Oxford Union debate on Gay adoption

qweerty

I'm as queer as my username, and am predictably in favour of same-sex marriage. However, I've always had some qualms regarding non-biological same-sex adoption (ie the adopting, by a same-sex couple, of child whom neither has a biological link with). It's not that I'm against it, it's just that I still have reservations that the discourse in this country has not yet allayed. In truth, there's only one thing with which I'm uneasy, and it is this: I think that, as they are abnormal (in a non-derogatory sense) anyway, no adopted child should be placed in a family that is markedly different from the norm, and I'm not sure that Society is sufficiently enlightened to view same-sex parents without some suspicion. Having said that, I have a nagging feeling that I'm merely snagging on a minor premise and that if I can resolve it I will be in favour. Btw, I can think of several arguments against this position: it is only "different from the norm" because it is not permitted; deciding policy on prejudices is patently wrong; same-sex marriage without adoption rights is not reconcilable.

Below is the order of a debate held in the Oxford Union on the question of same-sex adoption. Not all the speeches are as eloquent as the opening one, but neither are they as dry or academic. I hope you take the time to watch one or two. For those who only want reinforcement, the speakers alternate in-favour, in-opposition, in-favour, etc.

Opening Proposition - Crawford Jamieson - student

Anthony McCarthy - Society for the Protection of Un-Born Children
Benjamin Cohen - correspondent, Channel 4 News; founder of website Pink News
Peter D Williams - spokesperson for Catholic Voices; member of pro-life campaign group Right to Life
Phyll Opoku-Gyimah - co-founder of Black Pride UK
George Hargreaves - religious minister; leader of the Christian Party
Richard Fairbrass - equal rights activist; lead vocalist with Right Said Fred
Lynette Burrows - social comentator and family rights activist

Annasopra

Lots of things are decidedly different from the norm though. Like queer for example. Is the whole premise of identifying as "queer" about challenging normativities?

qweerty

mango salsa wrote: »

Lots of things are decidedly different from the norm though. Like queer for example. Is the whole premise of identifying as "queer" about challenging normativities?

I don't entirely understand. These "lots" that you are referring to, do you mean in relation to adoption? I don't particularly want to get into this debate because, as I said, I don't feel very secure in representing this side. However, I will say that I don't think there are many things so different from some-people's "norm" as same-sex relations is. My apologies for not engaging more fully in debate, but it's just not something I'm capable of doing on this topic.

Regarding the queer-part: are you highlighting my having referred to myself as queer? Queer seems to have been incorporated into the lexicon of the Gay Movement, so I defend my right to use it. As it happens, I do get pleasure from referring to my sexuality by such a vulgar term as "fagqatory", because, as cliched as this may sound, removing the offensive language from the bigot removes much of the impact of their bigotry (IMO!).

floggg

Didn't watch the debates, but if your reservations about adoption by same sex couples is based on not wanting them adopted into "abnormal" situations then logically you should also be opposed to adoption by any couples who aren't both able bodied members of the dominant ethnic and religious groups.

No adoption by Protestants or atheists. No adoption by inter racial couples or ethnic minorities or non nationals. No adoption by persons with disabilities.

I would suspect you aren't however in favour of any of those restrictions.

So how logical is your position?

qweerty

floggg wrote: »

Didn't watch the debates, but if your reservations about adoption by same sex couples is based on not wanting them adopted into "abnormal" situations then logically you should also be opposed to adoption by any couples who aren't both able bodied members of the dominant ethnic and religious groups.

No adoption by Protestants or atheists. No adoption by inter racial couples or ethnic minorities or non nationals. No adoption by persons with disabilities.

I would suspect you aren't however in favour of any of those restrictions.

So how logical is your position?

I wonder should I remove the opinionated part of my OP because I merely used it to add weight to what would have been a flimsy OP otherwise!

To clarify, I used "abnormal" (and specified that I used it in a neutral sense) in relation to the adopted child. Protestantism is different from the norm but not "markedly". I believe atheism is an absence of belief, and therefore think it shouldn't disqualify one. However, if one practised a belief such as Satanism, that ought to disqualify. Now, I use that as an extreme to prove a point - I am not equating it with homosexuality! Though they may believe that it ought to be legal and same-sex marriage permitted, many in this society are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

As I made very clear, I suspect the position with which I was flirting isn't logical.

I will refrain from deleting my contributions to-date, but I will not be making any more, as I intend to go to the Boards meet-up (am I still allowed?!) at which I will no longer be anonymous!

Annasopra

qweerty wrote: »

I don't entirely understand. These "lots" that you are referring to, do you mean in relation to adoption? I don't particularly want to get into this debate because, as I said, I don't feel very secure in representing this side. However, I will say that I don't think there are many things so different from some-people's "norm" as same-sex relations is. My apologies for not engaging more fully in debate, but it's just not something I'm capable of doing on this topic.

Regarding the queer-part: are you highlighting my having referred to myself as queer? Queer seems to have been incorporated into the lexicon of the Gay Movement, so I defend my right to use it. As it happens, I do get pleasure from referring to my sexuality by such a vulgar term as "fagqatory", because, as cliched as this may sound, removing the offensive language from the bigot removes much of the impact of their bigotry (IMO!).

Q1: Yes in relation to adoption. If we say that parents of the samse sex are abnormal and shouldn't be allowed to adopt the logical extension of that is that people with disabilities are abnormal and shouldn't be allowed to adopt, mixed nationality marriages are abnormal and shouldn't be allowed to adopt

Q2: I'm not attacking you for using queer or questioning your right to use it. I am explaining that my understanding of a person who identifies as queer is that they challenge normativity. And therefore it seems a bit strange to me to hear a person define themselves as queer while arguing that normative parenting structures must be reinforced.

EDIT: I reread my initial post to you - in reference to my initial question -"Is the whole premise of identifying as "queer" about challenging normativities?" - it should have read - "Isn't the whole premise of identifying as "queer" about challenging normativities?". And that was meant as a generic question not aimed at your identity.

Daith

qweerty wrote: »

I will refrain from deleting my contributions to-date, but I will not be making any more, as I intend to go to the Boards meet-up (am I still allowed?!) at which I will no longer be anonymous!

What? I don't understand this? I don't think there's any issue in having a debate about same sex adoption or adoption in general.

qweerty

mango salsa wrote: »

Q1: Yes in relation to adoption. If we say that parents of the samse sex are abnormal and shouldn't be allowed to adopt the logical extension of that is that people with disabilities are abnormal and shouldn't be allowed to adopt, mixed nationality marriages are abnormal and shouldn't be allowed to adopt

Q2: I'm not attacking you for using queer or questioning your right to use it. I am explaining that my understanding of a person who identifies as queer is that they challenge normativity. And therefore it seems a bit strange to me to hear a person define themselves as queer while arguing that normative parenting structures must be reinforced.

Despite what I said above, I must respond! I did not say same-sex couples were "abnormal", I said they differed from the "norm"! [said ironically] Surely you're not equating sexuality with disability? It's a false equivalence anyway. This is a very specific situation where traditional family structures are being redefined, and I don't think there are any precedents.

I am a very liberal person, and have challenged (new word for me) "normativity" all my life. But - and I stress that my heart isn't really in this argument - Society should be extremely cautious when allocating families for children, and the child's happiness shouldn't be risked. In (arbitrarily-long period's) time there is no valid argument against SS adoption. But, perhaps Society isn't yet ready, and the most vulnerable shouldn't be used to force it to be. (I'm now arguing for a position I've been forced to adopt - I've no idea what I think any more . Apologies for not providing more resistance!)

Edit noted!

Daith wrote: »

What? I don't understand this? I don't think there's any issue in having a debate about same sex adoption or adoption in general.

I was only joking. At the same time, though, I don't want to risk be known as the guy (or girl!) with controversial opinions.

floggg

qweerty wrote: »

Despite what I said above, I must respond! I did not say same-sex couples were "abnormal", I said they differed from the "norm"! [said ironically] Surely you're not equating sexuality with disability? It's a false equivalence anyway. This is a very specific situation where traditional family structures are being redefined, and I don't think there are any precedents.

I am a very liberal person, and have challenged (new word for me) "normativity" all my life. But - and I stress that my heart isn't really in this argument - Society should be extremely cautious when allocating families for children, and the child's happiness shouldn't be risked. In (arbitrarily-long period's) time there is no valid argument against SS adoption. But, perhaps Society isn't yet ready, and the most vulnerable shouldn't be used to force it to be. (I'm now arguing for a position I've been forced to adopt - I've no idea what I think any more . Apologies for not providing more resistance!)

Edit noted!




I was only joking. At the same time, though, I don't want to risk be known as the guy (or girl!) with controversial opinions.

Well then your initial comments weren't articulated very well. You very much seemed to suggest you were against adoption by parents who differed from the norm.

That would encompass disability, race etc.

Your new comments seem to be an entirely different argument about the danger of interfering with family structure

Perhaps you would be comforted by the research which shows that children raised in LGBT households (which I understand covers adopted kids) turn out just as well, happy and well adjusted as those in "normal" families.

While fear of the unknown can be natural, your fears here are unfounded.

Furthermore there is a marked break down in traditional family structure so the old normal is no longer a norm.

qweerty

floggg wrote: »

Well then your initial comments weren't articulated very well. You very much seemed to suggest you were against adoption by parents who differed from the norm.

Your new comments seem to be an entirely different argument about the danger of interfering with family structure.

I no longer wish to engage in the argument. However, I think you have been most dismissive of the points I made and the way in which I made them. For the record, I entirely disagree with your contention that I have been inconsistent. As far as I am concerned, I have been defamed, and you, flogg, should expect a letter from my lawyers. I should be allowed to make my case without being accused of homophobia having poorly constructed arguments!

Lou.m

Personally I think you are either for adoption based on judgement of couples as individuals or not at all. I think social services need to be allowed to make decisions like this and no one else.

If they feel the right environment for a child is at that time a gay household or that it is not then I would bow to their opinion.

The whole debate is largely irrelevant. Gay people will have their own children biologically anyway.

Also most adoptions and sperm donation and surrogacy are and will always be by heterosexual people. Infact the vast majority of the industry the second debater uses against the motion with the reason it discontinues genetic links is supported by a heterosexual demand almost exclusively. Allowing gay people to do what heterosexual infertile couples already do is not going to change that. There will still be many many adopted children and children conceived by donation etc. Most children who are brought up by parents they are not genetically related to will be in a heterosexual home. Most children denied one gender in their upbringing will be brought up by heterosexual single parents either by teen moms or widows or single adoptions by heterosexual individuals. None of these have anything to do with gay people. It is not a lack of gender balance that people want to curtail because the law does not curtail that. It is their gayness that people object to. Two sisters can bring up baby two women who are gay cannot.

The stigma of single parents has been largely removed if the parent plans that child and can provide for it. So really I do not see the argument against a gay couple using sperm donation or adoption etc.

And as regards the denying a child a father etc well we allow single parent adoption. We infact allow single gay people to adopt we just do not allow gay couples to adopt together.

We allow gay people to make a join the dots up sort of family legally whilst in reality making a very natural family. That is the reality. All other scenarios painted are made done so in bad faith.

Annasopra

qweerty wrote: »

I no longer wish to engage in the argument. However, I think you have been most dismissive of the points I made and the way in which I made them. For the record, I entirely disagree with your contention that I have been inconsistent. As far as I am concerned, I have been defamed, and you, flogg, should expect a letter from my lawyers. I should be allowed to make my case without being accused of homophobia having poorly constructed arguments!

I'm not sure. Are you joking again?