Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphyr | Hacker News Reader

...you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption

We are not singling them out to allow adoption, unless by "singling out" you mean "including in the same privileged class as straight housewives, baristas, scientists, garbage collectors, members of the armed service, naturalists, and, depending on the state, convicted felons."

Seriously. Parents come in all shapes and sizes--surprisingly few restrictions are placed. Why are gay people barred from adopting when longitudinal studies show their parenting outcomes are basically indistinguishable from "normal" families?

View on HN

Just for my information, what do you mean by parenting outcomes? How is that defined?

Success of the offspring, perhaps? Professionally, emotionally, etc.

There are a bunch of metrics out there. Off the top of my head...

- Division of child care and house routine - Ability to devote time to children - Self-reported satisfaction in childrearing relationships - Parenting awareness skills - What types of discipline techniques are used (i.e. reasoning vs. spanking) - Character of relationships with parents, peers, and other adults - Longitudinal studies of mental health factor (depression, acting out, ...)

Obviously, controls and sample distribution are complicated. You also need to separate the fact that more gay couples are adopting children from one partner's previous marriage which dissolved when they came out to themselves and/or their spouse. That can be stressful--but it can also bring a family together. I've heard stories from all over the map.

I don't think that convicted felons, baristi, or garbage men are great choices for adoption either. The first, obviously, the second two because we can afford to have high standards. We can afford to insist on college degrees and middle-class incomes. High standards.

Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about allowing men (gay or straight) to be baby sitters. Because sexual abuse is an out-sized male thing. Does it bother me that men would be harmed by this restriction? No. Identity politics disgust me, even white male identity politics.

On to your argument. Why have high standards for adoption? Because there are too many people who want to adopt (white kids), and too few (white) kids to go around. Hence, we can be demanding.

Arguments to be "fair" don't go far with me.

How is barring individuals from adoption on the basis of their sexual identity not identity politics?

For that matter, why do you think scientists or armed service members are better candidates than baristi or garbage men? Late nights in the lab, relationship failure, and heavy drinking are a part of the science life. For that matter, lawyers have some of the highest alcoholism rates of any profession. Shall we conclude that they are unfit, as a class, to raise children?

(Disclaimer: I'm a gay physics major with a boyfriend in law school. I'd like kids some day.)

I... reluctantly conclude you are trolling. Strange, you don't see that often here.

Do you know any gay men? This is beyond offensive to me.

I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man. I've been a babysitter and a church camp counselor (of children from fourth through twelfth grade).

Before you talk about the "problem gay men seem to have with sexual abuse," we should talk. A man's value is not defined by his sexual orientation.

This is beyond offensive to me. I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man.

Dude, I'm a hacker-herding atheist straight female, and that was beyond offensive to me too, so I figure between you and me we have all the bases covered :-)

First time I have hoped that somebody was trolling on HN though...

>> so I figure between you and me we have all the bases covered You both list four personal characteristics. On all four I resemble one of you too so I guess I don't expand the "bases" :)

I also find his points are somewhat offensive. I say somewhat because I have learned that being offended by someones opinions (as opposed to him lashing out on you personally) is not a good thing. They are just that, opinions, ideas. Maybe thought inducing or maybe boring. Offensiveness alone, I think, should only ever be used held the offender when offensiveness was the purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com