Should queers be allowed to adopt anything other than goldfish...?

Should queers be allowed to adopt anything other than goldfish...?


...and other lifeforms generally considered expendable?

I don't know how to make threads. (Am I even doing this right?)

I'm sure you're all tired of anything even remotely related to what two consenting adult members of the same sex do in private.

Well, I'm here to ruin your day.

----

Topic: the adoption of children by LGBT parents.

I propose that the criteria used to determine whether a person or persons is fit for adoption be the same for all members of society, regardless of sexual orientation. I also propose that the criteria follow a form of methodology that is rational and less prone to personal bias and subjective judgments of ill-defined and unmeasurable conditions. Lastly, I think the criteria should follow pre-existing criteria for adoption and for government intervention in domestic situations.

As a disclaimer, these statements are based off of the American system.

Argument:
The discrimination that a child is projected to experience based on his/her parents' perceived sexual orientation is not acceptable criteria on which to judge the prospective parent(s)'s fitness for adoption rights.

Specific points:
1. Current factors determining abuse and unsafe living conditions for children.
2. Current qualifying factors for adoption by non-LGBT persons.
3. Social stigma and "gay empowerment."

Background1:
Currently, Child Protective Services may remove a child from the custody of his/her biologicalparents if those parents are found to be negligent or abusive. CPS has a methodology in use to determine when a case warrants that the child be removed from that home. Criteria for this includes:

1) Physically injury by other than accidental means. 
2) Willful cruelty or unjustifiable punishment. 
3) Sexual exploitation. 
4) Inadequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision.

All of these criteria are applicable to the primary caretakers (http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/pg93.htm).

Analysis1:
The discrimination that a child may experience from society outside of his/her home is not a part of the criteria currently used by CPS to define abuse or neglect. To my knowledge, there have been no cases in which a child was ever removed from his/her biological parents because of the discrimination that the child faced from sources outside the home as a result of the child's race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation, or as a result of the parent(s)' race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.

It is to be expected that adoption criteria will almost always be higher than the guidelines used to decide when a situation is abusive or harmful to a child. However, it is reasonable to expect that the qualifications are not to be set above what is reasonably achievable by persons of average capabilities.

With the current methodologies in place for determining whether or not a home situation is safe or suitable for a child, the criteria used for child adoption by LGBT parents should not deviate too far from it, unless all existing methodologies are to be re-evaluated and applied to all sectors of society that deal with child welfare (this refers to public agencies only; private agencies are permitted favoritism on the basis of such factors as religious affiliation and ethnicity).

If discrimination from sources outside of the home is considered to be a negative factor serious enough to warrant that a child not be adopted by LGBT parents, then the reasoning follows that all children who face discrimination outside of the home are in serious enough danger that they must also be put up for consideration for removal from their current homes by government agencies so that they may be placed in environments in which they will face less discrimination.

On the other hand, if it is the opinion of society that children who grow up facing discrimination--due to such conditions as the racial heritage of their own biological parents, for example--are not in enough danger either physically or mentally to warrant their removal from home, then it is illogical to implement the notion that children who face discrimination due to the sexual orientation of their adoptive parents warrant being denied a permanent home.

Background2:
Current qualifications for adoption vary by region and agency. Based on a few summaries (the most comprehensive being: http://adopting.adoption.com/child/r...e-parents.html), neither racial nor ethnic minority status, nor any other factor which may lead to discrimination outside the home, is given as a disqualifying factor.

However, one common qualifying factor for adoption is a prospective parent's health. The basis of this factor is to avoid unnecessary trauma that would be brought on by a parent's early death before the child has a chance to mature. However, the type of occupation that a parent is employed in (as long as it is legal employment) rarely warrants consideration, even if one parent is employed in a high risk field. This is because a severe medical condition is simply more dire, and the outcome is more easily predicted and reliable. Death while working in a risky profession is circumstantial; the chances of it happening merge in with what is generally considered an acceptable risk that is an unavoidable part of life.

Analysis2:
Discrimination is circumstantial. There is no guarantee that a child with LGBT parents will certainly experience it, or to what degree, just as there is no guarantee that a child with a police officer for a parent will absolutely lose that parent before a certain age. If allowing a police officer to adopt a child is acceptable, if the risk due to that parent's profession is deemed an acceptable risk because it is circumstantial, then the risk of discrimination due to a parent's perceived sexual orientation is no less a disqualifying factor, as it is also circumstantial.

Also, facing discrimination is not considered to be detrimental to a child on the level of experiencing the death of a parent at a young age, or enduring abuse and neglect. The current criteria takes parent medical history, criminal history, and income status into account to avoid these situations, and such conditions may be disqualifying factors. But to apply a higher standard to LGBT parents than what is commonly used to disqualify other applicants is an inconsistent practice. If discrimination is to be made a factor because it is deemed serious enough to be a factor, it makes no sense to withhold that factor from other circumstances in which it might come into play.

Such circumstances would include the status of the child and/or of the parent(s) as racial or ethnic minorities. If discrimination were a disqualifying factor, should minorities be allowed to adopt at all, even children of their own race or ethnicity? Wouldn't a white couple be preferrable because the parents would be less subjected to discrimination?

However, even if the parents are white, if the child is a minority, the child will be subject to prejudice. Then this raises the question of whether or not parents of the same race would be more able to relate to what their child is going through. But if both the parents and the child are minorities, wouldn't that make them as a whole more disadvantaged in society, regardless of how they are able to relate to each other?

Given the above scenario, if discrimination were a disqualifying factor, any choice would be a bad choice. If facing prejudice in society is to be taken to be as detrimental as abuse or negligence, then logic follows that all minority children, regardless of the race or ethnicity of their parents, are SOL.

Are we?

None of these considerations are quantifiable. The decision is too subjective and too reflective of personal bias. The variables cannot be isolated. As a general rule, this factor cannot be applied to all circumstances, and not with any consistency.

Minority children didn't get to choose their biological parents. And it is arrogant to presume that we would have chosen differently had we known the circumstances prior to birth.

Every person is born as something that is offensive to someone else. Everyone is open to scrutiny by society. Everyone is judged. The possibility of facing discrimination is unavoidable. There is no one who lives free from that risk. So it is not a part of the established adoption criteria because it is a factor that extends beyond what is reasonably controllable by the average person.

It is also unreasonable to project that for every LGBT couple denied adoption rights, there will be an equally suitable heterosexual couple available to assume the vacated role. Currently, the number of children in foster care generally outnumber the number adopted (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...ars/trends.htm). As such, denying suitable LGBT candidates on the basis of sexual orientation alone would be denying a child a permanent home and family.

Background3:
It has been argued that allowing LGBT adoption is a political move for "gay empowerment" that occurs at the expense of the child.

Analysis3:
If the main detrimental factor to a child of LGBT parents is the social stigma attached to LGBT-ism, then "gay empowerment" is a movement that would benefit adopted children by helping remove the stigma. Allowing members of the LGBT community to take on responsibilities deemed "normal" would promote the view of the community as "normal." Like the rest of the "gay empowerment" agenda, the aim is to further the cause of tolerance by assimilating certain LGBT persons into mainstream society. Allowing LGBT adoption and furthering "gay empowerment" could help make life easier for those families by helping remove the one barrier that is often brought up against them.

Conclusion:
I like pie. And goldfish.


And I like this line of logic!