Should Gay Couples In The U.S. Be Allowed To Adopt Foster Kids ?

Posted by: Berlin Fritz on 01 May 2005

Having just watched one of the only seriously intelligent/funny, U.S. News-Political shows (The Daily Show, Global edition, with the Excellent John Stewart on board: CNN) which is shown here weekly, lasts half an hour, but consists of only about 14 minutes quality viewing, minus the commercial crap, the only other good U.S.show in my opinion being The late show with Jay Leno, innit (CNBC).

Mr Stewart highlighted an interesting little 'stealth' programm that's quietly winging its way through many an American State right now which can only be described 'my opinion' as final-solutionesque, in the extreme. The subject at hand is wether Gay/Lesbian & or Bisexual couples (childless or otherwise) may adopt foster children in the good old U.S. of A. ? It seems that many an adoption agency is now trying to prove if applicants are actually lying about their sexual orientation or not when seeking to adopt such kids. Wether this thread becomes a joke mud slanging match not too unlike the silly court media case involving Jackson that everybody is knocking, though should read their own comments on occassion ! (3rd or 4th such thread if my memory serves me correctly, or have I confused it with my imagination once again ?) remains yet to be seen (I suspect that it will though). The final points made by John Stewart were good summimg up sentences I thought, after one Politician (amongst others) (texas this time) stated that these kids should only be parented by true heterosexual true blue couples etc, etc, and that it's been statistically proven that such kids are 11 times more likely to be sexually abused at some stage if in the care of Gay couples ? Well replied John to these bizarre (completely unsubstanciated statements of fearmongery) "Let em go back to the wierdo's, drunks, child-abusers, etc (Their natural parents) that the States are perpurtedly protecting them from, and all will be Hunky Dory ", or some such line, innit.



Fritz Von I believe in Magic Big Grin
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
Then please also accept our hearty congratulations....on your wise decision. Smile

Nime

Thanks! Winker
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Nime
I hear they're putting something in the water in Stoke on Trent......so not to worry anyway, eh?
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
They serve it in the pubs there anyway ! Smile
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Dougunn
quote:
Eugenics was a policy adopted by the Nazis. It was not a Nazi idea.


I did not say it was - what's your point?

quote:
The Nazis also built plenty of motorways and I assume you have no problem with such roads?


This is specious reasoning - again, what is your point?

D
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
You'll be talking about Chinese folks buying some 12 million motorbikes a year, next !!!



Fritz Von Adopting a new angle Big Grin
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
I hear they're putting something in the water in Stoke on Trent......so not to worry anyway, eh?

Flourine - it's good for the teeth, ignoring the fact it's a metabolic inhibitor. And no, not to worry; man hath but a short time...

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Eugenics was a policy adopted by the Nazis. It was not a Nazi idea.
Regars

Mike

Indeed. All it means is increasing the frequency of desirable characteristics in a population (as opposed to undesirable ones).

The good side of it is that, correctly applied, it would mean a brighter future for humanity. It's a shame the Nazis used eugenic principles as an excuse for promoting themselves at the expense of others - hardly the true, scientific point.

Ignoring ethical sensitivities, a gentle application of eugenic principles could vastly reduce the incidence of many heritable diseases, for example. The moral question is, whose right matters most? The right of adults to have children, basically because they want to, or the right of unborn kids to be given a decent set of genes to live with. (And there's more to it than that, if you consider wider social issues... do I live in a place and at a time when my kids, were I to have them, could have a decent chance, and some kind of quality of life? Could I provide for them properly?)

My feeling is that modern ethics favour the broody rather than the unborn child rather too much. As far as adoption goes, it seems most people here share my own opinions so of that I shall say no more.

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
What with today being the 60th anniversary of the fall of Berlin, I reckon them eugene chaps didn't win the toss afterall, innit.


Fritz Von A world full of Chiefs Cool


I've often thought Basildon a Great World Model ! Eek
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Steve G
My only issue with the concept of gay couples fostering children is the potential for peer abuse etc. that the children might receive at school.

In an ideal world that wouldn't happen but I know for a fact that if a kid had turned up at the shitty school I attended with two gay mums or dads their life would have been made miserable by many of the other kids. If they need foster care anyway then their lives will mostly likely not have been totally pleasant up until that point anyway so I think that should be considered.

My mum has fostered kids for many years and I know there are a multitude of issues facing both the kids and the carers without adding gay foster parents to the mix. I don't necessarily think there should be a legal bar from it happening but the individual circumstances should be considered thoroughly before it should be allowed to happen, and the sexuality of prospective foster parents would have to be considered a factor.
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
All it means is increasing the frequency of desirable characteristics in a population (as opposed to undesirable ones).


Who decides what's a desireable characteristic and what's not?

My eyesight isn't perfect so would that defect bar me from parenthood in a world ruled by eugenics? If not then what level of defect would?
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
My eyesight isn't perfect so would that defect bar me from parenthood in a world ruled by eugenics?

Of course not, but if I were a carrier (as evidenced by family history and/or genetic testing) for serious congential heart disease or cancer, or some other gastly condition (and there are many), I would ask myself if it was fair knowingly to pass these genes on to my kids, just because I wanted to procreate.

I think people's attitudes towards their unborn kids are extremely selfish, and this selfishness seems to me to be encouraged by much of today's ethical "thinking". YOUR right to breed must be balanced against your prospective progeny's right to a decent life.

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
I would imagine that a lot of Gay couples in the U.S. with kids, married or unmarried already foster kids on a bigger scale than is imagined, the question here, is wether they can adopt foster kids, innit ?


Fritz Von My own parents fostered many kids too in my younger days, though they never seemed to be able to get rid of me with the rest of them, when they had to go back to wherever: Big Grin

P.S. You wanna try being a coppers kid in East London in the 70's to know what aggravation at school's all about.
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Neill S
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
No. I think kids should be brought up on "standard practice"; if they decide to deviate later in life when they're mature enough to make that decision for themselves, then OK.

EW


What do you deem to be "standard practice" then? Could you also clarify what you mean by deviate and what is deviant...
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by matthewr
"Ignoring ethical sensitivities, a gentle application of eugenic principles could vastly reduce the incidence of many heritable diseases, for example"

Why not round 'em all up and put them in death camps instead?

Matthew

PS Reading your posts Earwicker, one could be forgiven for getting the impression that you really need to get laid Winker
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Neill S:
What do you deem to be "standard practice" then? Could you also clarify what you mean by deviate and what is deviant...

Biological standard practice - ie male and female couplings producing progeny, thus standard family practice is male and female parents + resulting progeny.

Deviate means something other than that.

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
Why not round 'em all up and put them in death camps instead?

Matthew

Bit extreme, wouldn't you say, Matthew? I'm only pointing out that some people might prefer not to be born, given the choice!!

And I wouldn't say I "needed" to get laid, although it might be nice... provided it was reproductively unproductive and involved a really lovely lady!

Despair springs eternal, however. Frown

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Most of us I suspect already know where babys come from; the question here is though "Where do Baby's go ?" innit.


Fritz Von Was Barnado a Doctor Smile
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Rasher
The question is particular that we are talking the USA here, and our own opinions of what should be are not relevant. Maybe in San Fransico it would be fine, but imagine the persecution of any gay, let alone a poor kid brought up by a gay couple, in the more redneck regions of the US, like Texas, Akansas, or Utah for Chrissakes!!! Eek
There has to be regard to avoiding putting people at risk - however unjust the circumstances. It stinks. In a safe environment, then definately yes, but nationally without regard for the self appointed protectors of society who are racist and homophobic, it could be a disaster.
Of course Fritz, you aren't interested in the debate, only in the stirring-up. Smile
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
That's a very rash statement me old rind, I'm deeply shocked & stunned and hurt by your implications as per usual, but I must let my own feeling stay on the sidelines as educating and informing you & others is far more impotent, no matter how distastful.

Fritz Von No medals please Frown
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Cjones
quote:
Of course not, but if I were a carrier (as evidenced by family history and/or genetic testing) for serious congential heart disease or cancer, or some other gastly condition (and there are many), I would ask myself if it was fair knowingly to pass these genes on to my kids, just because I wanted to procreate.


Earwicker: While I cannot say I agree with all of your rhetoric, in this case, I agree. A year or so ago, a deaf and blind lesbian couple had convinced the courts and a doctor to let them create a child that was born both deaf and blind. All in all, its appalling and would have liked to have seen these two sterilized, along with a few other things.
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Nime
Whether you like it or not it is the freedom to procreate that ensures the survival of mankind.

I heard the other day that bird flue may be more survivable by those descended from survivors of the bubonic plague.

Now if you take this to its logical conclusion one dare not exclude anybody from breeding. Not even EW! Winker

Nime
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
Whether you like it or not it is the freedom to procreate that ensures the survival of mankind.

I heard the other day that bird flue may be more survivable by those descended from survivors of the bubonic plague.

Now if you take this to its logical conclusion one dare not exclude anybody from breeding. Not even EW! Winker

Nime

Hmm. I think Cjones has given a neat example of why certain people should not multiply: ask yourself who, in the last analysis, you're doing it for.

And I can exclude MYSELF from breeding! Eek

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Deane F
"Breeding"!

Your ethical faculties are shallow indeed Earwicker, if you cannot extend your theories to include a consideration of the human tendency toward absolutism and tyranny.

You have yet to answer the question of who, exactly, would be doing the deciding in your brave new world.
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
"Breeding"!

Your ethical faculties are shallow indeed Earwicker, if you cannot extend your theories to include a consideration of the human tendency toward absolutism and tyranny.

I wasn't aware there was such a tendency; indeed the 20th century (and much post- medieval history) shows that the reverse is generally true: the tendency is towards maximum freedom - within the constraints that make civilisation possible.

quote:
You have yet to answer the question of who, exactly, would be doing the deciding in your brave new world.

How about geneticists? And in extreme cases (e.g. deliberately passing on genetic disorders), how about statute?

EW
Posted on: 02 May 2005 by Deane F
Geneticists? Thanks, but I'd rather not have the future of the human race left to scientists. They still mostly claim that science is value free.

The tendency toward freedom in the 20th century is assured only by systems of government that have evolved to the point that they contain enough safeguards to ensure liberty under successive regimes. Our politicians don't enjoy having their performance subjected to review by the electorate every few years. We don't have the presumption of innocence in court because it's a natural human tendency to presume innocence.

Are you sure you're not winding up everybody with this eugenics business Earwicker? Not just a wee troll for fun?