Is it wrong for gay couples to adopt?

[Thorolfr]

I’m a little torn on this issue myself. In general, I know that it is really harmful for a child not to have their mother or father in their life. I am adamantly against the practice of gay couples buying sperm or buying women as the case may be in order to purposefully make orphaned children because THEY want children and they FEEL they have a right to have the same as straight couples.

But if a gay man, for example, used a surrogate and his own sperm, the child would not be an orphan, would it? An orphan is someone whose parents are both dead or has been abandoned by both parents. In some cases, such a child, while living with the father, maintains a relationship with the birth mother even if it does not live with her. And surely it is better for such a child to exist than not to exist at all (at least I assume that existing is better than not existing). And not all surrogates are paid money. Some of them do it out of love for a gay friend or a gay relative.

 

[Rau]

Hi everyone…

So just so everyone knows I truly believe that denying a child the right to be raised by a father and a mother is child abuse, and that the best and only way to raise a child is with a mother and a father.

But what about the children without a family dying on the streets, or what about those children suffering in foster homes or in 3rd world countries? Wouldnt it be better for them to be taken in by a homosexual couple than live in the conditions they are in? Wouldn’t that at least give the children some love and dignity being raised by a couple even if its a homosexual one?

Just wondering…

Whether it is better to let the child “starve in the streets” is almost never the choice at hand, nor the question posed, since the answer to that question is likely self-evident. The question is whether a same sex couple should be regarded, other things being equal, as desirable an option as a family providing mother and father figures. I think the answer there is plainly no.

Of course, “other factors” are often “not equal”, so then trade-offs arise. Do we prefer a “mother + father” sufficiently to overlook these weaknesses, etc.

 

[Rau]

…The point should be love, not gay or straight, Catholic or whatever else.

It seems reasonable to hold the view that the best option for a child is to be brought up by loving and committed parents, one father and one mother. it seems reasonable to hold, the view that the two sexes bring different and complementary parenting by virtue of their sex and their relationship to the child.

The gay or straight thing is a secondary issue. The primary issue is what - in principle - is the best parenting model. I think it is difficult to argue that that it is not a mother and a father.

 

[Rau]

But if a gay man, for example, used a surrogate and his own sperm, the child would not be an orphan, would it? An orphan is someone whose parents are both dead or has been abandoned by both parents. In some cases, such a child, while living with the father, maintains a relationship with the birth mother even if it does not live with her. And surely it is better for such a child to exist than not to exist at all (at least I assume that existing is better than not existing). And not all surrogates are paid money. Some of them do it out of love for a gay friend or a gay relative.

Personally, I’ve never understood the idea that “never to have existed” is inferior to the converse. I am sure that to never have been born would not be a problem. Anyway…

Surrogacy arrangements very often do amount to a type of abandonment, however well-intentioned the surrogate mother (or the sperm donor) may be. But most disturbing in surrogacy arrangements is the notion that the child has no “right” to be raised by his real mother and father. Surrogacy inherently tramples over that right.

 

[Allegra]

But if a gay man, for example, used a surrogate and his own sperm, the child would not be an orphan, would it? An orphan is someone whose parents are both dead or has been abandoned by both parents. In some cases, such a child, while living with the father, maintains a relationship with the birth mother even if it does not live with her. And surely it is better for such a child to exist than not to exist at all (at least I assume that existing is better than not existing). And not all surrogates are paid money. Some of them do it out of love for a gay friend or a gay relative.

Lots of children in this world “have a relationship” with one of their parents every other weekend and they suffer tremendously from it. It is wrong to create this situation on purpose, out of vanity. Using your argument, people should just go around conceiving children with everyone they come across so they will exist.

 

[MJDorry]

There’s a whole lot of discussion and debate for something that’s entirely irrelevant…

Is it wrong for two members of the same sex to enter into a union that is reserved for procreation and intercourse by man and woman? Yes, absolutely!

Is it wrong for them to adopt a child after having done so? I don’t see how it would be any less wrong than if they had adopted a child while remaining single. Remember, the ideal option is already off the table. Surely, any stable, long-term surrogate is better than none, granting that said surrogate is supportive and not abusive.

Happy heterosexual couples who want to adopt do exist, but they’re not exactly lined up from the door to around the corner.

 

[goout]

Happy heterosexual couples who want to adopt do exist, but they’re not exactly lined up from the door to around the corner.

That’s debatable.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

That’s debatable.

Then explain why there are so many children who end up growing up in an orphanage.

 

[Thorolfr]

Whether it is better to let the child “starve in the streets” is almost never the choice at hand, nor the question posed, since the answer to that question is likely self-evident. The question is whether a same sex couple should be regarded, other things being equal, as desirable an option as a family providing mother and father figures. I think the answer there is plainly no.

Of course, “other factors” are often “not equal”, so then trade-offs arise. Do we prefer a “mother + father” sufficiently to overlook these weaknesses, etc.

I know so many people that had such awful straight parents that it would have been preferable for them to have been raised by a loving gay couple than to be subjected to the upbringing they had with their biological parents. Having loving and suitable parents is more important than whether they are gay or straight.

 

[goout]

Then explain why there are so many children who end up growing up in an orphanage.

Living a life of love and mercy is challenging.
There are many couples who wanted to adopt and are unable. I personally know this for a fact.

And at the same time, there are orphanages.

Just as:
there is more than enough food capacity to feed the whole world, yet people starve.
Life is very inefficient when it comes to loving and helping others. This is why politics is never the final answer to these problems.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

I know so many people that had such awful straight parents that it would have been preferable for them to have been raised by a loving gay couple than to be subjected to the upbringing they had with their biological parents. Having loving and suitable parents is more important than whether they are gay or straight.

Certainly.

No one can say an orphan is better off than being raised by his/her divorcée mother and stepfather.

Children should not suffer for the sins of their parents.

 

[Rau]

I know so many people that had such awful straight parents that it would have been preferable for them to have been raised by a loving gay couple than to be subjected to the upbringing they had with their biological parents. Having loving and suitable parents is more important than whether they are gay or straight.

That’s not relevant to the point I made in my post.

 

[Thorolfr]

That’s not relevant to the point I made in my post.

I don’t really agree with the point in your thread either. I’m not convinced, that children must have both a “mother figure” and a “father figure” to grow us as well adjusted and happy members of society.

 

[goout]

There’s a false dichotomy being drawn.
“Under the worst of circumstances what should we do for a child?”
is not the same as
“what is the best thing for a child according to the way we are”

Only an insane person cannot look and see the answer to the second question, but, that is where we are at.

 

[Rau]

I don’t really agree with the point in your thread either. I’m not convinced, that children must have both a “mother figure” and a “father figure” to grow us as well adjusted and happy members of society.

Strawman. Not what I said.

 

[Bookcat]

…there are rather many alternatives…

Setting up a strawman (as another noted) is just playing with straw in the end.

A child has a right not to be raised in such an circumstance. They should have a mother and a father…or if that is not possible a mother or a father…but not really two sets of one of them.

 

[Thorolfr]

Strawman. Not what I said.

Nor do I think that having both a “mother figure” and a “father figure” is necessarily preferable to or better than having two father figures or two mother figures. I don’t think it makes that much difference.

 

[Faithdancer]

I often work in elementary classrooms. In these, and even in middle and high school classrooms, it is often obvious that some children are lacking a father figure in their lives. And their behavior evidences how much they need one. No lesbian couple can ever fulfill this need, any more than a homosexual male couple can fulfill a child’s need for a maternal figure. And only a biological parent can fulfill this need.
These truths are self-evident.

 

[Thorolfr]

And only a biological parent can fulfill this need.
These truths are self-evident.

That, in my opinion, is ridiculous. There are many couples who have adopted children and have been great parents and are obviously more suited to be parents than the child’s biological parents. There is nothing magical about the biological link, especially when the biological parent is not a good parent. Sometimes, contact with an unsuitable biological parent is a detriment.

 

[Rau]

Nor do I think that having both a “mother figure” and a “father figure” is necessarily preferable to or better than having two father figures or two mother figures. I don’t think it makes that much difference.

I suspect that it must be a consternation then that nature does not provide for 2 men to conceive.

I did not think your expressed view would be otherwise Thor.