Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
draftsman

Gay Adoption Allowed?

Recommended Posts

European Court of Human Rights recently took a decision that could be interpreted (not necessarily correctly) as somehow accepting adoption of children by the homosexual couples and/or indviduals (to simplify a bit - the concrete case was more complex).

 

It was a close 10 to 7 decision with lots of separate opinions. Slovene judge voted against and inter alia explained his decision like this: "The non-represented party, whose interest should prevail absolutely in such litigation, is the child whose future best interests are to be protected. When set against the absolute right of this child, all other rights and privileges pale. If in custody matters we maintain that it is the best interests of the child that should be paramount - rather than the rights of the biological parents - how much more force will that assertion carry in cases such as this one where the privileges of a potential adoptive parent are at issue?"

 

More: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/...esbian-adoption

 

Court's press release: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp...kin=hudoc-pr-en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dragtsman,

as a total idiot as to the legal sphere, and not having read the two links suggested in your post, I'm interested, how is the child's best interest constructed from the legal point of view (but does this not include also the view point of humanities?) Isn't here always a legislator's (ideological) point of view that constructs it?

 

And - what are your opinions on this, somewhat arduous topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a close 10 to 7 decision with lots of separate opinions.
I would like to share an opinion of my American friend, who said some time ago, we had a discussion on this topic:“There seems to be two kinds of à¢-žhomo-directed“ persons. First, when talking about themselves, emphasize a lot and only on the fact itself - I am a gay. The second, would say - I am a gay and a banker, and an astronaut (for example). And, the gays from the last type they don´t like so much the attitude from the first type, because they reproach it à¢-žOk, you are a gay. And...? And, what else are you?“

The personality is made of the whole palette of characteristics, experiences, knowledge, and different other capacities of different levels. In this way, I don´t advocate the à¢-žhomo-directed“ person should not adopt a child per se. But, if the person is too much burdened and occupied with the fact, he is a gay, then it is good to ask, why somebody is so occupied with that fact. Sometimes there could be some hidden drives to justify some other à¢-ždeficient“. As well, I think, it is good to take into consideration the society - the majority - projects its own fears, prejudices and negative thoughts and feelings onto different smaller groups, which do not act/think/feel like majority.

 

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I am very happy that this topic got opened. I believe that from the point of view of gay relationships it is very good to first see and check if they are grounded and build on healthy basis. Well, funny enough. Not grounded couple of a woman and man can do it, do have a right to be a parent, even if at the end a child is hit many times, even misused or victim of different kinds of not humane treatment. But biologically they can do it and I believe if a child is not properly cared after, this right was misused. A child should be supported, cared after and parents should be there to help the child get towards independently making his/her own decisions - to develop healthy mentality.

 

In gay relationships a lot of sexual promiscuity is present. A lot of cheating, changing partners and putting too much stress to sex. But it is not so in all cases. I believe a gay couple that wishes to adopt a child should be well checked for the presence of important factors that support child's development. That then can qualify as a healthy couple.

 

There are so many children and not enough loving and caring parents. I am aware that being a gay parent is not optimal, but I must say I would support such adoption. Since there are children who lack even basic care and affection and a gay couple is able to provide such. Now from karmic point of view I think also a gay couple who wishes to offer love and affection does create positive karma, so in one way such compassionate act could help also gay couples to create enough positivities to ones get in contact with Buddha's teachings. Actually such act can even save child's life in cases where children from very poor families or countries are adopted - so a lot of positivity. Additionally maybe I am not aware how negative is the love from gay couple for the child. I hope love does not have a 'gender orientation based' label.

 

With best wishes.

B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I'm interested, how is the child's best interest constructed from the legal point of view (but does this not include also the view point of humanities?) Isn't here always a legislator's (ideological) point of view that constructs it?

It is as you say, I think. In Slovene law there is a vague description of child's interest (healthy growing up, balanced personal development, making the child capable for an independent life and work ... satisfaction of child's material, emotional, psycho-social needs by parents, who are acting in a way that is accepted and approved by the social environment and is showing the concern and responsibility of the parents for the child, encompassing also child's personality and wishes.)

 

These are just words, in practice child's best interest is determined also by relying on other professions, yet politicians and lawyers have the last word. :taptap:

 

And - what are your opinions on this, somewhat arduous topic?

Firstly, it might not be the best way to enforce new revolutionary solutions through the courts. At least with regard to legitimacy - the referendum is e.g. far more legitimate, and so is even a decision taken by an elected parliament. Of course, politicians are bound by partial interests and have to appeal to the masses making them invariably populistic, while judges are not (or shouldn't be). Yet, judges are not elected by the people and are not really 'tested' for their wisdom prior to their promotion :vieuxsmiley: , while politicians are at least 'on the market', chosen by the people every 4 years. Consequently, some critics even talk about 'activist judges' - i.e. about those judges, who take revolutionary 'progressive' decisions that should be reserved for the legislature.

 

From the content point of view - I guess that in principle we all agree about the fact that child's interest is above the parents'/adopters' interests. But what does that mean in practice is a million dollar question :laugh: .

 

I can see arguments for both sides. Most of the people seem to agree that a child needs a masculine and a feminine side of the parenthood. Those in favour of gay adoption, could claim that even in gay relations the roles are divided as masculine and feminine - i.e. that those principles are not necessarily gender bound. The opposite party could argue that a child, who is 'straight' has the right to grow up in a 'straight' family (as gay people often argue that the same-sex inclination comes with birth). And again - pro-gay adoption point: in 'real life' many children grow up in one-parent family. The opposite point: yes, in reality things are not ideal, but this doesn't mean that on the symbolic level the highest standards should be abandoned in advance (e.g a family adoption in advance of single people adopting), low expectations shouldn't direct the legal basis. etc. etc.

 

The real question seems to be: is it possible to denounce gay adoption, without indirectly denouncing legitimacy of a gay relationship. Probably not. If this is true, aren't the existing rights the state is already giving to the gay people, actually based on a sort of hypocrisy - 'have some minor rights like hereditary etc., but no 'real' rights like adoption. We accept you, but still regard your lifestyle as improper'.

 

As Simona noted - we often project our fears on minorities and vice versa - minorities project their own fears on majorities - choosing one lifestyle and demanding the results that follow from another lifestyle.

 

An interesting 'karmic' example: Dick Cheney, a vice-president of USA, known for his hawkish, sometimes ruthless stand-points on torture, gay rights etc. has a recurring heart problem and a lesbian daughter, who recently adopted a child with her partner :levitation:.

 

From the buddhist point of view - I don't really know, if gay adoption could pass.

 

Best regards,

Draftsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...