|Action||Adopt new standards for licensed private child-placing agencies.|
|Comment Period||Ends 4/1/2011|
The whole issue of letting Homosexuals (I really hate referring to people by their sexual orientation since it is not the definitive thing about a person but I do not see a way to around it in this circumstance) adopt just seems odd to me. If one were to look at it purely from an objective biological level then I think one can achieve a better perspective of the issue. Such an examination should include what good foster care/adoption was constructed by society to bring about (since it was clearly constructed for a reason) as well as what purpose it serves today and then come to a decision:
It seems that one of the purposes of adoption is to most closely provide for orphans what nature necessarily provides to all individuals: parents/family- a mother and a father. Everyone has them (whether they are in one's life or not) and this is just a fact of biology that one has a father and a mother. In fact, one could claim that children have a right to parents as a part of the human condition and which nature provides to everyone as well as that all infants have a right to be protected (such a right would bind especially parents). However, one would have a tough time claiming people have a right to children. Now with foster care (I use the terms foster care and adoption interchangeably. I apologize if this is incorrect) it seems that the purpose is to mimic this family which is in nature and make sure that such a family will love and care for the child with which the adoptive parents are entrusted. This seems to be the two fold purpose of foster care: to mimic what is due the child/what is provided for in nature and ensure that the child is cared for and loved.
Why are we trying to change it? Some people I have talked to speak as if individuals have a right to a husband or a wife (and as far as I know even in civil marriages we recognize marriage as a giving of oneself completely to another), but this seems wrong since no one has the right to the gift of another and which is the other person. And even more so, no one has a right or is in any way due children. So the reasons for the denial of someone's desire to be a foster parent seems to me to be basex most notably on whether they can or cannot most mimic the natural biological family and whether they can provide a loving, secure home. I use a conjunction not an "either..or" or anything else since both of these reasons must be there and one reason does not seem to take preference over the other. This two fold criteria comes directly from the problem that adoption was created to address, namely, that some people are orphans and we should help them. To deny anyone their request to be foster parents is not a denial of some "human right" (since ultimately one does not have a right to another person) and should only be done on whether the family can meet these two requirements: 1) provide what nature provides to all individuals- that of a father and mother 2) and that such a couple will in fact love and care for the child responsibly.
Now, I know there are some objections to my opinions: that an increase in fertility technologies mean a decrease in couples looking to adopt and that those that do want to adopt want young children and especially do not want children who are special needs. As such, the objection is that many children are left in foster care programs and grow up there. By including homosexuals into the pool of adoptive parents, one would then decrease the number of kids who are in foster care all their lives. However, this objection does not seem to hold. For one reason, it completely does not at all acknowledge the two fold purpose of the foster care system. Rather, it seeks only to move kids. I also do not buy the idea that there are not enough couples in America to adopt the children. There seems to be a growing trend in North America in that the fact that people are willing to adopt children from overseas, including children with health conditions or other special needs. They seem to do this out of a sense of compassion. This shows me that there is not really a shortage of people in North America who wish to adopt such children, which means it would not be unreasonable for an American foster care system to assume that someone will adopt a special needs orphan or orphans who may not be infants anymore. Also, there is no reason that including homosexual couples (I assume they'd be couples trying to mimic the biological necessities of the family) would in fact ensure that more children who are not infants or who are special needs would be adopted. In fact, what is likely to happen is that since there probably is a greater number of people who want to adopt young children this number will simply go up. Homosexual couples would probably want to adopt young children as well. This does not seem to address the perceived problem. Instead, the foster care system should try to get those who are adopting children from other countries to adopt children from America. The reasons that such couples do adopt from other countries seems to me to be a combination of compassion for what is perceived as children being born in to poor circumstances and out of trying to avoid the red tape in America. These two reasons should be addressed rather than simply adding homosexual couples to the pool of potential adoptive parents.
I apologize if this seems cold. I did my undergrad in biology and am working on my philosophy masters, but this is the way I see it. As such it just seems to be pure emotivism to seek to be allowed to adopt for any other reasons other than the unity of the two purposes which I mentioned above. I hold this view because it seems to me that foster care is designed to care for the child and fulfill the rights of the child (to safety and to a family which nature provides to everyone). It's job is not to provide for the rights of adults and even if it did adults do not have the right to another person, including children. The demanding of such a right seems to me to be the denial of and trying to change reality and as such the only reason I can think one would do such a thing would be emotivism. If one places children with families for reasons other than the unity of the two purposes that adoption fulfills, then one is doing something else other than adoption. I fear that such actions are in fact playing politics with the lives of little children; however, I hope and pray that this is not the case.
Peace to the Great Commonwealth of Virginia,