It seems like there are two types of prejudices here with age and sexual orientation as reasons for denial but I focused more on the sexual orientation. There are a slough of complications with this scenario because the laws of their country acknowledge the partners as legally joined but the laws of the Ukrainian government doesn't. The lack of consistency in laws even within our own nation presents a lot of problems like this where in some states homosexual couples can be recognized as legally joined but in others they aren't.
I also think it's interesting that Pavlenko is okay with a single or elderly person adopting a child as long as they aren't homosexual. How do we draw the line here? Is it right to prevent someone opportunities based on their sexual orientation when their age or marriage status doesn't? Personal and religious roles tend to have an effect in situations like this. Is it acceptable to deny privileges to some because what they're doing is deemed as not right? And if so how do we identify a boundary for how much personal belief weighs into these decisions to prevent the freedom of belief to prevail in our country?
I read articles about this on MSNBC and NPR
Having recently watched the 30 days episode concerning homosexuals and adoption, I have come to understand a little more about why many have conflict with this issue. It is interesting that Pavlenko is alright with single and elderly people adopting as opposed to homosexuals. This could be based on the argument that children being raised by two parents of the same sex are subject to cultural criticisms and social situations that could be damaging to them. At a young age children have to decide whether or not to tell others at school about their same sex parents. Situations like these can put children in a position where they are in direct contact with opposition. Is it right to subject children to this when society is still very divided on the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general? Pavlenko and many others may see it as too early to address the adoption issue when there are other problems that need to be worked out beforehand, like whether or not marriage should be solely between a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure what you are arguing because there is no defined thesis or argument but from what I can gather you are implying that Elton John should have been able to adopt even though he is gay. Whether that is actually the argument you are trying to make here's an argument I have against gay adoptions:
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is in the best interest of the child to be raised by a gay couple. It would be better for the child to have parents who are old or even a single parent who can teach them proper morals. Obviously the ideal would be two young to middle aged heterosexual parents.
Before we deal with the issue of whether or not a gay couple can adopt let's fix the other problems with adoptions to make it easier for the ideal families to adopt. There are many families out there who would love to have children but don't because of cost or the sheer difficulty of it through the many legal processes. If there were so many children that we absolutely had no place to put them then maybe we could consider allowing the much less ideal gay couples to adopt.
You are right the laws are inconsistent between countries but that is the way it is with international adoptions, each country has the right to create their own laws. There is an even greater number of ideal families who have been working for years to adopt a child internationally and have been held up because of the different laws between countries. So again until all of these families have their children and there are no more heterosexual couples who have applied to adopt then we can start to consider the gay couples.
If we spent as much time and money on fixing the system of adoption in general instead of debating whether a gay couple can adopt (when we haven't even settled marriage of a gay couple) then there would be so many more children with good families who will teach them correct morals.
He's 62 years old. 62. He would be 79 years old by the time his adopted son became an adult. This shouldn't be a gay versus straight conversation. This should be a fair versus unfair debate. As in: fair or unfair to the child. The lack of discussion on the welfare of the child having an 79 year old father at age 18 speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteTo me, saying that we need to fix adoption before making a decision on gay couple adoption is similar to saying that when everyone is of the same religious belief system and political party, we'll deal with the problems of the world.
ReplyDeleteI am incapable of believing adoption is an issue that will ever be "fixed." I am also unable to expect children to wait and see if that ever happens. Every child (now or later) deserves loving parents, and no child is raised in a sinless home.
with the original post I wasn't trying to debate one side or the other, just stating the situation. In terms of what we're learning in class about discrimination, right or wrong, this is discrimination - hence the post.
ReplyDeleteAs for my comment on the post I'm don't think we need to worry as much about the subcategory of gay adoption as much as we need to worry about laying down the lines of where religion is involved in law making. Leadership is inconsistent enough with how often new politicians are in place and changing laws that I think clear lines need to be drawn about how much religion will affect our laws.
The majority of us will probably feel that a child in a home with homosexual parents won't yield positive results. But these views are likely more based on our values than objective facts that the rest of the world will recognize.
To avoid these issues we can make boundaries for how much religion is involved in law-making. For example if we say that homosexuals can't raise adopted children because our value system teaches us it's not good, what's to stop others from enacting a law saying people who drink coffee can't raise adopted children because it's against our value system? Or those who drink alcohol, smoke, have been sexually immoral, don't pay their tithing, don't go to church, or act in any other way contrary to a specific belief system? After boundaries are established that prevent religious views from being eliminated or oppositely eccentric then any controversial issue surrounding homosexuals will be greatly diminished in its complications.
I also agree with Xofa who brought up the age complication because Elton John is probably far too old to be this child's parent. But my goal with this post wasn't to argue whether Elton John as an individual should be able to adopt a child, it was about how society's split decision on homosexuality makes it so decisions on the topic can be twisted and turned for each situation that arises whether that's a good thing or not.
Because the world isn't perfect we have to set down some ground rules to keep things in check. I don't feel like those have been established in the case of how we handle homosexuality from marriage to adoption to most problems surrounding how law treats this sexual orientation.
I also watched the 30 Days about the same sex couple, and I was thinking about how here is this household of 6 males. There is no feminine influence in their lives. Maybe they have friends, but in their house, it is only boys. Will those little boys be able to ever understand and get along with girls? Especially since their parents aren't interested in girls, what would the kids opinion of girls be? And this has to effect their future relationships. So while it sounds sweet that Elton John and his partner would adopt a little HIV positive boy from a less well off country, it really could be putting the boy in a bad situation where he could never have a real relationship.
ReplyDeleteThat's ridiculous to think that just because there is no female influence in the home that the boy "could never have a real relationship" (@Melissa). Sure, if they locked a boy in his room until he turns 18 then maybe he'd have some social anxiety upon exiting, but that's certainly not the case. I think it's absurd for anyone to claim that the life in the orphanage is better than being adopted by a very affluent individual that can give the child all the necessary things he needs to learn and grow as a person. Plenty of studies suggest that being raised in a peer-reared environment (e.g. an orphanage) is much more detrimental to a person's psyche than when having an actual parent around. They are at much higher risk for anxiety mood disorders. People should look in the psychology literature before making such assertions as this.
ReplyDeleteAnd furthermore, does this mean that a girl raised by a single parent mother would be incapable of "real relationships?" And what does that term even mean, really? A person suggesting this must really think gay people don't have close, fruitful relationships with individuals of the opposite sex. However, that is definitely not the case as I am well-acquainted with the gay community and cannot think of an instance in which a gay person has a negative opinion of the opposite sex. If such a person exists, he/she is definitely the exception.
It sounds like just another propagandistic argument against gay adoption grabbing at straws because there is actually another end in mind.
The truth is that orphanages in Ukraine, and many places in the world for that matter, are extremely underfunded. Children in these orphanages are at a high risk of dying from perfectly preventable diseases like rickets or even starvation and malnutrition. These kids have no shoes, no clothes, no medicine or healthcare, and no love. There are nice people (or maybe not so nice people) that watch these kids, but there is just too many of them to give each one adequate attention or love. That is just how it is. Can we really say that being raised by a wealthy gay couple will be more detrimental to a child than living a cold (literally it is very cold and they don't have enough money for everyone to have coats)hungry, miserable life in an orphanage in Ukraine? Or dying from a perfectly preventable disease? that just does not make sense to me. The world is pretty messed up and it is sad that a lot of heterosexual perfectly qualified couples have trouble adopting. However, maybe we should stop thinking about the couples so much and think more about the millions of children who need a home. I don't think homosexuality should be an issue when deciding if a couple can adopt. I bet if you asked one of the kids whether they would rather stay in the orphanage or live with a gay couple that could provide for their needs, they would pick the gay home.
ReplyDeleteHaving just finished a Summer working in a Romanian orphanage, I know how bad orphanages are. If a child has an opportunity to go to a loving, safe family they should not be denied that opportunity. No matter what the make-up of the family is. Though I do not think a gay household is the ideal enviornment, neither is a single parent home, neglectful parents, etc. Many kids grow up in these situatios and turn out just fine. The church teaches us that every child has the right to grow up in a home with a mother and a father, well, that does not always happen. I think that John and his partner should be able to adopt the child.
ReplyDelete