Bill would limit Reproduction Procedures for Gays and Singles

Remove all ads!

I know I'm not supposed to post as IotW, but this just can't be skipped, so I'm risking it.
http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=3935406&nav=0RYb

Also, this article doesn't mention it, but the woman would need to prove she is married and "participated in faith-based or church activities."

Bah, Constitution Schmonstitution.

[ October 05, 2005, 18:59: Message edited by: Rutkowski ]

 

Evidently, Indiana is one of several states that only allow married couple to adopt. There were states in the U.S. that had laws specifically excluding gays from adopting, including Florida, and the Florida law was struck down a few years ago as unconstitutional. What that caused was Florida and a number of other states with similar laws to revise their laws to state that only married people could adopt a child. That effectively barred the possibility of gays adopting children as well. The revised laws have never been successfully challenged.

Based on this, I am inclined to believe that a law like the one proposed would be Constitutional. However, one thing they are not going to be able to do is include the part about being involved in faith-based or church activities, as that part is clearly unconstitutional, as there is no law barring non-religious people from having chidren.

 

Children have rights, too, and those need to be taken into consideration. A child's rights are always superior to anyone's rights to have children and can't be treated like a non-issue. As it is desirable to exercise some control over who can adopt, it may be proper to exercise some control over who can reproduce in atypical situations, especially involving artificial means (which should be banned altogether if you ask me).

 

If it's constitutional to take children away from unfit parents, then it should be fair game to screen them before assisting them in having kids to take away in the first place...

 

@chev & Gnarf:
I am surprised at you two. Gay people and singles are still people, and should have the same rights as you or I. Denying them something as joyous as having a child just because you dislike their lifestyle is downright cruel and inhumane. I hope that the women of the world deny both of you the opportunity to reproduce too. And if you think that a child will be "damaged" by growing up with gay parents, well, there's not much I can do for you. Likely you've been taught this by your religion, so there's little I could say to contradict it that you would believe. But you're still wrong.

That being said, I agree with Aldeth. Though I think it's certainly a cheap way to prevent gay people from adopting, it's completely constitutional aside from the religious stipulation. There's enough of a correlation between having married parents and growing up "better" than having a single parent, I don't think that takes into consideration having two good parents who simply are not married. And I doubt they ever will. I don't see anything wrong with the law, and if and when gay people are allowed to marry, they'll be able to adopt just like any other couple. This way, people can focus their efforts on that issue instead.

 

I still think that this is unfair generalisation, but we've had this debate so many times before that I will say no more. For now.

 

@Felinoid:

Speaking about the right of those people to have children while not devoting a single word to the children's concern is cruel and inhumane, Felinoid. It makes objects of human beings and places them below some people's "rights" or even sentiments on the list of priorities. I hope that isn't your list of priorities.

No one bans those people from having children the way they were intended to have: from marriage between a man and a woman and natural insemination. Besides, even married couples who are unable to support the 10 child shouldn't really have it, either.

It is considered cruel to have a pet you can't support. Animal rights organisations will protest and authorities intervene. Are children suddenly less important than animals and have less rights?

Sorry, but that's unlikely.

Yes, a child would be damaged by growing up amongst gay people, swingers, paedophiles and generally anyone living in arrangements different from one man and one woman, exclusively and permanently, preferably married. A child will most likely be damaged even by growing up with a single parent or one parent being away much of the time. The latter can be compensated somehow, but growing up among those who practice unnatural sexual behaviour (which includes open cheating, changing partners frequently and whatever else) will create wounds and scars that are impossible to heal.

I don't need religion to know that a child needs a mother and a father. It takes eyes an ears and some brain to notice. And I don't know what makes you put religion in bold and italics and what's so funny as to play around with tongue smileys. We are discussing an important matter, including something so vital as providing children with a proper homestead.

There are single parents better than a full couple, but this doesn't mean that any person who wants children but doesn't want a proper family should have them. You could find a couple of heterosexual parents who could be worse than a gay couple, but hey, not all heterosexual parents are wife beaters or crack whores.

 

As long as they are the ones paying for the procedure then it's no ones business. As long as they pay.

 

Except, children of homosexual couples have proven to not suffer any damages. How do I know? Classmate. He grew up in a family where he had two mothers, both very nice women.

I'm sorry, but in the 21th century, where not everyone is forced to be a Catholic or be executed for being a heretic. Not everyone is a Christian, or even religous, and therefore we should not enforce our beliefs upon them.

Who says a Gay couple or a single person can't support a kid where a straight couple can?

 

@chev:
I put religion in bold italic because religion (and its teachings) have no place in secular law. And I'm not trying to convert or even debate you on the subject of whether gay people make good parents or not. As I said, there's nothing that will convince you to change your mind because it's a belief, and one which you hold very strongly, so there's really no point.

This is your belief; no more, no less. I know you're not saying this, but homosexuality is not catching and does not do "splash damage". And embarassment by parents is a constant throughout the world. The only wounds and scars will be created by small-minded children and adults who mock and denigrate this child for a circumstance of adoption.

What I was surprised about is how vehemently two otherwise good people speak out against something that does no harm. The bigotry inherent in such blanket statements is not something I would expect from either of you. Even if gay couples were allowed to adopt, do you think it would be an automatic process? Heck no. Of course they would be judged against the same strict standards as any other prospective adopter. But denying them even the slightest chance is unethical and speaks of unreasoning fear.

[ October 06, 2005, 23:51: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

@Rutkowski:

Sorry, but that's hilarious. All that crushing proof is your personal opinion about one classmate of yours.

So it's just a religious superstition that children should have a mother and a father? Was nature, the universe, evolution, whatever, Catholic then?

That's a nice flashy interlude of yours but no one's speaking about executions or force conversions.

Who says that natural order should be redefined so as to fit the political concepts of a minority group within one species? Who says pairs of gay people are fit to be parents in the first place?

You probably understand that one shouldn't keep a pet if he can't provide the right conditions for that kind of animal. For anyone in his sane mind, a human child is worth more than a legion of pets. So why subject children to experiments or downright whims of those who aren't willing to found a family but want to have the fun of having children that you believe to be a basic human right?

@Felinoid:

Please don't teach a lawyer how the law works, okay? Supposing that you have separation of church and state in place, that does not mean that anything which happens to be a religious tenet on some parallel level should be banned from ever being public law. If that were the case, murder laws should be abolish because of "thou shalt not kill" being a judeochristian directive.

True separation of church and state means that priests don't write laws and parliaments don't write religious doctrine. This doesn't mean that politicians should be atheists, priests outlawed, citizens ashamed of their religious weekness and cherishing a schizophrenical division between what some others deem to be their religious views and the rest of their moral stance.

Separation of church and state does not entail favouring any secular philosophy. On a certain level, those are parallel to religions and should be treated the same way. Therefore, atheism or agnosticism or any form of axiological secularism is not the golden way of the state. It's a religious or quasi-religious view like any other, the state being neutral. It is no more against the separation of church and state for some states in the US to put up such limits within the scope of their authority, as it was for their federal Supreme Court to enforce the minority secularist opinion in Roe vs Wade.

In your ideal world, religion is flawed and should be avoided, outlawed from public life and that is essentially the purpose of a clear division between the church and the state. But no, historically, the division between the church and the state has been postulated by religious organisations as much as by secular authorities, if not more. The basic idea is that spiritual and temporal authorities should be separate, edicts of one not enforced by the other. Not a historic victory of humanity breaking the shackles of religion.

The alternative you provide is also based on a belief in which you put quite a lot of faith, so what difference does that make?

Patterns in sexual behaviour are catching. It's amazing how some people claim that poor gays who have always been gay (genetically) end up admitting their homosexuality only after a series of failures in heterosexual coupling violently pounded into their heads by the oppressive heterosexual majority. So if it's possible for heterosexual parents to drive homosexual children into behaving like heterosexuals despite being gay, it must therefore be possible for homosexual parents to root homosexual sexual behaviour patterns in their children, whether they consciously so attempt or even consciously try to avoid it.

Children learn their sexual roles from parents. How are you going to explain to a child that the way it normally happens, mother is female and father is male, but in his family it's otherwise? Or are you going to lead the child to believe that his is the normal family model? If children brought up by single mothers sometimes end up asking who a father is, will children brought up by homosexuals be provided some supplementary englightenment by mother nature that boys are after girls, girls after boys and they make babies? Or will they think that a daddy meets a daddy and they go to the office to select a child to adopt? Where is the child going to learn the role of the gender not present in his family? Where will he find the missing role model?

I am surprised at the vehemence with which you claim it does no harm even against most the obvious reality that shouldn't even be a discussion matter.

Ignoring reality in favour of politics and placing welfare of children below political needs or social trends is not something I would expect from anyone.

The human species being divided into two genders, a sample of each of which is needed to produce offspring is a product of my brain, unethical and speaking of irrational fear?

Unethical is making social experiments on children, using them in political campaigns, denying them the real family they deserve or at least the freedom from learning pathological patterns. It is already unethical to think about one's own desire to have children before the prospective children's welfare.

[ October 07, 2005, 00:00: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

And what is your proof, hmm chev? How do you know that they will damage any children they raise? I have my own story about my cousin who was raised by his gay father, and he is one of the most decent men I have ever known. He's married and has two kids already. You see, we may have only tiny kernels of proof, but what do you have? Only ridiculous generalizations about a diverse group. The mere folly of lumping men and women into the same group is more than laughable.

Yes and no. It is a superstition, but it's hardly constrained to one religion. It's built upon the mistaken belief that only the people who conceived a child should have anything to do with its raising. While they should have a big part, it takes a community to raise a child properly. Everyone that child comes into contact with affects their development, whether it be their biological parents, their teachers, their friends, or even people they meet on the street.

Who says it needs to be redefined? Who says it wasn't already included in its makeup? I can easily see Cain killing Abel in a lovers' spat.

And who says they're not?

None. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot make law based on one person's belief. Everything above that quote in your post addressed to me is true, and I was hoping you'd say it. (Though my ideal world is NOT religion-free; I just wish I'd see less of it in political campaigns. )

Here's where you lost me for a bit. Sexual behaviour is not learned, though you do make a good point about the role model aspect. And that's why we have sex ed in schools.

Your belief does not constitute reality. Neither does mine. Reality must be observed.

I hate to do this, but it seems I must run the flag up the pole. Gay people as a whole are neither mad social scientists, political campaigners, nor unconcerned with childrens' welfare. If I were you, I would think long and hard before making such obviously false (and potentially inflammatory) generalizations.

[ October 07, 2005, 00:36: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

And I have stories of people being ill-affected by missing a parent already, not even having it supplanted by an antithesis.

Almost every single book on psychological aspects of child raising or sexual maturing says that children learn sexual behaviour from parents somewhere in the opening section. Unless you believe that a child learning that hitting on your own gender and having two mummies or two daddies is normal is a good thing.

The mere folly of lumping men and women into the same group? And what else does the concept of gay parenting rely upon?

Please repeat that or I won't believe. What else is a superstition? That there are reptiles and mammals and that birds tend to fly, while mammals not much so (and watch people coming up with bats and ostriches!).

There is no such belief. Especially not in Christianity, if you're hinting that way. Stop the first priest or pastor you come across and ask if the whole community isn't responsible for raising children.

The mistaken belief that <something> should be is most curious. So now there's a boolean 0/1 value in the are of moral imperatives and you happen to be the one that holds the keys to that kingdom?

Which doesn't reduce the responsibility of the parents to teach their child proper roles rather than none, and most certainly not pathologically altered ones.

Explaining away the differences between genders and their roles is now just a different way of looking on the same natural order? No, sorry. It's political correctness replacing common sense.

So you are willing to make experiments on children to find out? Or are you presuming that they are by default? It's you who want gay people to start being able to adopt children, so it's up to you to prove that they are able to raise them properly. Or at least admit that gay rights are more important than ensuring children's proper growth.

 

As interesting and as eloquently stated as Chev's bigoted fag-bashing tends to be, let us instead consult a summary of the leading scientific studies of the American Psychological Association regarding the psychological health of children of homosexual parents.

Research Summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting

Some highlights...

There is however a caveat...

So it would seem that studies of the adult children of homosexuals are not yet finalized. However, young children of homosexuals have shown nothing except normalcy. To say with certainty that you know these children will become maladjusted adults is to say with certainty something that you certainly do not know with certainty.

In other words, stop spewing hate-speech and let the children speak for themselves.

[ October 07, 2005, 11:16: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

I could ask the same of you, but us questioning each other's opinions isn't going to get us anywhere.

Agreed, but ; homosexuality is not a pathology. There is no "gay disease".

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it was that way, simply that it could have been, and there is no way to prove it either way unless you're the Almighty yourself. So quoting the natural order as if it were a boolean value carries no weight.

No it's not. Or have you forgotten the law already? It's unconstitutional to take away someone's rights based on a theory. The thought of me being wrong about this and subjecting children to psychological damage makes me queasier than you can possibly imagine. But I can't deny these people their rights simply because of a chance that it might happen. You are the one who must prove why they should be denied.

[ October 07, 2005, 01:43: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Obvoiusly someone hasn't been paying attention then...

Gay men have the right to marry any woman who would concent to this. Likewise, Lesbians have the right marry any man that will agree to this. Further, if states pass laws that only legally and lawfully wedded couples can adopt, then the state has spoken.

They have to realize that not having that joy is a consequence of their sins. When two men have sex with each other, they cannot produce offspring. Likewise two women having sex cannot bring a child into the world. If they want the joy of having children, then they ought to find partners of the opposite sex...

I assumew that's supposed to be a joke, but I don't find such personal jabs funny.

Am I wrong? If children are not taught to obey certain rules for personal conduct, they will not follow them, to the detriment of themselves and those around them. You hear people bitching that they don't want prayer in school, they don't want religion pushed on their children, then they bitch that the children don't live like the Bible teaches. Without proper role models, the opposite of that morality may be taught in their youth, and if there is any bitterness between the parents and religion, that will be passed to the child in question, so immorality will ultimately flourish.

And people get less up in arms when animals are taken from those that abused them than when children are taken away from parents that should not have them...

But are Aetheists trying to push religious belief underground? I have said it before and I will say it again. Any statement a government makes against traditional morals pushed forward a transition towards an amoral state.

This is your belief; no more, no less. Our perspective is based not solely on this world, but the next as well.

If I understand this correctly, just because Religion takes a stance on a topic, the State is not bound to push the opposite. If it were, it would not be separation, but attachement, as opposite ends of a pole are connected.

It's called accountability. A man and a woman had sex and the result was the birth of a child. They have a responsibility to care for and teach the child for 18 years. They have the primary responsibility for that. When you open this up to the community, you pass this responsibility off on those who may have less true accountability on this matter. It is assumed that I am not the father of my friends young daughter (honestly, I'm not). Therefore I may be less carefull with what I contribute to the teaching of the child...

Chastity or promiscuity, Heterosexual or homosexual, it has to be learned. We start as a blank slate. Bottom line, any thing we ultimately know has to be learned somewhere...

@LNT: I believe that study was mentioned in a thread in AoLS. I believe that it was put forward by a Gay and Lesbian friendly group. This leads the conclusions to be questioned on grounds that their pre-existing biases may have influenced the report that they produced.

Isn't simply denying them based off their deviation from socially accepted mores enough?

 

This is true. You don't have to prove why someone should be granted rights that others have, but rather have a justifiable reason why a certain group should have rights withheld from them.

We can quote all the studies that we want, but simply put we really haven't had enough time to accumulate a sufficient sample size to say whether or not homosexual parents are as good at child rearing as heterosexual parents. Up until the 80s, being openly gay really wasn't an option. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that people have been openly gay, and as a result, even if we look back to the first gay adoptions, we're looking at people who are only reaching adulthood now. Furthermore, gay adoptions have increased dramatically in the last 5-10 years, and those children simply aren't adults yet. You're free to say that we may be "experimenting" on these children, but unless you give homosexuals the ability to adopt, and then prove they are unfit parents, there is no justification to deny them this right.

No. For the exact same reason as above - you must have a justifiable reason to withhold a right from someone. All you're saying is that they should have rights denied to them because they're different - that's not a justifiable reason, but rather the very definition of a discriminatory practice.

I don't have nearly the problem with a law saying only married people can adopt as I do with a law saying gays cannot adopt. In the former case, the law applies the same to everyone. In the latter, it is saying that a single person who is straight is a better parent than a single person who is gay. Studies have been done that show children fare better in two-parent households than single-parent households, mostly due to differences in household income. So in this regard, there is some justifiable reason for withholding a right. That having been said, it should be pointed out that if an independently wealthy single person wanted to adopt a child, it can reasonably be assumed that the child would do just fine. So even this reasoning cannot be applied universally.

What? None of those things are learned! With chastity or promiscuity, it is a choice that each person makes. It isn't "learned" in any way. It's also suggesting chastity and promiscuity are the only possible outcomes - that everyone must be either one or the other - which is again, false. For example, married couples are neither chaste nor promiscuous.

As for sexual preference, it's even more ridiculous to suggest that it is learned, as that isn't even a choice! I didn't have to be "taught" to be into women. My wife didn't have to be "taught" to be into men. We didn't learn to be heterosexual - we were born that way. While I cannot speak for homosexuals on the basis of personal experience, I imagine the same is true for them.

 

@Gnarf:
Yay! Someone finally played the conception card. And guess what? Adoption is an alternative to conception. Being unable to conceive (like a man with lazy sperm or a woman with a hysterectomy) does not mean you should be banned from adopting.

Fine. If you can't take a joke, I'll just pick on chev.

And who are these people? The ones complaining that their children "don't live as the Bible teaches" are frequently the ones who push for religion in schools. And if they're not teaching it at home (where it should be), they have no right to complain.

Very true. As Aldeth stated, nothing can be proven as of yet.

I agree, but it is still a belief. Were it accepted as an absolute truth, there would be no such thing as adoption, and we would not be having this discussion. If only...

You can see it? What does it look like? Say hi to Saint Peter for me! (Sorry, but I couldn't resist. And stay away from that light!)
.
.
.
Oh, and ditto everything Aldeth said.

 

I agree with everything Aldeth said except for one minor thing. Chastity does not equal celibacy. A married couple who are faithful one to the other are quite possibly chaste. A person who is celibate might not be chaste.