Gay parents

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/o...-1226636094787

Somewhat inspired by this opinion piece, I did post up a comment (which I doubt will be responded) which pastes a little scenario. Here it is for discussion (somewhat expanded due to the 1200 character limit in the article)

You have a mother who is putting her twin babies (one boy, one girl) up for adoption. You have ten couples waiting to adopt the child. Five couples are homosexual, five couples are heterosexual. Here is the breakdown for each:

Homosexual couples:

1) Both parties have a history of being abused as a child and as a result, have developed poor conflict resolution skills. When they argue, it degenerates into a full blown yelling match completely.

2) One partner is HIV+ from a prior sexual partner, but manages their condition perfectly. The other partner is not HIV+ but is careful to avoid contracting it from their partner.

3) One has a prior criminal record for traffic offences, but otherwise both partners are clean.

4) One partner has a chronic illness that is NOT HIV. The other partner is clean.

5) One suffers from gender dysphoria and is currently seeing a therapist to work through her issues.

For the sake of this, I'll assume that couples 1, 2 and 5 are female while 3 and 4 are male.

Heterosexual couples:

6) Already has a child (aged 5) and the woman is infertile due to complications from the previous pregnancy. They refuse to immunise their child and in fact, shun medical help altogether. The child is homeschooled based on the Steiner system*.

7) The wife has a chronic illness which is NOT HIV but is otherwise managed. Her husband does not have a chronic illness.

8) The couple has a history of drug abuse (with arrests for such) and the husband is HIV+ as a result. The wife is otherwise clean.

9) Both members have had a history of abuse as children and have poor social skills as a result. When they fight, it typically degenerates into a full-blown screaming and yelling match. No physical or sexual abuse.

10) The couple are otherwise good-standing members of society and are in decent health, but they are also part of an incredibly strict religious group (for the purposes of this, let's say it's the Exclusive Brethren).

Which couple would you give the children to and why? Please note that yes, I did give each couple a set of flaws and that some flaws are more serious than others. I tried to keep the scenarios similar as possible.

My point at the time was the "lesser of two evils" point.

As for which group I'd select, personally I'd go with any of them provided that they were receiving support for whatever issues they had.

*=while I don't normally have a problem with the Steiner system, homeschooling using said system can create some issues. Mostly, the ideals of Steiner have become somewhat diluted by radicals who tout their way as the only way.

[Kheldarson]

I'd lean more towards any except couples 1, 6, 8, or 9. I don't think a history of abuse is a good environment for a child.

So the yelling matches of couples 1 and 9 would worry me as a social worker because that could devolve and isn't a good environment for a child. Couple 8 I'd honestly have to take a hard look at where they live, their current social economic status (are they still in the same type of situation that led to the drug abuse and arrests), and what kind of care is being done for the HIV+. So I'd be less likely to grant a child to them.

And 6, well, I think it's far more dangerous to not immunize a child than anything else. Plus, not seeking medical attention at all? I may be handing this child a death sentence.

The rest...well, the chronic illnesses (including the HIV+ diagnoses) may be a bit of a hold up but I don't see it as an issue. The gender dysphoria is a psychological issue that's unlikely to be passed on.

And I don't have a personal issue with strict religious backgrounds.

Course, I also think the cleanest of the groups would have to be 3 though.

[Duelist925]

1 and 9 I would be most leery of, as that kind of situation can be incredibly harsh on a child, and as already pointed out, can devolve into worse. Extremely unlikely unless they could show a good track record with counseling. That might turn me around.

6 I'd outright never adopt to due to the immunization and medical treatment issues. As pointed out before, potential death sentence.

8 is another I'd be leery of. History of drug abuse would pretty much put them off the list, unless it'd some minor infraction years before hand. Since the husband contracted HIV from it, it was obviously not minor. Most likely denied.

10 would depend on the tenants of the religious organization--not a likely candidate, as there is a lot in hyper strict religious organizations that I'd probably find at least somewhat abusive.

The rest I'd have little issue with, with the proviso that those with chronic medical conditions could prove that the condition wouldn't impact on the finances necessary to raise a child, and that all steps possible would be taken to ensue the child would not contract it, if it were spreadable.

Whilst I may have a knee jerk reaction against the HIV Positive example in 2, I can't think of any legitimate reasoning to deny other than the scare factor of HIV.

[Hyena Dandy]

Just a question.

When you say "She" on the Gender Dysphoria one, is that 'she' as in 'female-bodied' or 'she' as in 'male-bodied, prefers she' or 'female bodied, non-binary gender, prefers she'?

[Ginger Tea]

I originally read the first 4 couples to be male until you stated 3 of them were female, the gender identity one could have gone either way.
Why?
2 things, the word Homosexual, although meaning same sex, has leaned more towards Male definitions due to the separate gender specific Lesbian, even the term Gay has been applied to women too, I've read a lot of 'Not always working' etc that say Gay couple and I assume male, only for them to then say she or her.
Then the fact that you have potentially two fertile wombs to work with within the realms of surrogate fathers and IVF etc, whereas no male's have the ability to get knocked up.

[AccountingDrone]

3,4,5,7.

Psh, traffic issues? I wish more people only had traffic issues.

A chronic illness is not always transmittable, I can not give my diabetes to anybody. I understand HIV can be well controlled, however I still would not risk a kid into a house with active HIV as accidents can and will happen. I have no issue with gender issues, getting assistance working through it is good and I see no difference in a GD patient and one having depression issues who is not gay and in treatment.

If the drug users did not have HIV, then I would have no problem with them as possible parents. I do have issues with people with anger control issues, disagreements should not ever need to devolve into yelling matches, or shoving matches. Antivaxxers should not expose kids to possible permanent disability or death, and I do not approve of the superstrict religionists, or of homeschooling.

[Panacea]

A chronic illness is not always transmittable, I can not give my diabetes to anybody. I understand HIV can be well controlled, however I still would not risk a kid into a house with active HIV as accidents can and will happen.

In order to transmit HIV you have to have direct mixing of blood or bodily fluids. Cleaning up a cut on a skinned knee is not going to do that. There are actually HIV+ peope who work in health care, and there has NEVER been a documented case of HIV transmission from these caregivers to patients that wasn't a deliberate act (some cases of dentists giving HIV to patients on purpose by injecting their plasma into lidocaine or something similar). So HIV status would not be a concern for me.

What the bottom line really is, though, is that everyone here would set different priorities as to whom they would choose. And that's really the point: the mother in this case, if it is the kind of adoption where she has input on the family, can set her own priorities based on her own values. Since we don't know what the hypothetical mother's values are, we are forced to use our own.

So here are mine.

I don't think anyone with a history of violence should be fostering or adopting children. Verbal violence is just as much of a problem as physical, and clearly couples 1 and 9 haven't dealt with their issues from being abused . . . meaning they are at high risk for continuing the cycle of violence. So they are out.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love or good child rearing. No couple is in or out based on sexual orientation.

Chronic illnesses can be managed, and there's nothing to say that a chornic illness won't present itself later. As long as the parent can PARENT . . . meaning actively engage with the child as a nurturer, then chronic illness should not be a factor. To exclude such a parent I'd need to know a lot more about what this really means; diabetes is a chronic illness, but wouldn't stop a loving person from being a good parent.

Traffic offenses are not criminal offenses. They are civil offenses. With a past history of a criminal offense, it would depend on what it was and how long ago it was. If we're talking something that happened years ago, then clearly the person straightened out. Sex offenses of any kind would bother me, though.

Gender dysphoria is not a big deal as far as adopting goes IMHO.

It really does matter what the strict religion is, though. I would not knowingly adopt any child of mine to a Christian Scientist, or a polygamist sect of the LDS church. But I'd be fine sending a child to an Orthodox Jewish family.

I don't have an issue with homeschool. Truth is, our public education system sucks so bad, I can't imagine sending a kid through it on purpose.

[Fire_on_High]

2-5 and 7 all seem reasonable, as long as in each case with chronic conditions (including HIV) they're kept in check without leaving the couple too impoverished to take care of the children.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the criminal record from traffic offenses be as simple as a single forgotten speeding ticket that went unpaid and triggered a bench warrant? Or a long distant and learned from DUI? A single moment of stupidity in college shouldn't ruin someone in everything they do for the rest of their lives, as long as no one was ACTUALLY harmed from it.

[s_stabeler]

2,4,7 - definitely allow to adopt
1- too much risk to the child.
3- depends on what the traffic offenses ARE. if it's the occasional ticket, then let adopt. if you start getting into reckless dirving, or the tickets are common/serious? ( serious being defined here as 20+MPH over the limit. I'm bad at keeping my speed under the limit ( still learning) and I don't usually go above 5MPH over the limit.) I would start to get worried. (common parking tickets either shows forgetfullness, or being a asshole. Neither are good in a parent.)
5- depends on what the issues are; assuming the issues aren't liekly to affect the kid, no problem.
6- sorry, but refusal of any medical treatment? I'd not adopt to them, and would probably investigate to see if the kid can be removed.
8-drug abuse is a no-go. I don't care what drug it is.
9- sorry, but frequent arguments are a problem.
10- depends on the group, but probably not. Strict religious groups are rarely good for kids.

[HYHYBT]

If being an asshole is enough to disqualify someone from parenting, well...

I do like that, though the title of the thread is "Gay Parents," nobody here is using that as any part of why they'd allow some adoptions and not others. It's not surprising given the direction other threads go on Fratching!, but it's a nice non-surprise.