Gay Adoption

[Juan_Bottom]

Call it bashing if you like, but I'm still 100% right. If they don't support these rapists then why do they keep their protectors in power? And why do they continue to fund the central church which was involved in the cover up? They removed the rapists who were caught. But they didn't touch the people who covered for them.
And they have the audacity to try to tell us that we are immoral.

[Lootifer]

Thats a great rationale x a billion

[Lootifer]

Call it bashing if you like, but I'm still 100% right. If they don't support these rapists then why do they keep their protectors in power? And why do they continue to fund the central church which was involved in the cover up? They removed the rapists who were caught. But they didn't touch the people who covered for them.
And they have the audacity to try to tell us that we are immoral.

Not exactly on topic thou my man...

[Juan_Bottom]

It's actually very solid. You can't defend their position of funding child-rape coverups and then telling us that gay marriage/adoption or birth control is immoral. Go ahead and try chief.

The Catholic church, which is basically an immeasurably-huge rouge corporation that pays no taxes, did their own study on why Catholics are staying in their church despite the scandals. Do you know what the study found?
Catholics don't think that it effects them. The average American Catholic is only concerned about their local church. They don't think about the central church or what the central church does with their donations. So long as nobody gets raped at their local church, your local Catholic doesn't care.

You can't walk away from taxes. You'll go to jail. All you can do is vote about it. But as an American you can walk away from your church without any repercussions.

[Phatscotty]

It's actually very solid. You can't defend their position of funding child-rape coverups and then telling us that gay marriage/adoption or birth control is immoral. Go ahead and try chief.

So if they are perfect, and never rape a child, then they can say what is immoral concerning marriage and birth prevention?

[Woodruff]

That one took a moment.

I almost didn't put "a lab, huh" in there but I decided it was WAY too vague without it.

[Woodruff]

Haha I was going to reply to Scottys' absurd posts but f*ck it, he seems to dug his own grave in this thread quite nicely, no need for me to call the proverbial spade a spade (or moron if you will).

Edit: And now PS I am sure I know who's paying your bill; say g'day (thats kiwi/aussie for hi) to Father for me.

yes, its absolootly absurd to prefer a woman take care of a female issue for her daughter. Pretty much the craziest thing ever written!

It absolutely is, when you're not making any distinction about that woman.

[Woodruff]

I think this question is too narrow.
Should single men be allowed to adopt?
Should single women be allowed to adopt?
Should non-married couples be allowed to adopt?
Should married couples with low income levels be allowed to adopt?
Should Liberals be allowed to adopt?
Should Conservatives be allowed to adopt?
Should Religious people be allowed to adopt?
Should Atheists be allowed to adopt?
Should Agnostics be allowed to adopt?

EDIT: Oops...I forgot a couple things
Should poor people be allowed to adopt?
Should minorities be allowed to adopt?
If a married man and woman with children get divorced, should the children be taken and given up for adoption?
Should single women be allowed to give birth, or should they have abortions forced upon them?

not sure if you're being sarcastic, but i can see all of these becoming reasonably controversial questions

You can? I can't.

[Woodruff]

Good. We didn't want those assholes f*cking up adoptions anyway. Assholes will go out of their way to protect the men who covered-up the seemingly infinite cases of child rape, but then they want to impose their adoption morals all over the rest of us. Hypocritical douchebags. Good Riddance and I hope people continue to flee their f*cked-up church as well.

Gotta admit, it's hard to take the Catholic church seriously when it wants to talk about welfare of children.

[Woodruff]

lol another example of the weird way the US does things (imo the fucked up broken way, but thats just, like, my opinion man).

Why in the hell are private organisations involved in adoption services anyway? Sorry but im with Juan on this one... (though dont share his view on the usual catholic bashing).

That's the way we used to do it when we were a free country. That's the way it's been done for centuries

So why would we want to improve, when we can just continue doing it the way we have for centuries.

[Phatscotty]

Study finds host of challenges for kids of gay parents

By Dr. Keith Ablow

The "no differences" theory that children of gay parents—married or not—do not substantially differ from the children of married, heterosexual parents has now been called into question. Two studies published on June 10, in the esteemed journal, Social Science Research, come to conclusions that will cause a great deal of controversy, and should bring about further research. Here's a look at the findings:

1) A careful analysis of the research studies that led the American Psychological Association (in 2005) to assert that the children of gay and lesbian parents are in no way disadvantaged, compared to the children of heterosexual parents, has concluded those studies were inadequate. According to Dr. Loren Marks, Associate Professor at Louisiana State University, who authored the analysis: “The available data, which are drawn from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim...such a statement would not be grounded in science.”

2) The New Family Structures Study (NESS), published by Dr. Mark Regnerus, Associate Professor at the University of Texas, compared thousands of young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.

Those who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship fared significantly worse on measures of educational attainment and household income, reported more depression, used marijuana more, more often reported forced sexual encounters, felt less close to their biological mother, felt less safe and secure in their family of origin, had more often pled guilty to a minor criminal offense and were more likely to be on public assistance.

Those who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship were more likely to have been arrested, to have thought recently about suicide, to feel depressed, to report sexually transmitted diseases and to have experienced forced sex.

Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact. For female young adults, that figure leapt to 31 percent (while only 3 percent of young women from intact heterosexual families reported this).

In saying that the children of parents who were known to have engaged in homosexual relationships reported these increased rates of suffering, it is important to note that the rates were higher for these children (now young adults) than for children in intact families with two biological parents, children whose parents divorced late in life, children who were raised with a step-parent in the home, children raised by a single parent and children adopted by strangers.

This data—and it is data—does not indicate why these differences were found. And neither paper suggests how to minimize the hurdles that children of gay parents seem to face during adulthood. But the data should not be dismissed. It was generated, after all, by academic leaders at major universities and published by an esteemed journal with no political agenda and an advisory board with representatives from about three dozen universities.

No doubt those with an investment in whether gay marriage is legalized will frame these findings as evidence that we should not be encouraging such unions. Perhaps proponents of gay marriage will argue that more need be done to mainstream such unions, and homosexuality itself, in order to reduce any stigma suffered by children born to parents who have had gay relationships. After all, this study did not specifically address (as a separate group) the children born to gay couples who were married.

What we should avoid at all costs is silencing such research and such discussion because it is seen by some as politically incorrect. Where optimizing the well-being of children is involved, no stone should be left unturned.

It would be important to know, for example, whether children who are born to gay parents seem to run into less (or more) trouble if their parents are married.

It would seem to be important to know whether children of gay parents run into less trouble if they were the products of artificial insemination vs. the product of a prior heterosexual relationship. Where the fallout of certain childrearing circumstances seems to be more depression, suicide, lawlessness, drug use, sexually transmitted disease and economic hardship, we ought not scare off the scientific community from doing what it does—research and reporting of the facts.

In this regard, I should note something important: I hesitated to write about this topic in an opinion piece. I didn’t hesitate because I think the topic frivolous. I didn’t hesitate because I think of Social Science Research as a meaningless journal (because it is anything but that). I didn’t hesitate because funding for the NESS comes partly from conservative groups (because data are data, unless they can be refuted on objective grounds, and this study is painstaking, in many regards). I hesitated because I worried about getting more of the threats and hate mail (by post and e-mail) I receive whenever I even mention the seemingly unspeakable issue of how social forces related to sexual orientation and gender identity might impact well being in children.

Yet, yielding to that worry would mean that being bullied way back when I was a school kid might have left me timid, and I just can’t abide that. When I see a path of enquiry that might yield some bit of truth, I want to try to be the person who takes it, no matter how treacherous. And, so, it is with this commentary, now in your good hands, to take or leave, to debate, to discuss—as Tennyson wrote, “to strive, to seek, to find...”

[rdsrds2120]

The study does not "find host of challenges for kids of gay parents", it finds host of challenges for young adults (which, frankly, 18-39 seems like a tad bit of a big interval, with a median age of approx 28ish) that could identify their parents who have had a gay or lesbian relationship. I would want to see what they categorized as a relationship because for all I know, they're lobbing in one-night stands, etc.

They study, for one, probably includes a bunch of low-end Kinsey scalers (just based on the question asked) who might have experiemented at one time, providing a skew for the sample set, therefore, making the conclusion that "Children of gay parents don't fare as well as straight parents" really misleading.

Then it fesses up, I guess: "After all, this study did not specifically address (as a separate group) the children born to gay couples who were married."

A different study I saw reported that regardless of sexuality, as long as the parents weren't promiscuous and were together, the kids turned out fine.
Scotty, you should support gays getting married everywhere. For the children.

-rd

[Lootifer]

Interesting; it certainly asks some good questions and I am not one to knock the results (data are data as they say).

But you have to remember that (and the authors quite clearly state this outfront) that correlation does not imply causation.

Also something that is important to note (and i've said it earlier in previous posts): The primary attribute that correlates to the mentioned metrics of "success" is household stability; as one of the people involved in the study rightly comments: this isnt to do with gay parents vs two happily married hetro parents but rather to do with any kind of unstable or suboptimal parenting structure vs two happily married hetro parents.

And yes im saying that a gay parenting structure is inherently unstable; but only historically.

The author says that most of the samples of gay parents come from adoptive or children from previous hetrosexual relationships. Those two things are stable right?

Comparing kids that were adopted (ie their biological parents didnt want them) into a homosexual relationship (ie a relationship that up until recently drew a LOT of negative social stigma) and comparing them against your ideal family environment (two parents who love each other) and you find the results to "differ significantly"? Really? HOLEY FUCKING SHIT BATMAN, ALERT THE PRESSES!

[fusibaseball]

removed

[codeblue1018]

To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.

Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents. Each gender provides something to the child that one inherently cannot do; not to say that one can't try but it's a very different type of nurturing, period! As children grow older they will not only identify the differences with their parents but will also endure the mean, spirited children that we have in our schools today regarding their "parents". On the flip side, I agree; every child deserves the love of two person(s) taking on the role of parents, I just think that it would be more suited for the children long term with a man and woman taking on that role. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[PLAYER57832]

It's actually very solid. You can't defend their position of funding child-rape coverups and then telling us that gay marriage/adoption or birth control is immoral. Go ahead and try chief.

So if they are perfect, and never rape a child, then they can say what is immoral concerning marriage and birth prevention?

The FACT that they have, so long, ignored the rape issue is symptomatic of a hierarchy and system that ignores on-teh=ground reality of those that are deemed less important... specifically women and, aside from their potential to be future practicing Roman Catholics, children.

It doesn't matter how much the church proclaims that children are at the fore.. if they promote policies that do not protect children, that encourage exploitation, hunger and abuse.. then they are being nothing but ignorant hypocrits. It does not take evil intent to do wrong, only great ignorance. The Roman Catholic hierarchy specifically is designed to inhibit real exchange of information.

And no. sorry, but I definitely do NOT believe that Christ or God appointed the Pope as a leader of the church. HUMAN men elected him. Human men, who historically, have had very much vested in maintaining the power of the church. God would never have promoted the inquisition. He allows us to do evil, for a variety of reasons (see the "what is evil", and various God threads for that discussion), but he does not tell people to do what is evil.

[PLAYER57832]

Haha I was going to reply to Scottys' absurd posts but f*ck it, he seems to dug his own grave in this thread quite nicely, no need for me to call the proverbial spade a spade (or moron if you will).

Edit: And now PS I am sure I know who's paying your bill; say g'day (thats kiwi/aussie for hi) to Father for me.

yes, its absolootly absurd to prefer a woman take care of a female issue for her daughter. Pretty much the craziest thing ever written!

Yeah, because men obviously know so much more about women than any woman...

And THAT is why women's health issues get far less funding than men's, not to mention less attention, unless, of course it is men telling women what they cannot do with their bodies.

[greenoaks]

let's get back on topic.

my sister adopted a gay but i don't think she new he was at the time.

[Woodruff]

To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.

Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents.

So then when a divorce happens, the children should become wards of the state, in your view?

[MeDeFe]

To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I actually find the article from Dr. Ablow somewhat uneducated and rather misleading...just as Lootifer said, the success of a child will be primarily determined from the stability of the household, not the sexual orientation of the parents. Parenting skills range just as widely among homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. I'm sure those percentages he whipped up would be more striking from a poll taken on kids raised in a heterosexual parenting environment (more suicide, depression, abuse, etc.)

I personally challenge anyone who isn't in favor of gay adoption to give me one scientific, cold-hard reason why it's a bad idea. Those people are narrow-minded and need to open themselves up more to the world which is evolving around us. We live in a progressive world which is constantly advancing and becoming more open-minded; I just hope the general population is able to move along with it and not slow the rest of us down who are open to these changes.

Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents. Each gender provides something to the child that one inherently cannot do; not to say that one can't try but it's a very different type of nurturing, period! As children grow older they will not only identify the differences with their parents but will also endure the mean, spirited children that we have in our schools today regarding their "parents". On the flip side, I agree; every child deserves the love of two person(s) taking on the role of parents, I just think that it would be more suited for the children long term with a man and woman taking on that role. Just my thoughts on the matter.

None of this makes adoption by gay couples seem like a bad idea in any way, though.

[saxitoxin]

To deny any person of the ability to parent a child is cruel. Parenting is something every person who wishes to do so should be allowed to experience, all religious beliefs aside.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this ... it denigrates the status of children to human pets. If people want a fun experience they should get a cat, not a human.

I agree with gay adoption - as an alternative to foster care or orphanages - only for pragmatic reasons, not for any cause of justice or equality. The only rights that should be considered are the rights of the child. Adults should have no rights to acquire humans just so they can enjoy a unique experience.

[saxitoxin]

Do same-sex couples have to have sex with each other to be eligible for adoption?

What if roommates wanted to adopt? For example, say john9blue and his roommate think it would be fun to have a baby around the apartment. Should they be allowed to go pick one up or do they have to ritually screw first in the presence of a social worker?* Is it judgmental to assign societal notions of what constitutes a couple to prevent heterosexual roommates from adopting?




* Don't worry, john9blue - to spare you embarrassment, you're the top in this fantas-I mean scenario.

[john9blue]

It's actually very solid. You can't defend their position of funding child-rape coverups and then telling us that gay marriage/adoption or birth control is immoral. Go ahead and try chief.

So if they are perfect, and never rape a child, then they can say what is immoral concerning marriage and birth prevention?

The FACT that they have, so long, ignored the rape issue is symptomatic of a hierarchy and system that ignores on-teh=ground reality of those that are deemed less important... specifically women and, aside from their potential to be future practicing Roman Catholics, children.

specifically women? how does the cover-up of child rape degrade women?

[Juan_Bottom]

I believe that she is saying that the Church considers women the less important sex.



Penn and Teller did an episode of their showed that talked about gay couple's adopting.
Penn and Teller - Family Values (Full Episode) -youtube

[Lootifer]

Totally disagree. Children need a woman and a man as parents. Each gender provides something to the child that one inherently cannot do; not to say that one can't try but it's a very different type of nurturing, period! As children grow older they will not only identify the differences with their parents but will also endure the mean, spirited children that we have in our schools today regarding their "parents". On the flip side, I agree; every child deserves the love of two person(s) taking on the role of parents, I just think that it would be more suited for the children long term with a man and woman taking on that role. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Oh ideally we have evolved (for lack of a better word, put in designed if you want it doesnt matter) to thrive best in a environment where we have male and female role models, along with two loving parents. I dont deny that this is a fact.

However I have seen no such evidence (and that includes the previously linked article) that gay parents cannot provide this environment (yes they will need external parties involved - but nobody, not even happily married couples with 2.3 kids, parents in a vacuum...).