Friday, 25 January 2008

Where to begin?

Where do I begin?

Well, I disagree totally. As good a place as any to start I guess.

The heart of Raphael's argument is The reason I oppose gay adoption is that it does not suit the needs of the child to grow up in a family representative of one man and one woman. For a child to grow up in a socially cohesive manner, that child should be provided paternal role models of both genders.

The best counter-argument is this, or this, or this. parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families, a Justice Department study has concluded.

I agree that children benefit when raised by two parents. But both parents have to be well-adjusted individuals that take their duties as parents responsibly.

The idea that the traditional nuclear family is best is based on the false premise that heterosexual couples are naturally better parents. It is the individual that makes the parent, not the sex or sexual orientation of the individual. As an extreme case, would you rather a child be adopted by Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka or by Rick Mercer and Gerald Lunz?

Which illustrates the main issue surrounding who is allowed to adopt. It is about children needing a home that provides a loving and nurturing environment. Couples that wish to adopt are put through an extensive process to prove their fitness as parents. If the only requirement were to be in heterosexual relationship, you'd be able to pick up a new kid at the Quickie Mart on the way home from work.

If a same-sex couple "passes" the tests and meets the requirements, let 'em adopt. That child will do a lot better than if they were left to languish without a home.

5 comments:

Raphael Alexander said...

Hello Catelli,

I have no doubt that homosexuals can be good parents, but that isn't what my argument is based on. It's based on the biological need for a child to have a maternal and paternal role model. That is normal, and how life has been for children for thousands of years.

You did agree that a child benefits when raised by two parents, and the core part of your argument is based on those parents needing to be good parents, rather than what their sexual orientation is. Fair enough. But given a choice between two good heterosexual parents and two good homosexual parents, there is no doubt that a parental unit of two genders is a far better course to take.

You cite extreme examples, but such extreme examples can be used to dissuade any argument. I mean, looking at the state of our civilization we should all be sterilized.

I understand the needs of children to be adopted. But I think agencies should make every care to find a heterosexual couple first. The needs of the child deserve it.

Catelli said...

But given a choice between two good heterosexual parents and two good homosexual parents, there is no doubt that a parental unit of two genders is a far better course to take.

OK I'll accept that (I have my doubts about that conclusion).

But it presumes that all other factors being equal, homosexual and heterosexual prospective parents will be in competition with each other.

Did you know that one of the criteria for adoption in Ontario is similar race? Say you have a gay, black couple wanting to adopt a black child against a hetero white couple? Which is the better fit?

I'd say race myself, but we haven't even looked at income, whether one parent is stay-at-home, housing conditions, educational opportunities, etc. etc. etc.

Sexual orientation is one factor out of many, and yes while it might have bearing, it is outweighed by the combination of all factors in choosing a suitable home.

Raphael Alexander said...

Did you know that one of the criteria for adoption in Ontario is similar race? Say you have a gay, black couple wanting to adopt a black child against a hetero white couple? Which is the better fit?

It's a tricky question, but I think the heterosexual couple would be more able to rear the child. Whatever cultural considerations might exist are secondary to the needs of the child to have the proper, or preferable, gender role models.

Finding a suitable home is important, as are economic and social factors. But if I were to be honest about my main concern, I think every person should have a right to one mother and one father. Nobody should have to say they don't have a father, when the adoption agency has a choice and is able to provide that option.

Catelli said...

My last argument is the comments found here

While having gay parents may open a child to some of the same factors expressed, read the whole thing and see you still have the same thoughts.

Adoption is a complex issue, and I think it is a mistake to totally eliminate any couple based on heritage, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Adoption agencies should strive to make the best match possible in the best interests of the child.

For us to say who is or is not best is unwanted and unnecessary interference.

Ken Breadner said...

Y'know, this is a painful topic for me, because my wife and I were found unfit to adopt after that home study you cited. And let me tell you, that was GRUELING.
Having gone through the process almost to its conclusion, I can tell you that at least here in Waterloo Region, Children's Aid is VERY open to same-sex adoptive parents.
And I side with Catelli on this one...
Re: gender role models--these are stereotypes and nothing more. I also sense in here somewhere an appeal to tradition--"this is the way we've always done it, ergo it's obviously the best way" sort of thinking. Barring breast milk, there's nothing two men can't give a child that a man and woman can't.