Opposition to gay adoption ought to be reasoned
Ed Morrisey, the legendary blogger at Captain's Quarters who now blogs at Hot Air, has written a reasoned and balanced piece questioning whether Republicans should necessarily and in all instances oppose the adoption of children by gays.
His position is as follows: 1) It would be far better if children were adopted by heterosexual, married couples, but 2) if this is impossible, it would probably be better in most cases for kids to be adopted by gay couples than to have to grow up in institutions.
Hey. I personally don't think that heterosexual couples who aren't married should be allowed to adopt. Such couples often ask what difference a piece of paper makes. The answer is that it apparently makes enough of a difference that they avoid getting that piece of paper despite the fact that it would make adoption a great deal easier.
The difference is that that "piece of paper" represents commitment. The only reason to avoid the piece of paper is to avoid commitment. The difference between living together and being married- the only difference- is that if you don't have "that piece of paper," you can walk out on your partner (and any children) at any moment, without all those messy legal complications.
It's a great setup for the guy. Women and children in such relationships generally get the short end of the stick. It never ceases to amaze me how many seemingly intelligent women- even feminists!- allow themselves to be suckered into these inherently exploitative relationships seemingly without a clue that they're consenting to being used.
Study after study shows that the ideal environment for a child to grow up in is a stable family in which there is a male parent and a female parent. Feminist ideology to the contrary, girls who grow up in homes without a father tend to have difficulty relating to men the rest of their lives. Boys who grow up without a mother have difficulty in relating to women. This is not to say that there are not exceptions to the rule, or that every child who grows up in a home that doesn't feature both a live-in mother and a live-in father is doomed. But it is to say that growing up is tough enough, and kids don't need that kind of curve thrown at them.
That said, all things considered, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer to have a child raised in even such an unstable and inherently problematic situation if the alternative were growing up in an institution, with no parents at all.
I feel the same way about gay adoption. I oppose the acceptance of homosexuality as just another healthy, normal lifestyle; healthy, normal lifestyles do not generally shorten the lifespans of those who engage in them. And I am well aware that one of the reasons why some homosexuals seek the right to adopt is for the purpose of "mainstreaming" their lifestyle (the evidence overwhelmingly supports the premise that homosexual orientation is not chosen; lifestyle is another matter).
But I think Captain Ed is right. Better- at least as a general principle- that Heather have two mommies or two daddies than no mommy and no daddy, and only an institution as a parent.
Note that Captain Ed does not say that this is a good idea. He only says that, of two less than ideal situations, the one that offers the kid at least the possibility of a loving home is better than the one that does not.
I'm really, really discouraged, though, by the comments on the good Captain's post. As a general rule, it almost seems that the commenters don't understand Ed's point. He does not endorse homosexual behavior. He does not say that he regards adoption by gay couples as a good idea. He merely says that, of two less-than-ideal situations, he would prefer that a kid be adopted by a gay couple that will love him than that he grow up institutionalized and unloved by anybody.
The spate of Bible passages quoted by those commenters are all well and good, but those who quoted them don't seem to realize that they have nothing to do with the post.
I'm not saying that the issue isn't debatable. But it would be nice if those who expressed disagreement with the good Captain would debate it, instead of arguing so vociferously against a position he made it very clear that he does not hold.
What gripes me about those comments isn't their disapproval of either homosexuality or the social acceptance of it. In fact, I agree with that disapproval. The thing that irritates me is that these folks can't seem to stop foaming at the mouth long enough to realize that Captain Ed agrees with them, too- and is making an entirely unrelated point.
Now, if somebody wants to make the case that it is, indeed, always better that a child grow up unloved in an impersonal institution than to be raised even by a loving gay couple who are in all respects other than the example provided by the sexual aspect of their lifestyle able to give the kid what he needs, fine. Then he needs to make that argument, rather than belaboring a point which in no way conflicts with Ed's argument.
HT: Real Clear Politics
His position is as follows: 1) It would be far better if children were adopted by heterosexual, married couples, but 2) if this is impossible, it would probably be better in most cases for kids to be adopted by gay couples than to have to grow up in institutions.
Hey. I personally don't think that heterosexual couples who aren't married should be allowed to adopt. Such couples often ask what difference a piece of paper makes. The answer is that it apparently makes enough of a difference that they avoid getting that piece of paper despite the fact that it would make adoption a great deal easier.
The difference is that that "piece of paper" represents commitment. The only reason to avoid the piece of paper is to avoid commitment. The difference between living together and being married- the only difference- is that if you don't have "that piece of paper," you can walk out on your partner (and any children) at any moment, without all those messy legal complications.
It's a great setup for the guy. Women and children in such relationships generally get the short end of the stick. It never ceases to amaze me how many seemingly intelligent women- even feminists!- allow themselves to be suckered into these inherently exploitative relationships seemingly without a clue that they're consenting to being used.
Study after study shows that the ideal environment for a child to grow up in is a stable family in which there is a male parent and a female parent. Feminist ideology to the contrary, girls who grow up in homes without a father tend to have difficulty relating to men the rest of their lives. Boys who grow up without a mother have difficulty in relating to women. This is not to say that there are not exceptions to the rule, or that every child who grows up in a home that doesn't feature both a live-in mother and a live-in father is doomed. But it is to say that growing up is tough enough, and kids don't need that kind of curve thrown at them.
That said, all things considered, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer to have a child raised in even such an unstable and inherently problematic situation if the alternative were growing up in an institution, with no parents at all.
I feel the same way about gay adoption. I oppose the acceptance of homosexuality as just another healthy, normal lifestyle; healthy, normal lifestyles do not generally shorten the lifespans of those who engage in them. And I am well aware that one of the reasons why some homosexuals seek the right to adopt is for the purpose of "mainstreaming" their lifestyle (the evidence overwhelmingly supports the premise that homosexual orientation is not chosen; lifestyle is another matter).
But I think Captain Ed is right. Better- at least as a general principle- that Heather have two mommies or two daddies than no mommy and no daddy, and only an institution as a parent.
Note that Captain Ed does not say that this is a good idea. He only says that, of two less than ideal situations, the one that offers the kid at least the possibility of a loving home is better than the one that does not.
I'm really, really discouraged, though, by the comments on the good Captain's post. As a general rule, it almost seems that the commenters don't understand Ed's point. He does not endorse homosexual behavior. He does not say that he regards adoption by gay couples as a good idea. He merely says that, of two less-than-ideal situations, he would prefer that a kid be adopted by a gay couple that will love him than that he grow up institutionalized and unloved by anybody.
The spate of Bible passages quoted by those commenters are all well and good, but those who quoted them don't seem to realize that they have nothing to do with the post.
I'm not saying that the issue isn't debatable. But it would be nice if those who expressed disagreement with the good Captain would debate it, instead of arguing so vociferously against a position he made it very clear that he does not hold.
What gripes me about those comments isn't their disapproval of either homosexuality or the social acceptance of it. In fact, I agree with that disapproval. The thing that irritates me is that these folks can't seem to stop foaming at the mouth long enough to realize that Captain Ed agrees with them, too- and is making an entirely unrelated point.
Now, if somebody wants to make the case that it is, indeed, always better that a child grow up unloved in an impersonal institution than to be raised even by a loving gay couple who are in all respects other than the example provided by the sexual aspect of their lifestyle able to give the kid what he needs, fine. Then he needs to make that argument, rather than belaboring a point which in no way conflicts with Ed's argument.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments