In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children.
For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual people cannot adopt. So while a single straight woman can adopt a child, a single lesbian woman cannot.
I'm not up to date on the literature regarding child development. It may be that there are studies that suggest that homosexual families are no different than heterosexual families in terms of impact on the child. I'm just throwing this argument out there because it is one of the few non-homophobic arguments against homosexual adoption that I know of. I don't personally have an opinion on this issue because I'm not qualified.
To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption.
Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area.
EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant.
"Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers."
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".
If there would be large numbers of cases proving that it essentially makes no difference then that would help, but you're in a chicken-and-the-egg situation.
I know of one gay couple in my circle of friends that would like to adopt a child and they've come to the conclusion that they themselves can't come to a 100% agreement between the two of them about what that responsibility exactly entails. It was a very eye opening discussion, because I think I went away a changed person, essentially form going to saying 'I don't see why not' to 'maybe it really is better, who knows'.
For me that's a weird thing because when I thought about this before I always thought that gay people would not 'overlap' with straight people on this issue but would be on the far side of a barrier that you can not cross because you can not imagine what it is exactly like to be gay when you are not.
This is a very complex issue, societal pressures are such that simply being raised as the child of two gay parents puts undue pressure on a child (for instance peer pressure), and that can cause serious damage. That's the sort of argument that they went on about and I had never even thought of it from that angle.
In another scenario, isn't it better for a gay child in foster care to be adopted by gay parents than by straight parents?
When you say "peer pressure", is that just a euphemism for bullying?
The situation I had in mind was two gay people without children adopting a child.
> In another scenario, isn't it better for a gay child in foster care to be adopted by gay parents than by straight parents?
That would probably be a good thing.
*or gestational mother in the case of a non-traditional surrogate
There is also the question of what are considered good outcomes for children. For example, I read somewhere that children of gay parents have sex earlier or more often. Assuming that's true, is it a good or bad thing?
No, we don't. We like to think we do. Consider: most Americans agree that a substantial number of prisoners suffer repeated rape and abuse. This is so commonly accepted that it is a well known trope in mass market entertainment. Prisoners obviously cannot defend themselves. Yet there is zero political pressure to reform the criminal justice system to alleviate this problem. Because we really don't care that much about protecting people who can't protect themselves.
More to the point, if we did place a high value on protecting children, then child protective services organizations would not be chronically underfunded and understaffed. In most places, CPS case workers are so overwhelmed by absurd case loads, that they cannot give sufficient attention to most of their cases, so children end up slipping through the cracks.
The fact that American protection of the defenseless isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we don't care about it as a society. You gave two examples and then extrapolated from your small sample to claim American society doesn't actually care about the disenfranchised. I think you might need some perspective.
I don't think this a reasonable way to analyse societal priorities. Obviously, all human societies are going to place some value on protecting the defenceless. I mean, can you think of any human society that placed no value whatsoever on protecting the defenceless? So if that's the metric you're going to judge on, then no society can ever fail. As a result, this strikes me as a pretty useless metric.
The original comment used the phrase "especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves." The only reasonable way I know of to assess such statements is to compare America to peer nations that have similar levels of wealth and similar forms of government. I mean, "especially high" seems to require a relative comparison. Specifically, one might look at child poverty, child malnourishment, or infant morality. On any of those metrics, the US ranks dead last (or near dead last) when compared with peer nations. That result does not seem to be compatible with the notion that the richest country in the world has a greater concern for the welfare of defenceless children than other western nations. Don't you agree?
Look, you can point to my examples and claim that they're special cases, but human organizations demonstrate their values with their budgets. Talk is cheap. Paying for enough CPS staff is not. Well, actually, it is really cheap given the benefits. Underfunded CPS? American society doesn't care all that much about disadvantaged children. Or rather, American society values low marginal tax rates and absolute parental autonomy higher than providing for child protection services. That doesn't mean that American society is bad or evil or that Americans are monsters, but it does mean that you can't justify policies by talking about our unique commitment to protecting defenceless children.
I think there's a tendency for people to underestimate the exposure they get to their families as compared to the exposure they get to anyone else in the world when it comes to close emotional contact.
Some of use who are aware of having had emotionally withdrawn fathers (or mothers) realise this better than others.
Malcolm Gladwell also examines the phenomenon of implicit social adjustment in his book _Blink_ (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/031601...).
+ Ignoring tragedies, of course.
Edit: footnote symbol caused formatting changes.
Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'.
Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt.
I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
"Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."
> "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."
As I argued in my post, most studies are likely to effected by selection bias so it is going to be tough to get a solid "empirical foundation" either way.
The real question is who should have the burden of evidence? Should we say that 'until gay couples are proven to be good parents we won't allow adoption' or 'unless it is proven that gay couples are bad parents they should have identical adoption rights'. I don't think either is sensible position and some sort of middle ground would be best as more evidence accumulates.
We shouldn't do either of those options, they are both total horseshit. It's not a matter of what rule we should adopt, it's a matter of should we adopt a rule at all. And no, we shouldn't.
Straight parents are the origin of the our species. Everyone of your biological ancestors forms a direct and unbroken line of 'Straight parents'. It is logical to assume children are well adapted to straight parents and vice versa. In fact we have no other real choice.
When a company develops a new substance and wants to use it as a food additive we naturally ask if it has been tested properly before allowing human consumption. But we do not ask whether commonly eaten foods such as rice and bananas need testing. The have been tested throughout history.
To put it another way,