Gay Marriage and Human Rights

MrPudding

I could have sworn there was a thread here or on the other side about a recent case where two French women went to the ECoHR. Anyway, there was a daily mail story which was a bit, well, daily mail...

Nice article here from the Human Rights Blog:

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/03/29/can-a-homosexual-person-adopt-his-or-her-partners-child-the-case-of-gas-and-dubois-v-france/#more-13337

MrP

Delirium

I posted a link to the story on the Hazards thread

Peregrinus

This latest judgment isn’t really directly about gay marriage. The ECHR considered gay marriage in the Schalk & Kopf -v- Austria case in 2010, and concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require states to recognise gay marriage.

This latest case deals with an unmarried gay couple who had registered the French version of a civil partnership and who wished, as a couple, to adopt the biological child of one of them. Had they been a married couple, this would have been permitted (or at least considered). But as a gay couple, they couldn’t marry (in France); they could only register a civil union and, as the parties to a civil union, they couldn’t adopt jointly.

In theory, the couple could have challenged this on (at least) two grounds:

1. Not allowing them to marry was discriminatory, so France should be required to allow them to marry (after which they could have applied to adopt like any married couple).

2. It was discriminatory to allow married couples to adopt but not to allow unmarried couples to do so, at any rate where the couple was unmarried because they were legally unable to marry.

Option 1 was very unlikely to succeed, since the court had already ruled in 2010 that not recognising gay marriage is not against the Convention. It could reverse itself two years later, but that was very, very unlikely. And in the event it didn’t happen. So the case was largely fought on the second ground (which, in the event, did not succeed).

Adoption cases are very difficult ones on which to fight equality claims, since in most countries’ adoption laws the paramount consideration is the interests of the child. Any claim that prospective adopters have a “right” to adopt meets the obvious objection that nobody has a right to adopt; all the rights are with the child. The issue is whether it’s in the child’s best interests to be adopted by an unmarried couple, or by a same-sex couple, and the fact that the couple may be unfairly treated in being denied marriage, or in suffering social or other prejudice as a gay couple, is not really in point; if there is legal discrimination or social prejudice against same-sex couples, then that may be deplorable but so long as it’s a reality it can still suggest that it might not be in a child’s best interests to be placed with a same-sex couple.

The judgment is only out in French but, as far as I can make out, the court essentially said that states can legitimately form the view that an adoptive child needs a stable, committed and permanent relationship, and on that basis they can legitimately confine adoption by couples to adoption by married couples. If it’s legitimate - as Schalk says - to confine marriage to opposite sex couples, then it doesn’t become illegitimate if, as a result of this, same-sex couples are unable to adopt.

While I understand why this is raised on the “Atheism and Agnosticism” board, it’s worth noting that at no stage, either in Schalk or in Gas, are religious considerations against gay marriage or gay adoption advanced or discussed, beyond a brief observation in Schalk that the question of same-sex marriage touched on “a sensitive area of social, political and religious controversy”, and that in the absence of Europe-wide consensus states enjoyed “a wide margin of appreciation”.

the_syco

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. Not allowing them to marry was discriminatory, so France should be required to allow them to marry (after which they could have applied to adopt like any married couple).

Marriage is a process which the main requirement is that a man and a woman is marrying. I wonder could someone challenge the Vatican in an Irish court that they are discriminating against someone based on their sexuality?

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. It was discriminatory to allow married couples to adopt but not to allow unmarried couples to do so, at any rate where the couple was unmarried because they were legally unable to marry.

If marriage is a requirement for adoption, IMO they are pretty much passing the buck in regards the adoption process, in a "we can't let you adopt as your not married, and you can't marry as the church won't let you, so it's out of our hands" thype of way?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

This latest judgment isn’t really directly about gay marriage. The ECHR considered gay marriage in the Schalk & Kopf -v- Austria case in 2010, and concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require states to recognise gay marriage.

I know. That is kind of why I posted the link to the blog. The daily mail, and a number of religious posters were seeing this judgement as a victory for the anti-gay marriage lobby.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In theory, the couple could have challenged this on (at least) two grounds:

1. Not allowing them to marry was discriminatory, so France should be required to allow them to marry (after which they could have applied to adopt like any married couple).

2. It was discriminatory to allow married couples to adopt but not to allow unmarried couples to do so, at any rate where the couple was unmarried because they were legally unable to marry.

Option 1 was very unlikely to succeed, since the court had already ruled in 2010 that not recognising gay marriage is not against the Convention. It could reverse itself two years later, but that was very, very unlikely. And in the event it didn’t happen. So the case was largely fought on the second ground (which, in the event, did not succeed).

Agreed. Option 1 is a loser. Whilst this particular court is not bound by its previous decisions there would be no reason for it to reverse a previous decision without good reason or when the reasons for its previous decision still stood, as they do in this case. What constitutes marriage has been left to the states to decide, and the court is going to stay out of that.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The judgment is only out in French but, as far as I can make out, the court essentially said that states can legitimately form the view that an adoptive child needs a stable, committed and permanent relationship, and on that basis they can legitimately confine adoption by couples to adoption by married couples. If it’s legitimate - as Schalk says - to confine marriage to opposite sex couples, then it doesn’t become illegitimate if, as a result of this, same-sex couples are unable to adopt.

In reality the judgement is a bit of a cop out. The couple had a very nice argument on indirect discrimination that was not really looked at in any depth which I think was unfortunate.

I think this is a case of the court trying very hard not to be too controversial, which is unfortunate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

While I understand why this is raised on the "Atheism and Agnosticism" board, it’s worth noting that at no stage, either in Schalk or in Gas, are religious considerations against gay marriage or gay adoption advanced or discussed, beyond a brief observation in Schalk that the question of same-sex marriage touched on “a sensitive area of social, political and religious controversy”, and that in the absence of Europe-wide consensus states enjoyed “a wide margin of appreciation”.

We talk about many thing on this board that are not related to religion. That said, I think it is interesting, from a religious perspective, as evidenced by your quote from Schalk.

MrP

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is whether it’s in the child’s best interests to be adopted by an unmarried couple, or by a same-sex couple, and the fact that the couple may be unfairly treated in being denied marriage, or in suffering social or other prejudice as a gay couple, is not really in point; if there is legal discrimination or social prejudice against same-sex couples, then that may be deplorable but so long as it’s a reality it can still suggest that it might not be in a child’s best interests to be placed with a same-sex couple.

But that's not the case at all. The research that has been conducted in this area has shown that in as far as same-sex parenting is concerned the outcome for the child is at least equal to that of opposite-sex couples and frequently better. In fact, the only impediment to same-sex parent noted in the research (apart from the changing legal environment obviously) is the level of christian homophobia that these children have to deal with. In spite of this, these children aren't adversely affected.
However, the issue here is that the state(s) in these cases seem to seek to avoid the adoption issue by using the comparison between the stability of married vs. non-married parenting. However, since these couples cannot be legally married then the comparison is flawed from the get-go.

the culture of deference

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But that's not the case at all. The research that has been conducted in this area has shown that in as far as same-sex parenting is concerned the outcome for the child is at least equal to that of opposite-sex couples and frequently better. In fact, the only impediment to same-sex parent noted in the research (apart from the changing legal environment obviously) is the level of christian homophobia that these children have to deal with. In spite of this, these children aren't adversely affected.
However, the issue here is that the state(s) in these cases seem to seek to avoid the adoption issue by using the comparison between the stability of married vs. non-married parenting. However, since these couples cannot be legally married then the comparison is flawed from the get-go.

Scary to think the RCC promotes forgiveness.

I think (hope) the RCC will overturn another one of their dogmas soon (my lifetime), and start to accept gay marriage as no different from straight.

MrPudding

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, since these couples cannot be legally married then the comparison is flawed from the get-go.

This is the indirect discrimination bit I mentioned that the court kind of sidestepped in this judgement.

I think the court is very concerned about being seen to go to far in this area, and I think they are right to be concerned. The comments made by the French government, along the line of this kind if thing is for the legislature to decide after debate is probably how the majority of the states feel. Europe will likely stay out and hope the individual states cop on and fix it.

It is a very sensitive issue, and it is made sensitive by the religious lobbies in the member states. This is why this is an appropriate topic for this forum, IMO.

MrP

MrPudding

the culture of deference wrote: »

Scary to think the RCC promotes forgiveness.

I think (hope) the RCC will overturn another one of their dogmas soon (my lifetime), and start to accept gay marriage as no different from straight.

I think the better option, in this particular case, and also the most likely to happen, is that the French drop the requirement for a couple to be married for the purposes of adoption. Actually, more specifically, they expand the legislation to require marriage or the same sex version of it.

MrP

eire4

As someone who started life in an orphanage and was also adoted by a heterosexual couple I think it is wrong that children looking for loving homes have their options limited by not allowing same sex couples to adopt.

Knasher

eire4 wrote: »

As someone who started life in an orphanage and was also adoted by a heterosexual couple I think it is wrong that children looking for loving homes have their options limited by not allowing same sex couples to adopt.

Couldn't agree more, the debate is almost always portrayed as being between homosexual and straight couples adopting, when all too often it is between kids being in loving homes or being in orphanages. Especially when it comes to older kids.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the better option, in this particular case, and also the most likely to happen, is that the French drop the requirement for a couple to be married for the purposes of adoption. Actually, more specifically, they expand the legislation to require marriage or the same sex version of it.

MrP

The problem is that civil unions are considered less valid than marriage, so I'd imagine couples will keep running into archaic laws and rules that specifically mention one, and can therefore be used to exclude the other. The only equitable fix is to put everyone on equal footing, call it all civil marriage, and let the churches put whatever extra dressing around it they like. Considering how staunchly secular France seems to be, I'm surprised this isn't the approach they have taken.

Peregrinus

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But that's not the case at all. The research that has been conducted in this area has shown that in as far as same-sex parenting is concerned the outcome for the child is at least equal to that of opposite-sex couples and frequently better. In fact, the only impediment to same-sex parent noted in the research (apart from the changing legal environment obviously) is the level of christian homophobia that these children have to deal with. In spite of this, these children aren't adversely affected.

Look, I wish this was so. But when it comes to adoption we have a heavy responsibility to look to the welfare of the children involved, and to be very careful not to let our wishes to blind us to the evidence.

The research on children raised in homes headed by a same-sex couple does indeed show what you say. But that research deals with children who are the biological offspring of one of the couple concerned. Adoptive children present very different issues; in many cases they have attachment difficulties at the best of times, and they are already burdened with a huge weight of “difference” from other children, not just in the eyes of those other children but in their own minds as well. We can’t just translate research conducted on the question of how biological children cope with being raised by a same-sex couple and assume that the results will hold good for adopted children as well.

The bottom line, for me, is that while I really look forward to the full social and legal acceptance and inclusion of gay people in every way, we can’t use the adoption of children as an instrument in that campaign; that’s a betrayal of the children concerned.

For what it’s worth, I don’t favour a ban on gay couples adopting children, but I do think that when a gay couple apply to adopt the fact that they are gay as opposed to straight is a factor to be considered in the adoption assessment, and the sad reality is that it will normally be a negative factor. But every case is unique, and often there may be other positive factors which outweigh this issue.

But what I think isn’t really the issue here. What the ECHR is saying is that the evaluation of what factors are or should be a bar to adoption is a matter for states. I’m disappointed at the outcome here, but I can see the sense behind this position. States are in a better position to make assessments of these issues than the Court is.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, the issue here is that the state(s) in these cases seem to seek to avoid the adoption issue by using the comparison between the stability of married vs. non-married parenting. However, since these couples cannot be legally married then the comparison is flawed from the get-go.

Look, I agree with that, and the solution is for France (and other states) to introduce same-sex marriage. But I don’t think we should introduce adoption by same-sex couples as a sort of proxy for gay marriage; that’s not a proper consideration in an adoption decision.

Peregrinus

Knasher wrote: »

The only equitable fix is to put everyone on equal footing, call it all civil marriage, and let the churches put whatever extra dressing around it they like. Considering how staunchly secular France seems to be, I'm surprised this isn't the approach they have taken.

That's because you assume that all concerns about gay marriage are basically religious in nature, but in fact this is not so. Which is why I pointed out earlier that having this discussion in the A&A forum (rather than a legal forum or the humanities forum) might distort the discussion somewhat.

FWIW, like you, I favour full equality for same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. But I think we need to fact the reality that those who disagree are not necessarily driven by religious considerations.

Sonics2k

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I wish this was so. But when it comes to adoption we have a heavy responsibility to look to the welfare of the children involved, and to be very careful not to let our wishes to blind us to the evidence.

The research on children raised in homes headed by a same-sex couple does indeed show what you say. But that research deals with children who are the biological offspring of one of the couple concerned.

Oh Peregrinus, we've already had this little chat I'm sure.

But once again, how about you take your opinion and kindly shove it.

My parents are gay, many of my friends have been raised by gay couples.
I'm so tired of seeing this 'research' sprouted around, when I've seen 'research' from both sides, one claiming it's fine and the other saying it's not.

Well let me tell you, as someone who was actually raised in that position, my life growing up was no different to any others. I got picked on now and then, but I gave my fair share back.

Children get bullied, for any reason. Stop this nonsense of 'think of the children', because frankly, if I'm 100% honest, its is complete horseshít.

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh Peregrinus, we've already had this little chat I'm sure.

But once again, how about you take your opinion and kindly shove it.

My parents are gay, many of my friends have been raised by gay couples.
I'm so tired of seeing this 'research' sprouted around, when I've seen 'research' from both sides, one claiming it's fine and the other saying it's not.

Well let me tell you, as someone who was actually raised in that position, my life growing up was no different to any others. I got picked on now and then, but I gave my fair share back.

Children get bullied, for any reason. Stop this nonsense of 'think of the children', because frankly, if I'm 100% honest, its is complete horseshít.

But you're ignoring my point, sonics2k; your experience is not necessarily normative for children who are adopted.

The issue here is not the difficulties involved in gay parenting, as to which I am basically of one mind with you. The issue is the difficulties involved in adoptive parenting - which, frankly, are considerable. And, unless you were adopted, I'm not seeing that your experience is enough to go on here.

Sonics2k

But having grown up in the community I do know many children who were also adopted by gay and lesbian couples, one of them I even used to babysit actually.

Honestly, they're all the same as most children. Some of them are fine with being adopted, some of them do have that issue to deal with (as do many adopted children). All of them have loving families though, and are raised well.

Yes, during their teens they scream, bitch and shout about how hard life is, but basically all teens do that.

There will always be issues dealing with adoption, but is it not better to let these children grow up in a loving home, rather than an orphanage.

Time changes how society sees things, and this is one of the steps to doing so.

magicbastarder

i know adopted kids who grew up quite happy, but then i also know someone who works with troubled kids, and they see a disproportionate number of adopted kids.
short answer - hearsay and personal experience usually isn't enough.

however, as i think most people above would agree, i think having a decent set of parents is much more important than what sex they are.

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

There will always be issues dealing with adoption, but is it not better to let these children grow up in a loving home, rather than an orphanage.

It is. But, realistically, that isn't often the choice, is it? In current conditions in the Western world there are far more prospective adoptive parents than there are children in orphanages awaiting adoption. If you can find a single example of a child in an orphanage whose only prospect for adoption is a gay couple, I'll be very surprised.

Having said all that, the situation in the case that came before the ECHR seems like one in which, negative concerns about having gay parents would very probably be overridden by affirmative considerations. This child wasn't to be placed in a home headed by a gay couple; he was already being raised in a home headed by a gay couple, one of whom was his biological mother, and the other of whom was her conjugal partner. Whatever adverse impact community attitudes to homosexuality were going to have on him, they were going to have whether or not he was adopted. And there was - rightly - no question at all of the child being removed from this family. In this situation, the desirability of bringing the legal relationships into line with the existing reality seems obvious.

I still think the best solution would have been to allow the gay couple to marry, and to apply for adoption and be assessed against the same criteria as any other married couple. But Schalk prevented the court from doing that. Only the French government could make that decision. If there is anyone to be criticised here, I think it's primarily the French government.

mikhail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is. But, realistically, that isn't often the choice, is it? In current conditions in the Western world there are far more prospective adoptive parents than there are children in orphanages awaiting adoption. If you can find a single example of a child in an orphanage whose only prospect for adoption is a gay couple, I'll be very surprised.

If that were true, no one but the most troubled of kids would grow up in an orphanage. It's just not true.

Sonics2k

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is. But, realistically, that isn't often the choice, is it? In current conditions in the Western world there are far more prospective adoptive parents than there are children in orphanages awaiting adoption. If you can find a single example of a child in an orphanage whose only prospect for adoption is a gay couple, I'll be very surprised.

Having said all that, the situation in the case that came before the ECHR seems like one in which, negative concerns about having gay parents would very probably be overridden by affirmative considerations. This child wasn't to be placed in a home headed by a gay couple; he was already being raised in a home headed by a gay couple, one of whom was his biological mother, and the other of whom was her conjugal partner. Whatever adverse impact community attitudes to homosexuality were going to have on him, they were going to have whether or not he was adopted. And there was - rightly - no question at all of the child being removed from this family. In this situation, the desirability of bringing the legal relationships into line with the existing reality seems obvious.

I still think the best solution would have been to allow the gay couple to marry, and to apply for adoption and be assessed against the same criteria as any other married couple. But Schalk prevented the court from doing that. Only the French government could make that decision. If there is anyone to be criticised here, I think it's primarily the French government.

Oh I agree, gay couples should be absolutely be allowed to marry just like any straight couples.

It is a bit crazy that here for example, I know of a single woman who was able to adopt a child on a second attempt. On her first attempt she and her partner of some 7+ years had tried, but were turned down because they were a gay couple.

It was pure madness really, as they both met the 'requirements' for adoption, but found it easier to adopt as a single parent, than as a gay couple due to past beliefs and judgements.

iguana

Knasher wrote: »

The only equitable fix is to put everyone on equal footing, call it all civil marriage, and let the churches put whatever extra dressing around it they like. Considering how staunchly secular France seems to be, I'm surprised this isn't the approach they have taken.

That's how heterosexual marriage is in France now. All marriages are civil legal marriages conducted in the town/city hall early on the day of the wedding. If the couple then wish to go to a church, synagogue, temple, handfasting, etc, they do that after the legal ceremony and it has no legal meaning, just religious.

The civil unions (as opposed to civil marriages) in France are quite different. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples can have one and they, very basically, involve the couple writing a contract together about what rights and responsibilities they wish to share. These rights come within limits, a couple can't state in their contract that they want to be the same as a married couple.

Peregrinus

mikhail wrote: »

If that were true, no one but the most troubled of kids would grow up in an orphanage. It's just not true.

But the reason kids grow up in orphanages (in the Western world) is rarely a lack of qualified adoptive parents. The commonest reasons are legal obstacles - e.g. the kids are in state care, but they have parents who do not agree to their adoption - or health issues - the kids are disabled, or have high needs - or policy reasons - the authorities hope to reunite them with their biological family which, if it can be done, usually has a better outcome.

iguana

Sonics2k wrote: »

It was pure madness really, as they both met the 'requirements' for adoption, but found it easier to adopt as a single parent, than as a gay couple due to past beliefs and judgements.

She wouldn't have found adopting singly easier, she would have found it the only way possible. Irish law will allow a single person who meets the requirements to adopt, regardless of their sexual orientation. But when a couple wishes to adopt jointly they must be married, civil partnered doesn't count.

iguana

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the reason kids grow up in orphanages (in the Western world) is rarely a lack of qualified adoptive parents. The commonest reasons are legal obstacles - e.g. the kids are in state care, but they have parents who do not agree to their adoption - or health issues - the kids are disabled, or have high needs - or policy reasons - the authorities hope to reunite them with their biological family which, if it can be done, usually has a better outcome.

Also in Ireland a child born within a marriage may never be adopted as long as the parents are alive. The most that the child can be is fostered out of their care.

Peregrinus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh I agree, gay couples should be absolutely be allowed to marry just like any straight couples.

It is a bit crazy that here for example, I know of a single woman who was able to adopt a child on a second attempt. On her first attempt she and her partner of some 7+ years had tried, but were turned down because they were a gay couple.

It was pure madness really, as they both met the 'requirements' for adoption, but found it easier to adopt as a single parent, than as a gay couple due to past beliefs and judgements.

This is crazy, I agree. A gay singleton can adopt in most countries - gayness will be a factor in the adoption assesxment, but it won't be a bar to assessment - and this remains true even if he or she is in a relationship. But a gay couple are legally excluded from adopting as a couple in most countries, even countries which have remove other legal disabilities from gays. Portugal has full gay marriage, but has legal restrictions on adoption by a married gay couple.

MrPudding

Sonics2k wrote: »

My parents are gay, many of my friends have been raised by gay couples.

I think, perhaps, you might be missing the actual concern that the religious people have. You have been raised by a gay couple and you believe you are fine. The fact is, as far as the religious are concerned, you are far from fine. You are a filthy atheist that thinks being gay is ok. I don’t have any figure for this (hopefully ISAW will not make an appearance) but I would expect that a fair proportion of children that are raised by gay parents will grow up to be atheist and supportive of gay parents. If you add to this that many of the homophobic religious also seem to think that you can catch gay off gay people and perhaps the attitude is more understandable.

If you look at a lot of the things the religious argue for, control over education, specifically in respect to sexual matters, marriage and rights in general, you see a pattern where the things they are arguing for would likely lead to an increased acceptance and normalisation of homosexuality.

Of course, they will argue that they hate the sin and not the sinner, but I find that old excuse to be wearing thin. At some point they must take responsibility for their attitudes. Whilst they might say they hate the sin I think it is a thin line that often get crossed.

Mt preference would be for the religious to keep to themselves. The law should not pander to the religious, and laws should not seek to enforce a religious viewpoint. I think the current laws regarding things like gay marriage and adoption are rooted in religion, or at the very least, religion is the main area where resistance to change is coming from.

Time for a John Rawls quote I think:

John Rawls wrote:

Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time, provided that in due course proper political reasons – and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines – are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support.

MrP

magicbastarder

the problem with 'i was .... when i was a child and it never did me any harm' is that it's used to justify all sorts of things, so i'm naturally wary of it.
i've had discussions about slapping children where the line 'i was slapped black and blue when i was a kid and it never did me any harm' was rolled out. and the people using the line genuinely believed it.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

'i was slapped black and blue when i was a kid and it never did me any harm' was rolled out. and the people using the line genuinely believed it.

I'd have said saying that was a sure sign that they did come to some harm!

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I wish this was so. But when it comes to adoption we have a heavy responsibility to look to the welfare of the children involved, and to be very careful not to let our wishes to blind us to the evidence.

That's exactly the point I was making. It is the evidence that we should look to and the evidence does not show any reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The research on children raised in homes headed by a same-sex couple does indeed show what you say. But that research deals with children who are the biological offspring of one of the couple concerned.

OK, let me deal with this one first. What you have said is not true. There has been research conducted which includes joint adoption by same-sex couples. Take this report for example:

Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007

The methodology of this survey defines a nuclear family as follows:

"A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family."

A cohabiting couple is similarly defined. Now, for those unaware, joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in the following US jurisdictions: The District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, Maine, California, Conneticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont and Florida. Now, not all of these states had enacted adoption equality during the period of this survey but it cannot be said that there is no research concerning adoptive same-sex couples.


EDIT: Just in case this comes up, here's Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family having his ass handed to him by Al Franken regarding his interpretation of the report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyAueltLsa4

Peregrinus wrote: »

Adoptive children present very different issues; in many cases they have attachment difficulties at the best of times, and they are already burdened with a huge weight of “difference” from other children, not just in the eyes of those other children but in their own minds as well. We can’t just translate research conducted on the question of how biological children cope with being raised by a same-sex couple and assume that the results will hold good for adopted children as well.

You seem to be presenting a very narrow argument here. You're only talking about a subset of adoptive parents where the child is old enough to be cognisant of being adopted. That presents, I agree, a different set of circumstances to other family situations but I don't see how a same-sex couple are worse or at a disadvantage compared to an opposite-sex couple. In fact, I think in such a situation it would be more likely first-time parents as opposed to previous adopters who would be at a disadvantage although that's just a supposition on my part.

If the situation with adoptive children, or at least this hypothetical that you have constructed is so different that the current research is inapplicable then what research or evidence do you have to support your argument? Do you have any longitudinal studies comparing same-sex and opposite-sex couples within the narrow parameters you have outlined? If there is no applicable research to cover this scenario then shouldn't you honestly say that you don't know?

Peregrinus wrote: »

For what it’s worth, I don’t favour a ban on gay couples adopting children, but I do think that when a gay couple apply to adopt the fact that they are gay as opposed to straight is a factor to be considered in the adoption assessment, and the sad reality is that it will normally be a negative factor. But every case is unique, and often there may be other positive factors which outweigh this issue.

Why do you think that sexual orientation should be considered as a factor in adoption? On what basis do you think that sexual orientation impacts anyone's ability to be a parent. Again you've tossed out a pretty ambiguous assertion regarding same-sex parenting. I'd like to see something to back up your conclusions though. The only reason that sexual orientation is "normally a negative factor" is because some people choose to cherry-pick bits of their mythology as a justification for maintaining an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance against people who are different from them.

Peregrinus

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let me deal with this one first. What you have said is not true. There has been research conducted which includes joint adoption by same-sex couples. Take this report for example:

Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007

The methodology of this survey defines a nuclear family as follows:

"A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family."

A cohabiting couple is similarly defined. Now, for those unaware, joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in the following US jurisdictions: The District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, Maine, California, Conneticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont and Florida. Now, not all of these states had enacted adoption equality during the period of this survey but it cannot be said that there is no research concerning adoptive same-sex couples.

I’ll be genuinely delighted to be proved wrong on this. I haven’t read the report you link to (and I will) but one point immediately occurs to me. It’s not enough that the survey sample would include some adoptive families; it would need to break out the data about the adoptive families and compare it with (a) data for the biological families, and (b) data for adoptive-but-straight families. And there would need to be enough adoptive gay families in the survey population for the conclusions to be statistically robust. And, ideally, I’d also like to study separately the data for families where one parent was adoptive and the other biological, and those where both parents were adoptive.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You seem to be presenting a very narrow argument here. You're only talking about a subset of adoptive parents where the child is old enough to be cognisant of being adopted. . . .

Not at all. Regardless of the age at which the child is adopted, he will sooner or later be cognizant of being adopted. All adoptive children face the issue of dealing with the fact that they are adopted, and it’s not uncommon for those adopted in infancy to deal with the issue (in ways distressing to both themselves and their families) in their teens.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

That presents, I agree, a different set of circumstances to other family situations but I don't see how a same-sex couple are worse or at a disadvantage compared to an opposite-sex couple. In fact, I think in such a situation it would be more likely first-time parents as opposed to previous adopters who would be at a disadvantage although that's just a supposition on my part.

I’m not concerned about the disadvantage to the parents; I’m concerned about the disadvantage to the child.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If the situation with adoptive children, or at least this hypothetical that you have constructed is so different that the current research is inapplicable then what research or evidence do you have to support your argument? Do you have any longitudinal studies comparing same-sex and opposite-sex couples within the narrow parameters you have outlined? If there is no applicable research to cover this scenario then shouldn't you honestly say that you don't know?

I don’t know, and because I don’t know I’m not prepared glibly to assume that the experiences of straight adoptive families are normative for gay adoptive families.

The issue here, as I keep stressing, is not homosexuality; it’s adoption. And it’s not the concerns of parents; it’s the experiences of children. And we do know - there’s plenty of research on this - that adoptive children can be hugely burdened by a sense of difference that has lasting implications for them and their self-image and self-esteem. And the question of placing a child with a gay family has to be considered in this context, if we care about the interests of the child.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Why do you think that sexual orientation should be considered as a factor in adoption? On what basis do you think that sexual orientation impacts anyone's ability to be a parent.

Where have I ever said that sexual orientation impacts on anybody’s ability to be a parent? You’re making this stuff up. For the record, my niece is being raised by her straight mother and her (out) gay father (long story, don’t ask) and I am delighted about this, and she is a beautiful girl who is being wonderfully raised, which is just what I would have expected. I have absolutely no problems with gay parenting.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The only reason that sexual orientation is "normally a negative factor" is because some people choose to cherry-pick bits of their mythology as a justification for maintaining an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance against people who are different from them.

Even if we grant that, so what? If that’s a reality, it’s a reality, and we must take account of it in adoption decisions. We are placing children in the real world, not in an ideal world that has yet to be achieved, and just because you deplore aspects of the real world doesn't mean that those aspects will have no impact on an adoptive child.

Penn

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here, as I keep stressing, is not homosexuality; it’s adoption. And it’s not the concerns of parents; it’s the experiences of children. And we do know - there’s plenty of research on this - that adoptive children can be hugely burdened by a sense of difference that has lasting implications for them and their self-image and self-esteem. And the question of placing a child with a gay family has to be considered in this context, if we care about the interests of the child.

Could you post some links to some of this research? I'd be interested in reading some of it.

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’ll be genuinely delighted to be proved wrong on this. I haven’t read the report you link to (and I will) but one point immediately occurs to me. It’s not enough that the survey sample would include some adoptive families; it would need to break out the data about the adoptive families and compare it with (a) data for the biological families, and (b) data for adoptive-but-straight families. And there would need to be enough adoptive gay families in the survey population for the conclusions to be statistically robust. And, ideally, I’d also like to study separately the data for families where one parent was adoptive and the other biological, and those where both parents were adoptive.

OK, as you wish. In September 2010 the adoption law in Florida which prohibited homosexual adoption was struck down by the Supreme Court. A little background first though. Prior to this case, homosexual people could become legal guardians of children and foster parents. However, they were categorically excluded from adoption. This is unlike people with criminal histories, histories of substance abuse, physical or mental disability and chronic medical conditions, which were reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A case was taken on the basis that such a categorical exclusion was a violation of the equal protection afforded to all persons under Article 1, Section 2 of the Florida constitution. The plaintiff in the case was a homosexual male who was a licensed foster parent in the state of Florida. He took into care two children who were placed in state care as a result of neglect. The review of his foster care showed that the children had "healed in his care and were now thriving". However, when he applied to adopt the children he was prohibited and so challenged the constitutionality of the statute.
The Department for Children and Families argued against the motion. As far as the constitutionality of the statute was concerned the department argued that the rational basis test for the statute was upheld since:

"Instead, the Department argues that there is a rational basis for the prohibition on homosexual adoption because children will have better role models, and face less discrimination, if they are placed in non-homosexual households, preferably with a husband and wife as the parents."

(Coincidentally this is the angle you seem to be taking)

However, in passing judgement the judge found:

"The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. Many well renowned, regarded and respected professionals have [produced] methodologically sound longitudinal and cross-sectional studies into hundreds of reports. Some of the longitudinal studies have tracked children for six, ten and fourteen years. The starting ages of the children in the longitudinal studies has varied from birth, six to ten years old and followed them throughout childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. The studies and reports are published in many well respected peer reviewed journals including the Journal of Child Development, the Journal of Family Psychology, the Journal of Child Psychology, and the Journal of Child Psychiatry. Each of the studies and hundreds of reports also withstood the rigorous peer review process and were tested statistically, rationally and methodologically by seasoned professionals prior to publication. In addition to the volume, the body of research is broad; comparing children raised by lesbian couples to children raised by married heterosexual couples; children raised by lesbian parents from birth to children raised by heterosexual married couples from birth; children raised by single homosexuals to children raised by single heterosexuals; and children adopted by homosexual parents to those raised by homosexual biological parents, to name a few. These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

I think the conclusion of the court is pretty self-explanatory but I have highlighted the relevant portions for you. The precise argument you made in relation to adopted children was overwhelmingly rejected by the court on the basis of the evidence and testimony provided.

Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, Docket No. 3D08-3044

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all. Regardless of the age at which the child is adopted, he will sooner or later be cognizant of being adopted. All adoptive children face the issue of dealing with the fact that they are adopted, and it’s not uncommon for those adopted in infancy to deal with the issue (in ways distressing to both themselves and their families) in their teens.

In my last post I did ask you to present research to support your assertion. Having detailed evidence for you in support of my points I think it only fair that you reciprocate. How does the issues which these children have to face differ because of the sexual orientation of their parents?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not concerned about the disadvantage to the parents; I’m concerned about the disadvantage to the child.

Well as it happens I am. The two are not mutually exclusive ideas. The legal rights of parents are being trampled on because of their sexual orientation and resolving this issue does not compromise the best interests of the child.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here, as I keep stressing, is not homosexuality; it’s adoption. And it’s not the concerns of parents; it’s the experiences of children. And we do know - there’s plenty of research on this - that adoptive children can be hugely burdened by a sense of difference that has lasting implications for them and their self-image and self-esteem. And the question of placing a child with a gay family has to be considered in this context, if we care about the interests of the child.

Where have I ever said that sexual orientation impacts on anybody’s ability to be a parent? You’re making this stuff up. For the record, my niece is being raised by her straight mother and her (out) gay father (long story, don’t ask) and I am delighted about this, and she is a beautiful girl who is being wonderfully raised, which is just what I would have expected. I have absolutely no problems with gay parenting.

At the risk of repeating myself, where is your evidence for this. You are making the argument that adoption presents such a different set of problems that neither a comparison between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents where the children are biologically related nor studies of opposite-sex adoptive parents are valid when considering same-sex adoptive couples. How do you make such a determination?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if we grant that, so what? If that’s a reality, it’s a reality, and we must take account of it in adoption decisions. We are placing children in the real world, not in an ideal world that has yet to be achieved, and just because you deplore aspects of the real world doesn't mean that those aspects will have no impact on an adoptive child.

So we should continue to deny gay people their legal rights because christian bigotry is a reality? Really?

the culture of deference

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So we should continue to deny gay people their legal rights because christian bigotry is a reality? Really?

The christians really are muppets.

Whats the difference in 2 couples, 2 gay men and 2 gay woman marrying each other, applying for adoption and then seperating.

How many evangenical christians are gay?

The bible has no problem with lesbians.