Gay adoption is good for children

[kdrier]

eh, I feel like I just keep repeating myself because you guys beat around the bush like it's your job, guess you guys have a lot of life experience bs'ing yourselves and other people. Whatever makes you happy, things will be proved all in due time. over and out.

 

[Autodidact]

And another one bites the dust and runs and hides, rather than deal with the facts.

kdrier: True or false, if you want to know whether children of lesbian families turn out better or worse than children of heterosexual families, the best way to find that out is to compare children of lesbian families to children of heterosexual families?

 

[Starfish]

So if this is true, Starfish, then, shouldn't the majority of children raised in lesbian families have more problems than those raised in heterosexual families? Higher divorce rate? More alcoholism? More depression? Something?

Also, gay families tend to have an important advantage as well, which is that they don't get pregnant by accident. Every child in a gay family is wanted, planned for, and so cared for. And that is huge. There are millions of heterosexuals, and we all know some, who had children that they did not plan for and were not ready for.

In my own case, my youngest daughter was not cared for by her careless heterosexual parents, so she was taken away from them and placed with me. I know lots of lesbians taking care of kids that their heterosexual parents were not able or willing to take care of. They would have been better off had they been born to a family that was prepared to undertake the commitment of caring for them in the first place.

Unfortunately parents of either gender can do a lousy job. This is a separate subject.

Did I say they'd have problems? Not necessarily. But a child who never had a dad, a good dad, has missed out. He/she may turn out just fine, but he/she missed out on something wonderful. There is no equal substitute for a loving dad. There are substitutes, but nothing as good. Those children may have a lot of great care and love at home, but they will see other children with good fathers and notice something they don't have.

Fathers are important. They are more than just sperm donors. God created the two genders, with their many differences, for a reason.

 

[McBell]

things will be proved all in due time. over and out.

I agree.
Though I suspect that it will be YOU who is disappointed.
Unless of course you do then what you are doing now, putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la..."

 

[Autodidact]

Unfortunately parents of either gender can do a lousy job. This is a separate subject.

Yes, but I just wanted to point out an important advantage of gay families. If you didn't plan to have kids, may not want them, and are not prepared for them, you may do fine, but the chances of not doing so great increase. This is particularly true if the parents don't marry. I think we can all agree that the number of kids being raised by just their mom is a problem today. Gay and lesbian parents do NOT contribute to this problem; it is exclusively heterosexual. People often forget or have not considered this.

Did I say they'd have problems? Not necessarily. But a child who never had a dad, a good dad, has missed out. He/she may turn out just fine, but he/she missed out on something wonderful. There is no equal substitute for a loving dad. There are substitutes, but nothing as good. Those children may have a lot of great care and love at home, but they will see other children with good fathers and notice something they don't have.

Fathers are important. They are more than just sperm donors. God created the two genders, with their many differences, for a reason.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't think you're coming from a prejudice, or at least, not any more prejudiced than we all are toward our own background.

To use a weird example, people who grow up in Mormon or Islamic polygamous families probably find it great to have several moms, never need day care, all grow up together. They may think it's so much better a way to grow up than a single nuclear family. They may be right. But it's good to look at the research and see how the kids turn out, don't you agree?

I think of my friends R and K and their kids, J and A. R has been a stay at home mom for 17 years, home-schooled the kids, driven them to rehearsal, organized A's Bat Mitzvah, etc. etc. But K, who is a doctor, does so much for them as well, takes J fly-fishing and so much in common with him. They're both such wonderful parents, I'm sure the kids would not trade them for 40 dads. Now their friend died young, so her daughter lives with them now, and I'm sure she appreciates them too, including their willingness to open their home to her and give her a family when she so needs one. Her heterosexual dad was nowhere on the scene, so she now has one more parent than she did. These are the real stories of real lesbian families that people need to know about.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

So children who have two active father figures should be even better off, right?

Sorry, but no. They are equally important. that is why a man and a women are suppose to have a child together, it's a law of nature, not of god, not of the government, but nature. Mother and father figure will optimize the success in the development of a child.

I'm not saying you homosexuals can't raise a kid okay, don't get the wrong impression. I'm saying a traditional family is better suited given the parameters are equal, no more, no less.

Actually primates - amongst other animals - tend to raise their children as part of extended family groups. By the reckoning of 'it's a law of nature', the optimum success in the development of a child would be for us all to live with our parents, grandparents, all our siblings and their families in the same house. I can't see that working out well in a lot of cases. For myself, I'd have to lock my mother and mother in law in a room together until only one came out, and then I'd have to smother the victor with a pillow as soon as they fell asleep. Can't see that being good for the kids at all.

 

[Starfish]

Yes, but I just wanted to point out an important advantage of gay families. If you didn't plan to have kids, may not want them, and are not prepared for them, you may do fine, but the chances of not doing so great increase. This is particularly true if the parents don't marry. I think we can all agree that the number of kids being raised by just their mom is a problem today. Gay and lesbian parents do NOT contribute to this problem; it is exclusively heterosexual. People often forget or have not considered this.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't think you're coming from a prejudice, or at least, not any more prejudiced than we all are toward our own background.

To use a weird example, people who grow up in Mormon or Islamic polygamous families probably find it great to have several moms, never need day care, all grow up together. They may think it's so much better a way to grow up than a single nuclear family. They may be right. But it's good to look at the research and see how the kids turn out, don't you agree?

I think of my friends R and K and their kids, J and A. R has been a stay at home mom for 17 years, home-schooled the kids, driven them to rehearsal, organized A's Bat Mitzvah, etc. etc. But K, who is a doctor, does so much for them as well, takes J fly-fishing and so much in common with him. They're both such wonderful parents, I'm sure the kids would not trade them for 40 dads. Now their friend died young, so her daughter lives with them now, and I'm sure she appreciates them too, including their willingness to open their home to her and give her a family when she so needs one. Her heterosexual dad was nowhere on the scene, so she now has one more parent than she did. These are the real stories of real lesbian families that people need to know about.

You're right that heterosexual couples can easily produce unplanned babies. Mine were all planned and wanted, but I know many, many couples with "oops" babies. Those babies were loved every bit as much as a planned baby. I have heard so many times from parents who had an unplanned child but still bless the day the child was born. I know a woman who, while suffering from lupus, had an unexpected baby in her forties and he was the joy of her life. As always, there are exceptions.

I really appreciate your willingness to see both sides. (I've been called a lot of names here.) And I can understand anyone's desire to have a family and raise children. This is a natural desire. I don't doubt for a minute that you love your children and they love you.
I just feel that given a choice between a gay couple and a married heterosexual couple, when it comes to placing an adopted child, the choice should be towards the latter. Every child deserves a loving mother and father. Both are needed.
And I believe homosexual behavior is wrong, therefore wrong to teach to children, but this is a religious matter, and you have every right to disagree.

 

[Mister_T]

Look, the difference is, there will always be gay people saying how their rigths on being abused. Roli is right. Gay people have an agenda. That is that look at us, look what we can do, blah, blah, blah. They will push their open sexuality on the kid, who in turn will interpret that to be normal behavior when they get older. There is something wrong with this.

Their "agenda" is equal rights and freedom from discrimination.

Lets play your game and assume that the child is conditioned to abandon free thought and become a mindless drone and not think for his or herself, becoming an exact clone of their parents; Heterosexual people are, as you put it, "pushing their open sexuality" on their adopted child, as well as their lifestyle, their prefrences, their personal and religious beliefs. My question is why you don't have a problem with that?

The only thing I see wrong is that people (not you in particualr) would rather have a child be parentless and remain an orphan than be adopted by a gay couple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets play your game and assume that the child is conditioned to abandon free thought and become a mindless drone and not think for his or herself, becoming an exact clone of their parents; Heterosexual people are, as you put it, "pushing their open sexuality" on their adopted child, as well as their lifestyle, their prefrences, their personal and religious beliefs. My question is why you don't have a problem with that?

I'm somewhat embarrased to say that I myself have made no secret of my heterosexuality, even in front of impressionable children. In fact, I've even held hands with my wife while my nieces and nephews were in the room.

 

[Autodidact]

You're right that heterosexual couples can easily produce unplanned babies. Mine were all planned and wanted, but I know many, many couples with "oops" babies. Those babies were loved every bit as much as a planned baby. I have heard so many times from parents who had an unplanned child but still bless the day the child was born. I know a woman who, while suffering from lupus, had an unexpected baby in her forties and he was the joy of her life. As always, there are exceptions.

Oh certainly, I think I said that. My point is that the odds go down, especially when, as I say, parent #2 doesn't stick around to contribute. Some single moms do great, too, but, overall, the chances are not as good.

I really appreciate your willingness to see both sides. (I've been called a lot of names here.) And I can understand anyone's desire to have a family and raise children. This is a natural desire. I don't doubt for a minute that you love your children and they love you.

Of course. More importantly, they're doing well. I refer especially to my youngest, the adopted one, who was let down by everyone in her life (all heterosexual) before she got to me, the one person who has made and stuck to a commitment to take care of her until she's grown. And believe me, it's not easy. In fact, it's by far the hardest I've ever done.

I just feel that given a choice between a gay couple and a married heterosexual couple, when it comes to placing an adopted child, the choice should be towards the latter. Every child deserves a loving mother and father. Both are needed.
And I believe homosexual behavior is wrong, therefore wrong to teach to children, but this is a religious matter, and you have every right to disagree.

Yes, of course--we will all teach our own morals to our children. I think prejudice is wrong, so I teach my children not to employ it. And of course, no one is giving their kids lessons in gay sex! I'm fortunate to have a loving, caring, respectful, relationship, so I'm modeling that for my kids.

 

[rheff78]

Their "agenda" is equal rights and freedom from discrimination.

Lets play your game and assume that the child is conditioned to abandon free thought and become a mindless drone and not think for his or herself, becoming an exact clone of their parents; Heterosexual people are, as you put it, "pushing their open sexuality" on their adopted child, as well as their lifestyle, their prefrences, their personal and religious beliefs. My question is why you don't have a problem with that?

The only thing I see wrong is that people (not you in particualr) would rather have a child be parentless and remain an orphan than be adopted by a gay couple.

No, I'm maintaining the moral norms in society.

 

[Starfish]

Oh certainly, I think I said that. My point is that the odds go down, especially when, as I say, parent #2 doesn't stick around to contribute. Some single moms do great, too, but, overall, the chances are not as good.

Of course. More importantly, they're doing well. I refer especially to my youngest, the adopted one, who was let down by everyone in her life (all heterosexual) before she got to me, the one person who has made and stuck to a commitment to take care of her until she's grown. And believe me, it's not easy. In fact, it's by far the hardest I've ever done.

Yes, of course--we will all teach our own morals to our children. I think prejudice is wrong, so I teach my children not to employ it. And of course, no one is giving their kids lessons in gay sex! I'm fortunate to have a loving, caring, respectful, relationship, so I'm modeling that for my kids.

And with that, I think we can agree to respectfully disagree on some things, as well as agree on others. Thanks.

 

[Mister_T]

No, I'm maintaining the moral norms in society.

"Moral norms" are subject to change. It's a good thing that we have such a change too, otherwise we'd still be burning "witches" and have segregated facilities for colored folk.

 

[rheff78]

"Moral norms" are subject to change. It's a good thing that we have such a change too, otherwise we'd still be burning "witches" and have segregated facilities for colored folk.

Those were all immoral norms. Things like this stand the test of time.

 

[Mister_T]

Those were all immoral norms. Things like this stand the test of time.

I wasn't aware oppression was ever considered moral. :sarcastic

 

[Autodidact]

Those were all immoral norms. Things like this stand the test of time.

Time will tell. I think prejudice is prejudice, and is immoral.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I'm maintaining the moral norms in society.

And it's more moral for children to be without parents than with ones whose sex life you don't approve of?

Hey, I think catholicism is wrong, but I don't try to prevent Catholics from adopting.

 

[Scott C.]

Right. Other people's prejudices are bad; your prejudices are good. Please don't try to say that you're advocating for what's best for children. You're advocating against what has actually been shown to be best for children, so that you can impose your religious beliefs on others. Meanwhile, real children languish in real foster care so people like you can feel righteous.

I had a feeling if I went into this thread and expressed my view, I would start getting insulted. Adios.

 

[Autodidact]

Hmm, those advocating for discriminating against good adoptive families just because they're gay seem to be having some trouble defending their position. Hasta la vista.

 

[Valjean]

Those were all immoral norms. Things like this stand the test of time.

On the contrary. The very fact that many are so incensed about this is an indication that the prejudice is crumbling; that those clinging to it are feeling insecure and are lashing out from behind their walls of ancient tradition.