Wednesday, April 29, 2009

An Evangelical for Gay Adoption

It's me, i think. If there is surplus of children who are either orphaned or in abusive and unsafe situations, I would prefer them to be in the care of a loving gay couple than not.

If I had a choice between Noah and Amelie living on the streets or with 2 homosexual persons who would feed, clothe and ensure they get an education, I would choose the latter.

14 comments:

Steve Boxwell said...

Hey Geoff.

Good on you for making a stand on this issue, though I'm not sure your logic is water tight. You've used a utilitarian argument which, at first reading, seems reasonable to bolster a heading "An evangelical for Gay Adoption". What you have is not so much that as, "An argument for taking care of my children at any cost". If a robot cyborg thinggy was invented with the express purpose of feeding, clothing and providing education for your children then, by your logic your heading could equally be "An evangelical for Robot Cyborg thinggys adoption"

Catch my drift? To be for gay adoption you have to say more than that. You have to say, utilitarian arguments aside - if two sets of parents, one gay and the other heterosexual, were available to adopt children then there would be no reason to choose one over the other. So what do you think on that question?

SamR said...

If I had a choice between Noah and Amelie living on the streets or with 2 homosexual persons who would feed, clothe and ensure they get an education, I would choose the latter.Sure, but those are not really the circumstances at the heart of the debate are they?

Adoption in Australia is not looking after abused kids. What you've described sounds more like foster caring.
In fact it's pretty hard adopt - given that there are so few Australian babies put up for adoption. Does the nature of adoption change the stakes?

katierae said...

interesting topic....

i'm pretty sure i agree with both of you... i think i have an answer to your question steve but i'd like to hear geoff's first ;)

anyway i'm really only commenting so i don't miss any replies :)

Giraffe Pen (기린 만년필) said...

As someone who struggles with homosexuality and has lived the gay life for 5 years, I can assure you that gay families are not as healthy as you assume. Have a read of Phillip Jensen's book 'Pure Sex', Appendix A, which goes into the health risks associated with the gay lifestyle. It's not impressive. Gay and lesbian people are more likely to get depression, develop addictions to drugs and alcohol, get STDs, be unfaithful to one another in relationships, die early deaths, and commit suicide. That plus the emotional instability that may GBLT people have... No matter how loving gay couples are, I really don't think that raising a child in circumstances like that is health-condusive.

Kids need a home of mum and dad, not two dads or two mums.

geoffc said...

Hi Steve, I see your point, and was aware of it as I wrote. In order to keep it short (see my post below)I went to where I thought my conclusions would lead.

Does that make sense? If I'm going to allow gays to take care of my children at any coast, thet it means at some point I am willing to let gays take care of my children, because I believe that would be better than no one taking care of them. Concerning foster care, there is great need and from what i gather kids are missing out on decent foster care. If I'm going to asllow gay fostering, why not adoption if it is going to mean food, clothing, love and an education, even if it is not the perfect situation.

To try and answer your question. I think if both were available, the answer is of course that the heterosexual would be preferable. The problem is, can you create a law that says "Gays can adopt if there is no hetero's left to look after these children"? No you can't. My point was, if there was only the gay option, I would take it over nothing.

geoffc said...

again, to Steve, I don't think utilitarianism is a sound philosophy by any means, but in this case i would probably go with it if the current outcome meant much more drastic consequences for children.

Sam, I was well aware that this is not the situation as well as that what I am saying is more like fostering. But it seems that if you allow fostering, surely it would lead you to allow adoption? What's the difference? So i don't think the nature of adoption changes the stakes simply because in my limited understanding of law it would be a bit ridiculous to allow homosexual persons to foster and not adopt. As I said to Steve, I was just going where I thought my conclusions would lead - gay adoption.

What do you think the issues are at the heart of the debate Sam? I think you are right, that they are not, but were a consequence of banning gay adoption that kids would miss out on a home, wouldn't it then become a pretty significant issue?

geoffc said...

Hi Giraffe, thank you for sharing. I gather you would know more about this than most, especially me.

I was not assuming that all gay families are healthy, in fact I would say that all gay families are detrimental. I just see it as the lesser of two terrible situations.

I should also add, I'm not taking a stand on the issue, and it is definately not something I would die over. I was talking about it to a friend today over lunch, and he told me to blog about it. So here I am. They aren't complete thoughts, and I'm keen to get the discussion going.

I don't know your story, but I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you were at one stage unrepentant. If, while you were unrepentant, there was an option between you looking after a child or it being left to fend for itself on the streets (I'm not saying this is what happens), which do you think would have been a safer option for the child?

Steve Boxwell said...

Yeah Geoff, I totally agree that your argument from utility can lead to you saying gay adoption is cool if no other option is available but I disagree that you can make the logical step to say that you are "for" something.

A crude illustration but I think it is right that there be condom vending machines in prisons. That does not mean I am "for" prison sex.

What I have (and what I suspect you have) is a retrieval ethic that says "we want to minimise the damage sin and its consequences can do to people - particularly the innocent." That still doesn't mean you're "for" something.

Keep talking Geoff or I'll start making Robot Cyborg Thinggys bumper stickers. :)

geoffc said...

What I have (and what I suspect you have) is a retrieval ethic that says "we want to minimise the damage sin and its consequences can do to people - particularly the innocent." That still doesn't mean you're "for" something. yep. And if Gay adoption did this do you think Christians should be for it?

Giraffe Pen (기린 만년필) said...

Hi Geoff, here is my story: http://christianarticles.blogspot.com

:D If I were in that position, I probably would want to adopt, although it's not something that I'd want to pressure the government about.

Nick said...

...told ya Geoff. You'll crack 20 fur sure with a title like that.

geoffc said...

:D If I were in that position, I probably would want to adopt, although it's not something that I'd want to pressure the government about.
Would you pressure the government if there was a surplus of said children and no one willing to take them in?

Giraffe Pen (기린 만년필) said...

Possibly, but if I were actively gay, I'd honestly be enjoying the lifestyle too much to be wondering about kids. Searching for Mr. Right, the man of my dreams, would be consuming me much more than looking after kids, which would just get in the way of my pursuit for the man of my dreams.

Nathan said...

It's an interesting thought and a great debate.
What i've read here has helped me to think this through briefly and this is my 2 cents worth.

I think I'm going to side with Geoff (there goes my career choice). I'm not out to support Gay adoption/fostering rights but rather to protect children and serve their best intrests. If that means that the 'safest' place for them is with a gay couple, so be it.

That said, i know a couple that are involved in interum foster care for babies that are put up for adoption. The rules and regulations that are placed on this couple to protect the child are quite strict.