300 Spartans had the way! Frank milller: Were all spoiled.

[IJ]

"it's unhealthy for the Species."

I assume you would forbid smokers, the obese, the inactive, or those who eat at McDonalds from adopting? Your council of adoptive parent permit granters would be an interesting and busy little group, I would imagine. There is a reason why social worth considerations were taken out of panelists hands for the matter of organ donation receipt....

Now, you may have read my last post, in which I pointed out that the population is exploding, and that this carries certain risks for us, such as pollution, loss of habitat, scarce resources. Wouldn't you agree that a little reproductive RESTRAINT might actually be "good for the species?" Or, once again, are you proposing that the sexually abstinent, the infertile, the elderly are all "bad" for the species and therfore ought not to adopt children (and why not by extension, take their own children from them?)

"folks are doing stuff that is not intended for the species."

Intended by whom? .....natural selection? Um, God? If so, whose God? Your God? Would you like to live in a state where your view of God decides who can raise children, or be viewed as full members of society? You better hope there's no revolution in which YOU become the disfavored element (as happened in Iraq, just 4 years ago). MY preference is to live in a free country where one can practice religion but not impose religious views on others. America IS a gleaming beacon of freedom and hope for the world in this regard.

"what about Paedephiles..shouldn't they be shown more compassion ..what they do can be of benefit to the species survival ."

I would believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and pedophilia are probably in large part in born and influenced somewhat by nuture... with the expression of those feelings largely determined by culture. There are no gay bars in Kabul to my knowledge. So what does that tell us? You appear to be making the "slippery slope" argument, that if we normalize homosexuality we will soon have to marry a goat to a typewriter to a young boy and his mother. I'm not sure there's much of a risk there myself. First and foremost in any sexual relationship is consent. This is why sex with a drunk person is punished. The same applies to children and animals (who cannot consent), and family members (coercion is implied because of family dynamics), and to a lesser extent, employees and students, for whom there are frequent policies forbidding relationships (such as where I work). No one is being coerced into anything when two sober adults of any sex agree to have a relationship. I don't see how this is going to lead to pedophilia. Perhaps you could make a more detailed case? When you do, remember that the definition of marriage has changed considerably over the years and still varies considerably around the world. If you employed the slippery slope argument from ancient times, we would still have:

--marriage arranged by the parents and against the will of those involved
--marriage of female children (somtimes many) to older men (still happens; what does this say about the superiority of heterosexuality?)
--marriage as an ownership contract.
--marriage as implying consent for sex at all times (as was Texas law as recently as the 70s, if memory serves).
--marriage as indisolvable even if the husband was abusive (a woman wrote a book about mormonism after being excommunicated for sticking to this piece of advice).

Do you disagree with the changes that have already occured to traditional marriage? Or would you argue that marriage, once defined, should never have changed? If you, like almost all, agree that these changes were wise or at least justified, would you then admit that we should judge changes on their individual merit and not whether they merely represent a change?

Here's something relevant from the data side of things. All are retreived from a pubmed search of "homosexuality + adoption" going back to 1991; the last two deal with "etiology" so to speak, more than adoption, but that issue has also been raised.

Hum Reprod Update. 2001 Sep-Oct;7(5):512-9. Lesbian couples requesting donor insemination: an update of the knowledge with regard to lesbian mother families. Baetens P, Brewaeys A.

Although a variety of ways exist of becoming a lesbian mother, an increasing number of lesbian couples have began to visit fertility centres requesting donor insemination (DI). The practice of inseminating lesbian couples remains a controversial issue within the reproductive medicine world. Lesbian mothers offer their children a familial context, which differs on a number of important characteristics from the traditional heterosexual family. In lesbian families, a father has been absent right from the start, and the child is raised by two mothers. The present article reviews whether there is any theoretical and/or empirical evidence for the most common assumptions with regard to lesbian motherhood. It also reports on a number of studies in which the practice of counselling lesbian couples is discussed. Although many important research questions have yet to be addressed, none of the investigations carried out so far could identify an adverse effect of lesbian motherhood on child development. Counselling lesbian couples for DI should aim to provide information about the practical aspects of the treatment. The requests of lesbian couples, however, differ substantially from those of single mothers and heterosexual couples. Counsellors should respect these differences and focus upon the specific living conditions of lesbian families.

-----------------
Child Welfare. 2006 Mar-Apr;85(2):281-98. Links
Gay, lesbian, and bisexual foster parents: strengths and challenges for the child welfare system.Downs AC, James SE.
Casey Family Programs, Seattle, WA, USA.

Historically, a shortage of skilled and dedicated foster parents has existed in America. Lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LBG) foster parents have received little attention in the published literature. This article documents the challenges and successes of a group of 60 LGB foster parents. All participants provided foster parenting for public (state or county) agencies. The primary successes of this group included meaningful and gratifying parenting and successful testing of whether adoption might be a natural next step after foster parenting. The primary challenges included insensitive, inappropriate, and difficult social workers; state or local laws that worked against successful foster parenting by LGB adults; failure to recognize parents' partners; and lack of support by the system to acknowledge the important role of LGB parents. Numerous recommendations are identified for improving how LGB foster parents are supported within child welfare systems including foster parent and social worker training in LGB issues.

--------------------------

J Biosoc Sci. 2004 May;36(3):371-4. Links
The sexual orientation of men who were brought up in gay or lesbian households.James WH.
The Galton Laboratory, University College London.

Elsewhere the author has suggested that adolescent and adult male homosexual orientation is, in some cases, causally associated with sexual or quasi-sexual experience in childhood (James, 2004). Here it is argued that the available data on men raised by same-sex parents cannot validly be interpreted as supporting or refuting this suggestion.

----------------------------

Med Law. 1995;14(5-6):359-68. Links
Sexual orientation of parents and Dutch family law.van Nijnatten CH.
Department of General Social Sciences, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.

A few years ago, the Dutch government asked for advice about the legal consequences of various living arrangements. One of the main issues concerned the legal consequences thereof for children. In a letter to parliament, the Dutch cabinet confirmed that couples of the same sex would be excluded from being awarded children for adoption. Legal and psychological reasons play an important role in the reasoning of the Dutch government. The harmonious development of children is supposed to be at risk when the child is reared by two adults of the same sex. This article sets out psychological theories and the results of recent research which contradict the argumentation presented in a number of recent reports published by the government. The outcome of most research is that gay and lesbian parents 'perform' as well as heterosexual parents. Excluding lesbian and gay parents from taking responsibility for children seems to be a poor policy which does not take into account the social capacities of the population.


----------------

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7351/1407
BMJ 2002;324:1407-1408 ( 15 June )
Editorials: Adoption by lesbian couples: Is it in the best interests of the child?

-----------------------

Soc Work. 2001 Apr;46(2):147-57. Links
Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: can they meet the needs of waiting children?Brooks D, Goldberg S.
School of Social Work, University of Southern California, MRF Bldg., Room 214, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411, USA. devonbro@usc.edu

Although the number of children in need of adoptive homes is growing, the number of prospective adoptive parents is decreasing. On the basis of an extensive review of relevant literature, the present study explored a potentially viable although controversial and little-researched option for increasing the pool of prospective parents: adoptions by gay men and lesbians. Data for this study were collected from child welfare workers and gay and lesbian adoptive and foster parents. A content analysis of the data suggests that gay men and lesbians experience considerable and seemingly unjustified obstacles in their efforts to become adoptive and foster parents. Major implications for practice and policy are offered, as are future directions for research.

------------------

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 10/2/419-a
PEDIATRICS Vol. 110 No. 2 August 2002, pp. 419-420
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
Ana Martín-Ancel, MD
This one expresses concern that homosexuality rates may be higher in adoptive kids of LGB parents and that the data is incomplete.

------------------------
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475
Brain aromatase: dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality.Morris JA, Gobrogge KL, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM. Endocrinology. 2004 Feb;145(2):475-7.

(Comment on: Endocrinology. 2004 Feb;145(2):478-83. Epub 2003 Oct 2.
The volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the ovine medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus varies with sexual partner preference.Roselli CE, Larkin K, Resko JA, Stellflug JN, Stormshak F. )

Excerpt:
Interestingly, so far there has been more evidence that early androgens might play a role in homosexuality in women than in men. There are recent reports of three previously unsuspected body markers that seem to reflect fetal androgen in humans. The markers are quite varied, involving the ears (the production of tiny sounds by the cochlea), the eyes (eye-blink reflexes), and the fingers (the pattern of relative finger lengths). Yet in each case, there is a sex difference in function or structure, and in each case lesbians display characteristics that are more male-like compared with heterosexual women (9, 10, 11). These same putative somatic markers of early androgen have provided conflicting results when comparing homosexual and heterosexual men (11, 12, 13). The conflicting results in men suggest that some boys may turn out homosexual as a result of lower-than-normal fetal androgen, some may result from higher-than-normal levels, and some may turn out homosexual for reasons having nothing to do with androgens. For sheep, Roselli et al. (4) have some evidence that male-oriented rams receive lower-than-normal androgen stimulation of the brain.
(snip)
If the results pan out this way, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle choice rather than an ingrained property of the human heart.

-----------------------

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Dec;48(12):1089-96. Links
Comment in:
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993 Mar;50(3):240-1.
A genetic study of male sexual orientation.Bailey JM, Pillard RC.
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 60208.

Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias. However, the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports. A proband's self-reported history of childhood gender non-conformity did not predict homosexuality in relatives in any of the three subsamples. Thus, childhood gender nonconformity does not appear to be an indicator of genetic loading for homosexuality. Cotwins from concordant monozygotic pairs were very similar for childhood gender nonconformity.

[jorvik]

Lewis Caroll was a paedophile .so your point is??

Ian
Quote
"none of the investigations carried out so far could identify an adverse effect of lesbian motherhood on child development "

surely then you could make the same point with single Mothers.....unless one of the women pretends they are a man .....and frankly this is one of the things that I do not understand about homosexuals.Why do you have girly boys, ponces who try to look like women...or for that matter Dykes who try to look like men .....if you really love your own sex then why does one of you have to pretend that they belong to the other .....................I watch "Queer eye for the straight guy " ( I do value homosexual opinion on dress sense etc ).....but why don't you get hairy arsed construction workers or rodeo riders...why do they always work in cosmetics ).Am I stereo typing

[Bill Glasheen]

Pedophilia and homosexuality are separate, unrelated issues. One can exist without the other, and vice versa.

Simple enough?

- Bill

[Valkenar]

and before you ask, the same applies to heterosexuals who cannot pro create

So the only people who should be able to adopt children are those who could have children but choose not to? Why should that be? It's not like the "inferior" genetics of the parents are going to be passed on to the adopted children. Also, is it really better to have that many more orphaned children than it is to allow people who can't reproduce to have the fulfillment that comes with raising a child?

you missed my point about paedophiles

No, I ignored it, since it seemed like a cheap dig. Usually when people compare raping children to consentual sex between adults it's for emotional impact more than as a way of making a logical argument. As Bill explained, the comparison is deeply flawed.

as I've said if white folks cannot adopt black kids why should homosexuals be allowed to adopt heterosexuals

Well I think that's a dumb law too. White parents should be able to adopt black children. You might consider giving black parents priority over white parents (though I think I disagree with that too), but I disagree with a policy that says white parents can't adopt black children. However, I disagree with the premise that adoption is a right that is granted to individuals on a case by case basis. I don't think it's any more of a special privilege to allow homosexual couples to adopt than it is to allow heterosexual couples to adopt - whether or not they could conceive their own children.

[IJ]

"I just don't think that they should be afforded special privileges...."

I agree wholeheartedly. Since heterosexuals can get married, adopt kids, and so on, I should too, but should not be granted any special rights or priviledges. Good point.

"..if they cannot produce kids because of the way they are then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt them..."

Ah, but you're not reading. We can and we do produce kids. Please read my posts.

"and before you ask, the same applies to heterosexuals who cannot pro create"

Well, this puts you at odds in opinion with... gosh, anyone I've ever heard express an opinion on this matter. What is the reason for this? Is there logic behind it? Seriously, you think its ... bad for the kid (?) if a well educated, stable, loving, married, employed, noncriminal, healthy couple that's infertile (say, because of a car accident) adopts a kid? But you would have allowed them to adopt a kid if they hadn't been in the car accident and lost a uterus, but simply chose not to have kids? What difference does it make to their parenting ability? I would love to hear you express, as I have requested more than once, some kind of logic or evidence, rather than just state your rather unusual opinions on this matter.

"...but you missed my point about paedophiles ( I know we spell it correctly here ).shouldn't they be allowed the same rights."

Pedophiles DO have full rights. Child rapists, on the other hand, do have their rights curtailed, and rightly so. *I* would argue that pedophiles may poor adoptive parent candidates, because they are likely to be sexually attracted to their charges, which can screw up their parenting, and because it is well known that sexual abuse of children tends to be recurrent and refractory to intervention. THAT is a reason for denying adoption priviledges.

"and as I've said if white folks cannot adopt black kids why should homosexuals be allowed to adopt heterosexuals."

1) I already explained that white folks CAN adopt black kids. Have you been following the Brangelina adoptions? I understand that YOUR country forbids this, but YOUR country (and mine) also used to have slaves. The existance of a policy doesn't mean that no argument in support of the practice needs to be put forward. Can you JUSTIFY this practice, or not?

2) I already explained that some of those kids are (or are destined to be) homosexual, and yet they're adopted out by straight parents, which is of course fine. Following your logic to its conclusion, you would have to wait until the sexual orientation of the child was known before adoption was feasible. Why are you apparently ok with straights adopting gays and not gays adopting straights?

Thanks in advance for reading all the posts before replying.

[Bill Glasheen]

"..if they cannot produce kids because of the way they are then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt them..."

Ah, but you're not reading. We can and we do produce kids. Please read my posts.

On a side note... A very dear friend of mine (Tara) is now pregnant. She's lesbian, although she has been in some heterosexual relationships in her life. She now lives with her female partner. Parents aren't happy about it... But they're a lot more excited now that Tara is expecting.

I can relate... Most parents one day want to be grandparents.


And the father? Some sperm donor. More often than not, it's some med student who donated to the cause.

Hey, was that you, Ian???

He will be a beautiful baby, I'm sure. And he's lucky to have a set of parents who badly want him.

Funny thing... Way back when she was my research assistant, the rumor around the office was that Tara and I were having an affair. Boy did we have the last laugh when Tara came out of the closet.

I was having too much fun with the joke to inform people otherwise. I never really did give a schit what people thought of me. I'd rather protect my friend's privacy than my own reputation.

- Bill

[jorvik]

Quote
"Pedophilia and homosexuality are separate, unrelated issues. One can exist without the other, and vice versa.

Simple enough?

- Bill

not really Bill
did you mean "paedophilia" I hate it when folks can't spell ........................they are away from the norm and just as relevant or probably as irelevant( to folks in the norm)

[Valkenar]

did you mean "paedophilia" I hate it when folks can't spell

How do you spell the word for things like red, blue and green? Over here we call those "colors" Similarly, we call people who have a sexual interest in children "pedophiles" It's not that we can't spell, it's that American spelling differs from British spelling. Do you criticise or criticize? Same thing.

As to your actual point, are you saying that just because something is different from the norm that makes it bad? Or do you really not see a difference between raping people, causing them immense pain, and having concentual sex with someone of your own sex, causing neither of you any pain?

[jorvik]

Quote
"As to your actual point, are you saying that just because something is different from the norm that makes it bad? Or do you really not see a difference between raping people, causing them immense pain, and having concentual sex with someone of your own sex, causing neither of you any pain?"

sorry I don't really understand this are you saying that Paedophiles have a choice in their sexuality? are you saying that they are less accepable than any other form of sexual deviance..maybe you could clarify that before I answer

[Valkenar]

are you saying that Paedophiles have a choice in their sexuality?

I don't know. There's probably a mix. For the purpose of this argument, I'll accept whichever answer you feel benefits your position.

are you saying that they are less accepable than any other form of sexual deviance..maybe you could clarify that before I answer

Children are harmed when pedophiles rape them. So yes, when it comes to activities that are outside the norm, pedophelia is less acceptable than other forms of sexual expression. If it exists purely as fantasy I may find it personally repugnant, but not unethical.

[IJ]

"Frankly this is one of the things that I do not understand about homosexuals.Why do you have girly boys, ponces who try to look like women...or for that matter Dykes who try to look like men .....if you really love your own sex then why does one of you have to pretend that they belong to the other .....................I watch "Queer eye for the straight guy " ( I do value homosexual opinion on dress sense etc ).....but why don't you get hairy arsed construction workers or rodeo riders...why do they always work in cosmetics ).Am I stereo typing."

That seems like it must be a rhetorical question. But yeah, you're sterotyping. I taught uechi at UVA for 5 years and had studied it 3 years before that. In all of that time (~25 students a semester enrolling) exactly one person realized that the two instructors were dating; she was a lesbian. The rest couldn't tell, although one observed that we "sometimes argued like an old married couple." Have you considered the possibility that the people who get the most attention are the ones trying to get a rise out of you or the ones that make the best press, and that you're missing the rest? For example, perhaps you're more inclined to notice the flagrantly obvious cardiac disease patients (the ones dropping dead in front of you) and fail to notice, or consider, the tons of relatively healthy ones walking around you without drawing attention to themselves? Maybe you've based all your largely negative opinions about people in same sex relationships on the behavior of an obvious minority... I don't recommend that you form opinions about African Americans by only watching "Cops" on Fox for the same reason.

There are many reasons why some same sexers emulate those of the opposite sex. There are historical reasons (eg, at one point in time it was easier to go out to eat if one of the guys could pass as a woman) and cultural reasons (fun breaking taboo, confronting stereotypes, negating negative images by adopting them, the way people have by adopting "queer" which is thus a less effective term of attack), and practical reasons (maybe lesbians hate heels because they're uncomfortable and designed to intrigue men) and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this thread, as this is once again all distraction. You still haven't made a rational argument or presented any facts to justify preventing same sex couples from adopting. I'm all ears.

PS: Bill: Wasn't me

[dejsis]

[....] (maybe lesbians hate heels because they're uncomfortable and designed to intrigue men)

I am not a lesbian but I hate heals. Everything women have to wear are uncomfortable and designed to intrigue men.....ummm actually they are also designed by men--hence the uncomfortable part. They are also very-very unhealthy.

I often wonder why is it that in nature it's almost always the males that "dress" up and the females are the plain ones? Humans sure are a weird species.

[AAAhmed46]

Guys dress up just as much as woman, just different standards of beauty.

And I dont like heels on woman.

[Bill Glasheen]

I often wonder why is it that in nature it's almost always the males that "dress" up and the females are the plain ones? Humans sure are a weird species.

Not true of all species, but...

With birds and similar species, the females are less colorful because they need to blend into the foliage when sitting on nests. A colorful mom will attract the attention of an egg-eating predator. Nature selected for those females who could sit still and look like their surroundings.

Males on the other hand have other roles in the family rearing. And the bright display has to do with mating rituals as opposed to baby rearing.

- Bill

[IJ]

I'm not sure that guys (straight ones at least) spend quite as much time on their appearance... but yeah, its not an either or....