« Good news about climate change! | Main | The interminable "sovereignty vs. human rights" debate »

March 30, 2007

Gay Adoption

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

It's a year and a half old, but I liked this semi-long article on gay adoption from everyone's favorite libertarian, Julian Sanchez. It covers a lot of ground, including the shift in cultural attitudes towards acceptance of gay adoption and the consensus among academic researchers, social workers, psychologists, and pediatricians in favor of it.

March 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

What's interesting is that lesbians that are splitting up are facing the same problems that divorced men have had. Namely that the birth mother uses the courts to keep the non-birth mother from seeing her child, even going so far as to file false charges of domestic violence.

About Isabella

Recent court fights are actually threatening the gains that gays have won.

Lesbian asks court to ban gay adoptions

Never hear about that stuff at this blog though. You won't write about the problems divorced fathers face. You won't write about feminists that abuse the courts.

Maybe you will write about it when it happens to Lesbians?

Posted by: anon | Mar 30, 2007 8:39:45 PM

Hey, I thought everyone's favorite libertarian was Jim Henley.

Posted by: KCinDC | Mar 30, 2007 8:52:48 PM

Good article, Neil.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 30, 2007 10:02:33 PM

Never hear about that stuff at this blog though.

I think we just did.

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 30, 2007 11:12:38 PM

I wonder if Robert Talton ("I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages") also thinks that abortion should be legally prohibited and thinks more women should give their babies up for adoption rather than aborting. I can't know for sure, but I would guess "yes."

Posted by: Julian Elson | Mar 31, 2007 1:08:54 AM

I wonder if Robert Talton ("I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages") also thinks that abortion should be legally prohibited and thinks more women should give their babies up for adoption rather than aborting. I can't know for sure, but I would guess "yes."

Posted by: Julian Elson | Mar 31, 2007 1:39:13 AM

I'll have you know I voted for Clinton twice. I voted for Russ Feingold. There's this little thing called "9/11," maybe you've heard of it.

Garance used her tricks on my mind to make me explode like that, I mean, not explode. To make me call her on her character assassinating language, I mean.

Did you know that Barack Obama can infiltrate your mind and take over your thoughts? It's true.

Mark Schmitt said it's like he's Lex Luthor.

It's true.

See?

Right here: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=192&cid=952&in=42:00

I blogged about Obama's nefarious mind-control powers here: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=192&cid=952&in=42:00


—Ann Althouse, Professor of Law

Posted by: Ann Althouse | Mar 31, 2007 3:15:22 AM

I'm a 'greatest good for the greatest number' advocate generally, and child adoption of any kind (that doesn't include child predators of either sex or sexual orientation) seems like an unmitigated good for both the parents and kids, in spite of the ugly outcomes that can occur with divorce. And my feeling isn't colored by any prejudice with foster parents, but is colored by my strong prejudice against children being raised in institutions without caring adults in thier immediate day to day lives.

One of the real major downsides of our federal system is that states can enact laws and regulations that make such significant differences in the lives of people who are all US citizens and a separated only by lines on a map that define state boundaries. Yes, states can function as laboratories of democracy as is often said, but when Oregon and California allow gay adoptions but Utah, right next door, outlaws it, then something is definitely wrong. This kind of arbitrary distinction of the rights of citizens seems so 18th century - in an age when interstate highways and airlines make those state lines so invisible.

From the article: Opponents of gay parenting, for the most part, have been forced to fall back on the assertion that the jury's still out. Noting--correctly--that none of the research on children of gay couples made use of the large random samples that generate the most robust results, they claim studies to date provide no basis for supposing that gay parents won't be inferior. (emphasis added)

This kind of thinking reminds me of the arguments of those who claim no hard evidence that global warming is do to the activities of mankind, and that global warming hasn't been proven. Science, whether physical or social, won't pursuade the naysayers. When an issue is added to the wingnut conservative agenda, logic, science, compassion, empathy and the other positive aspects of society must give way to their twisted thinking because they say it is so. This is cultism, not religion, in my mind, just like the cultists who can see no evil in the programs and actions of the Bush/Cheny totalitarians.

Sometimes I think it would be comforting to believe in Hell, and that these cultists would be together in unity, being for eternity roasting in the fires together. But I don't believe that.

But they must be resisted, so I will resist.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 31, 2007 3:27:01 AM

sorry, again, for not ending the italics

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 31, 2007 3:30:18 AM

damn! Too late for commenting, I guess.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 31, 2007 3:31:32 AM

This is pretty interesting.

It makes one wonder what other deviant group this push for inclusion will recast a 'natural', again, with no new research and no new evidence?
It's a fair question. In other treads, this need to change felons into victims shows that the bigger picture is more than just the homosexuals. With this desire and this new ability, the left will surely not stop there.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 9:20:12 AM

Fred, you apparently didn't read the article, and you apparently didn't read the threads you were commenting in about ex-felons voting either. "Natural" and "victim" are your own fixations.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 12:18:11 PM

And those of most people. In this bubble, you wish to compare tiny experimental ideas with more tried and established ideas and say they should have equal consideration and weight. They might...TO *YOU*

Which coast do you live on?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 3:44:03 PM

Say Fred, do you believe that gay parents should be deprived of their biological offspring?

Posted by: WB Reeves | Mar 31, 2007 3:54:40 PM

Great Question, Mr. Reeves, and I don't have a clear-cut answer for you. I don't think homosexual parents provide an ideal imprint for children. That being said, a homosexual parent has rights and one of those rights is to be in charge of his child's upbringing without interference. All of law is a balancing act between rights. As I said, I'm not sure of the answer, but my instinct tells me that the parents right would trump.

If that's how they wish to live, great. What irritates the rest of us is this push to change the whole world to suite their anomaly, not the fact that they are homosexual.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 4:11:47 PM

As before, Fred, you're just ignoring the facts. There is no evidence for your fears. None. On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence to show that kids raised by gay parents do just fine, much to the disappointment of those prejudiced against gays, who claim to be concerned about the kids. When you want to know the truth, the evidence is there for you to examine. In the mean time, you'll cling to your prejudices rather than the facts.

You have odd delusions about gays changing the whole world. Letting gays marry and adopt children won't change your little world at all.

I probably live further from a coast than you do, not that it matters.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 5:05:42 PM

You might say the same thing about people using heroin in the privacy of their own homes or even prostitution and you would be right in the short run. I can give you no direct negative effect. What I believe is that accepting sexual perversion, prostitution or drug usage as ordinary and unremarkable is generally bad for society. To hold up perversion as an acceptable role and that indirectly it affects me greatly as it changes the society in which I live.

Now, that's what I hold to be true. It's also what the rest of the world holds to be true. That's why there are pretty much universal laws against prostitution and drug use. Why would anyone single out perversion for an exception?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 6:56:17 PM

You might say the same thing about people using heroin in the privacy of their own homes or even prostitution and you would be right in the short run. I can give you no direct negative effect. What I believe is that accepting sexual perversion, prostitution or drug usage as ordinary and unremarkable is generally bad for society. To hold up perversion as an acceptable role and that indirectly it affects me greatly as it changes the society in which I live.

Now, that's what I hold to be true. It's also what the rest of the world holds to be true. That's why there are pretty much universal laws against prostitution and drug use. Why would anyone single out perversion for an exception?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 6:56:17 PM

Fred Jones, circa 1910, If women are allowed to vote, it will change everything, and civilization will end.

Fred Jones, circa 1954. If the coloreds are allowed to marry the whites and we get rids of Jim Crow, it will change everything, and civilization will end.

Fred Jones, circa 2007, If the gays marry or adopted, it will change everything, and civilization will end.

The difference here? Nothing except it's 2007. Same shit, different group. At least hatred is consistent in its rational if not its grouping.

Posted by: akaison | Mar 31, 2007 7:24:05 PM

ps a very conservative history professor and lawyer used to say "the history of america is including new groups in the rights that everyone else already enjoys. the only difference is getting everyone else to admit that's what's happening." pretend, if you must, that new rights are being created here, but neither history nor the law agrees.

Posted by: akaison | Mar 31, 2007 7:26:35 PM

Fred, we went through all of this thoroughly here. You weren't able to give any good arguments or evidence then, and you're still giving the same bad arguments without any evidence, even after they've been thoroughly refuted. This is pure prejudice on your part. If you ever decide the truth is more important than your prejudices, it won't take you long to figure things out.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 7:49:48 PM

I dont have any problem with gay adoption as LONG as its an alternative to foster homes, orphanages, or abusive parents.

However, gays ability to adopt should NOT be equal to heteros.

Lets assume you have 2 couples who want to adopt, one gay and one straight, no abuse issues, both make good money, both look like they would be stable parents.

IN that scenario, the hetero couple should ABSOLUTELY have priority over hte gay couple. The BEST home for a child is a man and woman in a stable relationship. The SECOND BEST home is a gay couple in a stable relationship.

Posted by: joe blow | Mar 31, 2007 8:14:13 PM

Why, joe?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 8:28:29 PM

Because men and women are different each with unique viewpoints on the world and children benefit from having primary caregivers of both genders.

Yes, gay parents are better than no parents or abusive parents, or rotating foster homes. But they are not equivalent to hetero couples.

Posted by: joe blow | Mar 31, 2007 9:16:57 PM

I believe Mr. Blow is correct. Homosexual parents are not the ideal imprint, but they may be better than nothing.

Also, listening to many on this board argue with passion for homosexual 'rights', just remember that many of them are themselves homosexual. It's like arguing with a four year old why he can't have ice cream for dinner.

So which politician you back promotes this? Obama? Clinton? Edwards? If your views are so sensible, why aren't any of these guys running on this platform?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 9:24:55 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.