While mirror image thinking about gays is fun (they're just heterosexuals with a bit flip), it's not all that realist.
Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests.
What? Can it be defended?
Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not children, but rather teenagers. There can be argument about whether homosexual sex with a pre-pubescent is really homosexual behavior, but there is no argument about post-pubescent sex. This is a problem with gay priests.
At most, gay priests make up 30% of the Catholic clergy. More likely, they are in the 10-20% range. The male population is 3% homosexual (yes, I know you heard 10% and that you should drink 8 glasses of water a day and that we only use 10% of our brains; the 3% number for male homosexuality has the advantage of actual facts to back it up). So gays make up an out-sized proportion of Catholic priests and there are various reasons for that. Guilt, etc., of course, and a homosexual seminary culture that is now being rooted out by Catholics who (somewhat wrongly) blame it for lots of things that are wrong with the Church.
Regardless, the gay Catholic priests seem to be committing a far out-sized proportion of the abuse. The Church simply can't afford to keep paying out the damage settlements that it would have to in order to keep its gay clergy. The congregations don't like the clergy having sex with their young boys either. Hence, expect to see less gay priests going forward.
While many gay men make wonderful priests, a few ruin it for the rest of them.
So, adoption? While a person could make arguments about equality and fairness before the law, etc., I personally have a low tolerance for that sort of democratic cant and tune it out. It's illogical rabble-rousing. As Socrates says (I'll point out that I'm a fan of the Symposium -- yes, that's the Platonic dialogue on love with a disturbing amount of gay sex thrown in), democracies equate things that are not equal.
Throw those arguments out -- which I do, and with prejudice -- and 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. It's not a brilliant move.
Aside: The percentage of the female population that is homosexual is harder to get a feel for, but somewhere around 1.5% seems to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexual behavior is much more common in females, or so Kinsey found. The weirdness of homosexuality in humans, a weirdness found in only one other mammal, so far as I know, is that opportunistic homosexual behavior. That happens all the time in the animal kingdom. It's exclusive homosexuality that is non-standard. That's bizarre from a fitness standpoint. There are some electrode studies (electrodes + dirty pictures, you imagine the rest) that suggest that there are no genuine bisexual males as far as desire goes, only males that are bisexual in behavior. It's harder to tell with females (30% or more are unaroused by dirty pictures of either sex, which ruins the studies).
...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?
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.
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.
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.
I would argue that the problems with Catholic Priests is largely down to the requirement for them to be celibate.
Firstly it represents an important selection bias - most people would not want to promise to be celibate for the rest of their lives. Those who do do are likely to have 'outlier' sexual feeling and thoughts.
More obvious is that because they have no legitimate means to fulfil their sexual desires they are far more likely to find illegitimate means to do so.
A more sinister explanation is that they are attracted to the clergy because they are aware that it offers them the opportunity to commit abuse.
Before I reply, I'd like to find out what you mean by that statement.
Do you mean, "Let us be willfully blind and refuse to engage our senses, not recognizing any differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals despite large behavioral differences (beyond sexual preference) which do exist."
Or do you mean, "Despite your arguments, I categorically state that no differences between these groups exist (beyond the sexual preference of each). I state this without any argument of my own, please accept it for no reason that I care to state."
Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on.
Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.
Not allowing gay people to adopt because they're "more likely" to commit abuses is discrimination, whether or not you have the data to prove the logical statement.
> Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.
Howver, a corollary of this tenet of modern society is that unequal representation in a given field/endeavor is prima facie evidence of discrimination, regardless of differences in group median ability. I trust I do not need to provide examples of this?
Posting basically unsubstantiated contrary shit like this and ambiguous snarky replies is typically not a hallmark of someone trying to discover the truth; it's just an excuse be an asshole without real repercussions.
But just to make it crystal clear: you're not being down voted just because people are too polite to confront the truth. You're being down voted because you're not very smart.
Dude, you essentially made up or misinterpreted the numbers you're using[1], then you make what amounts to completely irrational sweeping generalizations based on nothing but two numbers and/or your (limited) social experience.. And, admit it, you know these conclusions are offensive. Not only that, but you can't even stand by your intentionally ambiguous statements about homosexual behavior after you post them -- you're not only an asshole, but completely gutless.
i.e. Shut the fuck up, kid. You have no idea what you're talking about.
It's not politeness. It's an unwillingness to make sweeping generalizations about a group, especially when the generalizations are being used to legislate and codify discrimination.
I've never seen someone straightforward enough to say that they'd rather be polite than logical.
Try the average husband. When the wife asks "does my butt look big in this", there's an immediate and well acknowledged convention to be polite rather than logical ;-)
You'd be surprised at the number of straight-acting gay men that you interact with everyday.
You're basing your judgments on the flamboyant feminine gay men, the ones who you know are definitely gay. That's a very biased sampling to base your judgments on.
What? I think you meant to reply to someone else. Re-read my posts and find any statement where I suggested any behavioral differences and backed it up by anecdotal evidence.
Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests.
What? Can it be defended?
Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not children, but rather teenagers. There can be argument about whether homosexual sex with a pre-pubescent is really homosexual behavior, but there is no argument about post-pubescent sex. This is a problem with gay priests.
At most, gay priests make up 30% of the Catholic clergy. More likely, they are in the 10-20% range. The male population is 3% homosexual (yes, I know you heard 10% and that you should drink 8 glasses of water a day and that we only use 10% of our brains; the 3% number for male homosexuality has the advantage of actual facts to back it up). So gays make up an out-sized proportion of Catholic priests and there are various reasons for that. Guilt, etc., of course, and a homosexual seminary culture that is now being rooted out by Catholics who (somewhat wrongly) blame it for lots of things that are wrong with the Church.
Regardless, the gay Catholic priests seem to be committing a far out-sized proportion of the abuse. The Church simply can't afford to keep paying out the damage settlements that it would have to in order to keep its gay clergy. The congregations don't like the clergy having sex with their young boys either. Hence, expect to see less gay priests going forward.
While many gay men make wonderful priests, a few ruin it for the rest of them.
So, adoption? While a person could make arguments about equality and fairness before the law, etc., I personally have a low tolerance for that sort of democratic cant and tune it out. It's illogical rabble-rousing. As Socrates says (I'll point out that I'm a fan of the Symposium -- yes, that's the Platonic dialogue on love with a disturbing amount of gay sex thrown in), democracies equate things that are not equal.
Throw those arguments out -- which I do, and with prejudice -- and 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. It's not a brilliant move.
Aside: The percentage of the female population that is homosexual is harder to get a feel for, but somewhere around 1.5% seems to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexual behavior is much more common in females, or so Kinsey found. The weirdness of homosexuality in humans, a weirdness found in only one other mammal, so far as I know, is that opportunistic homosexual behavior. That happens all the time in the animal kingdom. It's exclusive homosexuality that is non-standard. That's bizarre from a fitness standpoint. There are some electrode studies (electrodes + dirty pictures, you imagine the rest) that suggest that there are no genuine bisexual males as far as desire goes, only males that are bisexual in behavior. It's harder to tell with females (30% or more are unaroused by dirty pictures of either sex, which ruins the studies).