Reason.com
New at Reason
In a piece from our August/September issue, I track the growing efforts in state legislatures to restrict gays' parental rights.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
TallDave|9.1.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Silly.
Given the terrible track record of single parenthood (it's the biggest predictor of poverty), we should embrace the childrearing ambitions of any stable couple that can provide a good environment.
|9.1.05 @ 2:30PM|#
TallDave, when you believe that children can catch The Gay from their adopted parents (and you define being gay as a bad thing), or that gay people are probably going to molest the kids they adopt, keeping the kids in the tender embrace of DYS doesn't look so bad.
Shannon Love|9.1.05 @ 2:31PM|#
This is one of those issues where symbolism trumps all other considerations. Social conservatives neither know nor care whether gay couples make a good as parents as a heterosexual couple. Their concern is that allowing gay adoption effectively places the imprimatur of the state on the gay relationship. What is best for the children directly involved is at best a secondary consideration.
I really wish people could separate out their personal moralities and egos from the functioning of the state.
|9.1.05 @ 2:47PM|#
I don't know, Shannon, in my experiences, homophobes are pretty damn good at convincing themselves that they know things to be true of gay people.
|9.1.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Shannon, if people separate their personal moralities from the functioning of the state, I don't think the result would be something anyone would want to live in--a soulless, inhumane monster Big Brother would be proud of.
|9.1.05 @ 3:06PM|#
joe
You're spot on I think in your first comment. I think it's worth keeping in mind that those who oppose gay adoption really do believe a gay parent is a very bad thing--by definition almost--for a child. They may also be afraid of the slippery slope or the symbolism as Shannon suggests, but I think their primary motivation really is the best interests of the child, as they see it.
They mean well. (And we all know what comes from good intentions....)
Larry A|9.1.05 @ 3:08PM|#
I spent a former career working in a residential child care facility. We were among the highest rated facilities in the state, consistently referred as an example for other agencies to study.
But for 90% of our kids permanent adoption by gay parents with love and even mediocre parenting skills would have been, by an order of magnitude, the better option.
|9.1.05 @ 3:08PM|#
Shannon, if people separate their personal moralities from the functioning of the state, I don't think the result would be something anyone would want to live in--a soulless, inhumane monster Big Brother would be proud of.
I would love to live in that State...
I abhor gay marriage, and the like, but don't think the State should have any say over it. In fact, I'm pretty much a social conservative in every aspect of my own life but find "statist social conservatives" repulsive... isn't that separating personal morality from the functions of the State? Or, am I misreading the post?
Shannon's "soulless" world sounds like my utopia...
|9.1.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Kami
Interesting. I envisioned something completely different, something like North Korea. While I would object strongly to the social conservative state with its "blue" laws and the like, I would fear a state with no qualms about murder or torture or mass oppression (that is, a state with no concepts of right and wrong) even more.
|9.1.05 @ 3:18PM|#
I guess it depends on the understanding of "personal morality" in relation to the state. But if all members of the state keep their morals to themselves, you'd have something evil, I think.
(I may be talking out my ass again. If so, sorry.)
|9.1.05 @ 3:45PM|#
A quick non-sequitor related to joe's post:
How did the term "homophobe" become the dominant term for a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong? It really means "one who is afraid of/repelled by homosexuality," but people described as homophobic usually hate homosexuality and homosexuals.
By the current metric, does not being a homophobe make me a homophile? Am I homophilic? Or would that term imply that I'm a homosexual?
What's with all this wacky language recently!
|9.1.05 @ 3:56PM|#
I've often wondered that myself. I've come to the conclusion that it just sounded better whenever it was coined. That and we all clearly live in perpetual fear of being sexually attracted to men's butts.
|9.1.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Interesting. I envisioned something completely different, something like North Korea. While I would object strongly to the social conservative state with its "blue" laws and the like, I would fear a state with no qualms about murder or torture or mass oppression (that is, a state with no concepts of right and wrong) even more.
Hmmm. Very interesting as North Korea didn't even enter my mind. I suppose my thought was that the singular morality of government (which refutes my own earlier post of no morality) is that "government should protect us from each other, not from ourselves." That would take care of torture, murder, etc.
Granted, using my proposed moral sense, an easy argument can be made against gay adoption because "statist social conservatives" would argue that government should protect the children from "those evil gays." There can be many perceptions of what constitutes "protection from others" although mine tends to be limited to physical violence.
I suppose I always fear strongly "moralistic" governments - whether they lean left-liberal or right-conservative - because it presumes my own sense of morality is somehow inferior to that of the State.
I clearly need to give this more thought...
Shannon Love|9.1.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Just to clarify what I meant by separating morality AND ego from the state is that people should stop looking to the state as the definer of morality. People shouldn't think per Rev. Lovejoy, "Once the government says something is okay its no longer immoral" or vice versa.
For example, in this particular case people would not feel compelled to draw any conclusions on the morality or immorality of homosexuality depending on whether the state let them adopt or foster children.
People need to stop thinking of the state as a moral exemplar and to instead think of it as a special purpose institution, like a particular corporation, that deals with a certain class of problems. Politics should be about practical problem solving not a forum for abstract morality plays.
I'm not holding my breath.
|9.1.05 @ 4:05PM|#
homophobia is defensible in some ways; the whole "catch the gay" thing, for starters.
|9.1.05 @ 4:05PM|#
How did the term "homophobe" become the dominant term for a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong?
Probably waaaay too much information but it was coined by psychologist George Weinberg in the early 70s.
Etymology of homophobia
|9.1.05 @ 4:11PM|#
-Phobic does not just mean fear; it also means repulsion. Lipids (fats) are said to be "hydrophobic" because they don't mix with water.
|9.1.05 @ 4:35PM|#
Doesn't homo- mean "like" or "same"? If so, does that mean that homophobes are repulsed by people like themselves?
|9.1.05 @ 4:44PM|#
yes.
and libertarians are people who work in libraries that let you borrow liberty.