 100% with both Beeble and Mike, but would also argue that regardless of the reasons, that as of today it is simply unfair to place an adopted child into that environment.

You must first fight for the equal treatment of homosexuals under law, but until you have that, it's crazy to talk about placing an adopted child into that political and social stress. Once you get protection under the law, you then can worry about adoption. Protection under the law MUST come first, because you MUST keep the best interest of the child at heart, and right or wrong, it's not in their best interest to be placed into a climate of political and social stress.

but even if gay people do get protection under the law, the same issues will always be there. and when adoption agencies do decide on the perfect parents/couples, the best interest of the child always comes first.

To a point, yes. But the point is, what if 10 years from now the Supreme Court rules to define marriage as only between one man and one woman? My point is, regardless of what is right and what is wrong in this situation (and I think most of us are on the same page with regards to that), we DON'T know the outcome.

We can assume equal rights are coming simply because we think they SHOULD, but the fact is, until they do come, nothing is certain. That uncertainty breeds stress, it breeds derision among those for and against, and it creates a less than ideal environment for a child to grow up in.

Having the right to adopt is PART of equal protection under the law. And it's not "right or wrong." It's JUST wrong. You are arguing for capitulation to bigotry and the continued stigmatizing of gays.

I ask you again, would you argue then that interracial parents should NOT be allowed to adopt children because there are still racists out there that will stigmatize these children even to this day (and I know some of these people)?

Beeble. You are wrong in this instance. Live with it.

A completely different situation.

An interracial couple is still a man and a woman, is still a traditional family structure, and is less stigmatized or politically relevant in today's culture. But even more than that, it has been ruled 100% legal.

I agree that having the right is part of equal protection, and would never support any law which strips a homosexual of that right. However, I think this is where the vetting process comes into play, and only in a small number of cases and circumstances do I think a child should be placed into that environment as things are today. In essence, the standards should be higher and homosexual couples should be at the bottom of the pecking order. It's not right, but the this is one case where the interest of the child comes before the rights of the couple, and that's what the law states.

There are always exceptions, and some homosexuals and homosexual couples will provide a better home, even in today's world, than a heterosexual or heterosexual couple, and in those cases the vetting process would reveal that and the child would be placed with that couple or person.

It didn't used to be 100% legal. It was illegal for the same reasons you're giving here in defense of keeping children away from gay couples. "We're just thinking about the welfare of the children in an intolerant society."



You keep saying "it's not right" but you keep defending it.

But while I disagree strongly with putting homosexuals at the bottom of the pecking order, which is de facto if not legallly binding discrimination, I will acknowledge that at least you oppose a blanket law that prevents gays from adopting children, single or married. We'll call that progress.

Well it's common sense, it IS wrong! There is no doubt about it. It just so happens that in this case, that fact is trumped by the requirement to do what is RIGHT for this innocent child in question. That child's right to be placed into the best environment possible trumps the fact that it's unfair.

Until the US law is changed, homosexual couples are going to be placed at the bottom of the pecking order, and it is going to be harder for them to adopt than a lesser qualified heterosexual couple. It's not fair, but it's in the best interest of the child, and that comes first.

So until there is stability, which means a ruling by the supreme court, fair is simply an impossibility because of the dueling rights of the child and couple.

Discrimination isn't necessarily illegal, depending on the level of scrutiny.

I wouldn't put homosexual couples on the bottom of the pecking order either, but I would place them below stable heterosexual couples, but above single people of any sexual orientation.

Some people think that the Supreme Court case which made miscegenation illegal, Loving v. Virginia, can actually be applied to gay marriages.

Ex, Obama advisor and UC/Harvard visiting professor and possible Supreme Court nominee Cass Sunstein:

"In Loving vs. Virginia the Court ruled not only that the ban on racial intermarriage violated the equal protection clause, but also-on unnecessary and confusing ground that it violated substantive due process by invading a fundamental 'right to marry.' [This]...raises many questions about laws forbidding marriage between people who are related or of the same sex."

So to make sure I'm clear, in the case of Connecticut and Mass, you agree then that there should be no difference in pecking order between gay couples and straight since gay marriage there is 100% legal, and in the case of Mass, has been for a few years now.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in several places, including California. Prop 8 was designed to circumvent that law on the issue of marriage.

So putting homosexual couples below hetero couples would be illegal. Unless the law were specifically written to allow only married couples to adopt, which is not the case in California.

It's a tough question, and I'm not sure I have an answer. My obvious concern is that when the supreme court rules, it will be withing 1-2 votes one way or another, and whatever they decide will over-ride any state based laws.

Again, my worry is stability, so I would still argue for that to be taken into account in the vetting process, but certainly I would argue for more couples in Mass to be granted adoptions compared to other states without similar laws.

You worry was not stability, at least according to your prior arguments. It was about outside stigmatization. And the vetting process wouldn't root out anti-gay society concerns at large.

That's why I keep asking, and what makes the stigma argument against gay adoption such a weak one. The stigma will always exist, just as the interracial stigma still exists after 40 years. 100% legalization won't change that. And even if it did, it wouldn't happen overnight. So arguing based on 100% legality, using the stigma argument, also makes no sense.

Well, the problem is that the alternative (not being adopted at all, living in various foster homes or orphanages) is worse, isn't it? I see these kids every day in the court system, and that's never a happy situation for these kids.

I would agree that the perfect thing is to be adopted by a heterosexual couple at this stage, but I can't imagine that whatever discrimination these kids get from the bigots out there in the world is worse than being carted from foster home to foster home. Better to be with someone who loves you and wants you.

We can't have a perfect world after all... sometimes you choose the best option available.

Here in the Poconos of Pennsylvania, I have seen gay couples be foster parents and adopt, and we don't even have a gay rights law as far as I know... but the local Children and Youth Organization does it, no judge ever questions it, and it's worked out so far. I was fairly pleased when I moved here and noticed that when I was assigned C&Y cases, and this isn't some crazy liberal stronghold -- we're pretty evenly split here between republicans and democrats, for instance.

I think this may be a bigger problem in the Bible Belt states I guess.

That's awesome.