Gay adoption is good for children

[Starfish]

You're saying that fathers are expendable.
Yes, many children are successfully raised in alternative lifestyles. But the optimum is as I said, with all those wonderful parenting activities as you describe.
There is a reason we need the presence and influence of men. A woman can do her best, but she simply cannot be a dad, no matter how good she is at fly-fishing.

 

[Scott C.]

Since you have told us that your view is based on your religious beliefs, then I suggest that you not practice gay adoption. Other than that, there is no reason on earth why your religious beliefs should affect public policy, or anyone else's behavior.

Religious belief affects public policy regulary. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not bare false witness are biblical and the laws of many societies are based on these religious beliefs. As I consider my religious beliefs, I try to choose carefully what behaviors, encouraged or prohibited by my faith, should be regulated by public policy. It's not always an obvious or easy choice for me. If I believe something will tear down the building blocks of society, that warrants public policy. I think you are mistaken to say that if I believe something is bad for society, based on religious belief, that I have no right to support public policy that supports my view. That's why we have a democracy. If the majority don't see it my way, then I will lose the public policy battle.

 

[Autodidact]

You're saying that fathers are expendable.

Not any more than you're saying that mothers are superfluous. What I'm saying is that children need good parents, and gender is not important.

Yes, many children are successfully raised in alternative lifestyles. But the optimum is as I said, with all those wonderful parenting activities as you describe.
There is a reason we need the presence and influence of men. A woman can do her best, but she simply cannot be a dad, no matter how good she is at fly-fishing.

You keep saying that, but without any support. Why should we give any credence to some anonymous guy on the internet?
What does a dad provide that another mom can't--and that is so important?

btw, when we first contacted the Department of Social Services, not only were they happy to hear from us, but the social worker suggested that for some children, a two-mom household might be just the thing. For example, if a girl had been traumatized by a man, she might find an all-female household less threatening.

 

[Autodidact]

Religious belief affects public policy regulary. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not bare false witness are biblical and the laws of many societies are based on these religious beliefs.

They may happen to be the beliefs of some religions, but that is only coincidence. They are based on sound public policy, and that is what matters.

As I consider my religious beliefs, I try to choose carefully what behaviors, encouraged or prohibited by my faith, should be regulated by public policy. It's not always an obvious or easy choice for me. If I believe something will tear down the building blocks of society, that warrants public policy. I think you are mistaken to say that if I believe something is bad for society, based on religious belief, that I have no right to support public policy that supports my view. That's why we have a democracy. If the majority don't see it my way, then I will lose the public policy battle.

*sigh* I just got through saying this in another thread. You have the right to advocate whatever you please. That does not make it right. May I suggest that the guideline to decide whether your religious beliefs should inform your policy positions is whether they are solely religious, as opposed to generally beneficial and sound policy? For example, your scripture dictates that slavery is permissible (although few modern Christians follow this Biblical injunction). Society has moved past that to a view of human equality. Similarly, while your Bible may tell you that male homosexuality is prohibited, there is no policy reason for prohibiting it, or for discriminating against someone for being one.

 

[Smoke]

I knew I'd get ripped on and called names for my opinion, but nevertheless, I will continue to speak up in favor of children.

You're speaking in favor of your own opinion, which is not the same thing.

As a child grows, interacts with other children at school, etc., they will see fathers. They will wonder why they don't have one. When I said ask any child--they'd prefer to have both a mom and a dad, OBVIOUSLY they will not want to forsake what they know and who they love, for strangers. (I don't believe anyone really thought I was saying this.) However, they WILL feel a loss for not having a father. Or they will feel a loss for not having a mother. To believe otherwise is denial of basic human nature.

I've known children who were being brought up by a male couple and a female couple jointly, so maybe you ought to pity the poor child with only one father and one mother.

As a child grows, interacts with other children at school, etc., they will see fathers. They will wonder why they don't have one. When I said ask any child--they'd prefer to have both a mom and a dad, OBVIOUSLY they will not want to forsake what they know and who they love, for strangers. (I don't believe anyone really thought I was saying this.) However, they WILL feel a loss for not having a father. Or they will feel a loss for not having a mother. To believe otherwise is denial of basic human nature.

An adopted child usually feels the loss of his biological parents regardless of whether he's placed with a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple, or a single person. That's inevitable. However, study after study shows that children brought up by same-sex couples are just as happy and well-adjusted as children brought up by opposite-sex couples. Unfortunately, you seem to have confused your personal prejudices with "human nature."

The differences that have been found largely favor the same-sex couples. Children are more likely to be planned and wanted, and -- interestingly -- children being brought up by lesbians, one of whom is their biological mother, are likely to spend more time with their biological father than children who are being brought up by a divorced, heterosexual mother. Children brought up by a same-sex couple are also less likely to be bigoted against homosexuals, but I realize that many Christians consider that a bad thing.

 

[Smoke]

Religious belief affects public policy regulary. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not bare false witness are biblical and the laws of many societies are based on these religious beliefs. As I consider my religious beliefs, I try to choose carefully what behaviors, encouraged or prohibited by my faith, should be regulated by public policy. It's not always an obvious or easy choice for me. If I believe something will tear down the building blocks of society, that warrants public policy. I think you are mistaken to say that if I believe something is bad for society, based on religious belief, that I have no right to support public policy that supports my view. That's why we have a democracy. If the majority don't see it my way, then I will lose the public policy battle.

A free country will protect the rights of all its citizens, and not allow the majority to impose discriminatory policies on the minority. For instance, if I'm an Evangelical, I have every right to say that Mormons should have their children taken away from them to be raised in Evangelical homes, for what I believe to be the good of the child. But under no circumstances should that actually become public policy, and if I am a decent person I won't even try to see that it does become public policy.

 

[Autodidact]

some more thoughts about common sense, for kdrier.
I think of common sense as using one's native intelligence. It is generally a good guide to thinking, but not such a good guide to empirical knowledge, that is, information about what is factually true. The best way to find out what is empirically true is to go see.
Where common sense comes in, for me, is what to do with it.
For example, when the facts contradict my previously formed opinion, common sense tells me to change my opinion.
When I cannot define my terms, common sense tells me I haven't thought it out clearly.
When my own experience is limited, common sense tells me to learn from other people's experience.

So I beg to differ that what you are using is common sense. Rather I think you are using the term "common sense" to refer to your own prejudices, that you cannot explain or justify. When we can't explain or justify are reasoning, it behooves us to ask whether that is because we're wrong.

 

[Katya]

[FONT='trebuchet ms',verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Someone said that they didn''t have anything against queers, and yet you call them that. There was also a mention that most children want a mom and dad? how many children did you ask? all of them in the world.

I don't mean to sound flippant or rude. But I don't think it should matter whether a child has heterosexual or homosexual parents. As long as they have parent's that love them, and nurture them. That to me is all that matters.

Also, if you still wanted the link to "The proclamation on the world" I can post it.
[/FONT]

 

[Mike182]

Religious belief affects public policy regulary. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not bare false witness are biblical and the laws of many societies are based on these religious beliefs. As I consider my religious beliefs, I try to choose carefully what behaviors, encouraged or prohibited by my faith, should be regulated by public policy. It's not always an obvious or easy choice for me. If I believe something will tear down the building blocks of society, that warrants public policy. I think you are mistaken to say that if I believe something is bad for society, based on religious belief, that I have no right to support public policy that supports my view. That's why we have a democracy. If the majority don't see it my way, then I will lose the public policy battle.

the thought that civil rights can be up for mob rulings scares the hell out of me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religious belief affects public policy regulary. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not bare false witness are biblical and the laws of many societies are based on these religious beliefs.

While you may have learned "don't steal", "don't kill" and "don't lie" in church, these principles are part of our shared system of laws because of their intrinsic benefit, not because of their importance to your religion.

I suspect that if the Ten Commandments were the actual basis for our laws, we'd have more laws against things like adultery, coveting, and having gods before the Christian God. And if the whole Bible were the really basis for our government, we'd see more social policies that actually reflect the Beatitudes.

 

[kdrier]

Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

"Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families."

I don't care what what your scientists say, I want what is best for the kids, and what THEY think. And I'm sure your family is different, but there is exceptions to everything.

 

[kdrier]

Examining the Research on Homosexual Parenting

"There is a larger body of scientific literature showing children need a mother and father for proper socialization."

Interestingly, that's just what I'm doing. The difference is that I'm doing it based onwhat's actually better for children, and you're doing it based on your preconceived notions of what's better.

I've stated my opinion, told it was based on my common sense, your ONLY argument is I don't have some kind of support, so I'll find some for my view on the topic, that s hould help eleviate any question of justification.

"American Sociological Review study reports 64 percent of young adults raised by lesbian mothers reported considering having same-sex relationships. Only 17 percent of young adults in heterosexual families reported the same thing.[SIZE=-2]9"[/SIZE]

"There is an absolute mountain of social science research showing that children who are raised with their married mother and father do far better in every measure of well-being than children who grow up in any other family situation"

I feel like I'm in some proper english class again on an opinionated forum, eh.




"
According to the recent quantitative analysis on same-sex parenting by Lerner and Nagai, 49 American studies, which advocate homosexual parenting, have fatal flaws, rendering them statistically invalid (non-representative samples, imprecise hypotheses, confused political objectives, etc.). The researchers concluded that the studies repeatedly referred to by American, European and Canadian homosexual lobbies should not be used to influence the politics of their respective governments. This conclusion was also expressed by Professor Stephen L. Nock, Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia, who, in an affidavit submitted by the federal Attorney General in the Ontario Court of Appeal same-sex marriage case, evaluated statistics on same-sex parenting and concluded that the studies were flawed in either design or execution, which rendered them totally invalid. "

Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - SAME-SEX PARENTING IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN



You know, I'd rather talk and discuss like regular adults, than go buck wild on google and gather all kinds of research, but obviously you people can't consider something like that, alas.

 

[Sunstone]

"American Sociological Review study reports 64 percent of young adults raised by lesbian mothers reported considering having same-sex relationships. Only 17 percent of young adults in heterosexual families reported the same thing."

Even if these figures were true, what difference would it make? What's wrong with people thinking about having a same sex relationship? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with that? Will it destroy civilization?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

"Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families."

The author of that report is Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron generally engages in dishonest research to further some sort of agenda against homosexuality. He and his methods have been strongly criticized by a large number of professional organizations in his field, as well as US District Court.

You can see the details in a previous post by me in another thread here.

As far as your particular article, notice one statement they include near the beginning, which I've put in bold:

The following excerpts are from Rafkin, L. (1990) Different mothers: sons and daughters of lesbians talk about their lives. San Francisco: Cleis Press and Saffron, L. (1996) What about the children? Sons and daughters of lesbian and gay parents talk about their lives. London: Cassel. The ellipses are unconventionally employed – they just indicate that material irrelevant to scoring has been skipped.

Given that this page from the APA cites at least the Rafkin study and comes to a completely different conclusion about homosexual-parented families, and given Cameron's track record, I strongly suspect that he has selectively edited the source material to obtain his desired result by cutting and pasting it to the point where it's uncharacteristic of what was originally written.

I don't care what what your scientists say, I want what is best for the kids, and what THEY think. And I'm sure your family is different, but there is exceptions to everything.

The so-called Family Research Institute isn't pro-family, it's anti-gay and nothing more.

 

[Scott C.]

A free country will protect the rights of all its citizens, and not allow the majority to impose discriminatory policies on the minority. For instance, if I'm an Evangelical, I have every right to say that Mormons should have their children taken away from them to be raised in Evangelical homes, for what I believe to be the good of the child. But under no circumstances should that actually become public policy, and if I am a decent person I won't even try to see that it does become public policy.

I agree that in a democracy there are certain rights that must be safeguarded, even if there comes a time when the majority would take away those rights. That's the role of the US Constitution. We rule by majority, but only where it would not violate the constitution. There are also mechanisms to change the constitution, but it requires a very strong majority. I believe children should be adopted out to a father and a mother. I believe those parents can belong to any religion. It would be wrong to deny adoption or take children away from a family based on their religion . But, it's not wrong to deny an adoption to a gay couple. This may sound like an arbitrary distinction to some people, but to me it is what makes sense. I can't separate my religious beliefs from my view of policy in all cases. I believe it is fundamentally dangerous to our society and strikes at the foundation of the world community to tamper with the God inspired family in this way. This is why I feel public policy is in order. If one thinks there is no danger to the child or society, then I see why they would feel that my policy idea is bad. But, I don't see it that way.

 

[kdrier]

Yup, just like your research is done by pro-gays and people that support it.

If my research is invalid, so is yours.


Read the kids friggin stories man, I don't care if they are prejudice or not, they are probably prejudice because they disagree with it so much because they worry about the welfare of the kids. Just like me.

and yup, it will destroy civilization, all it due time. Thanks by the way.

 

[roli]

Hmm, I've never really gave the subject much thought.

My instinct disagrees with it I must admit. I'm not against queers or anything, whatever floats their boat, as long as they keep to themselves. but I don't think they would be good for raising children.

First of all the homosexuals are not suppose to have kids, I guess it's like some kind of genetic defect or something, but people who are attracted to the same sex are obviously not ment to reproduce, therefore they are not ment to have children. Not only that but the child would be ridiculed and made fun of most of their life for it, which would probably lead them to depression and all kind of mental disorders. Gay people are usually really sensitive to feelings and things of that nature, and it would probably rub off on their children way to much. Parents have more influence on their children than anyone else.

I pretty much agree with everything you said,especially how easily sensitive and volatile some gays are, but add that it seems to me more of an agrressive agenda and attempt to assemilate children into the relationship so as to assert to the world "we told you so" .
It certainly appears to be more of an accomplishment and mile stone to the gay agenda than it is a regard for the children, at least what I have seen. Not that they are all like that, but the pride to be gay and be right and to receive every right hetro's have prevails as more of the agenda.
I could be wrong ,but that what I think>

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yup, just like your research is done by pro-gays and people that support it.

If my research is invalid, so is yours. Get a brain dude.

Did you actually read my post? Cameron's "research" isn't invalid because of his pre-existing biases, it's because he throws away proper research methods to obtain pre-chosen results.

If you find a "pro-gay" study that uses shoddy methods like Cameron's, disregard it. The fact that you picked a paper from someone who has been universally decried by his professional community (as well as found by a US District Court judge to have misrepresented the relationship between homosexuality and crime in his capacity as an expert witness) doesn't reflect on anything other than him and his body of work alone.

If you can find some other research to support your position, fine - we can discuss it on its own merits, just as we can discuss research that supports the other side of the debate on its own merits. This isn't some tit-for-tat game where if you lose one of your "chips", the other side does too. Paul Cameron's just a crappy "researcher"; using him as support is like no support at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the kids friggin stories man, I don't care if they are prejudice or not, they are probably prejudice because they disagree with it so much because they worry about the welfare of the kids. Just like me.

If I read them, it'll be from the original source. I trust Paul Cameron about as far as I can comfortably spit a rat.*




*tip of the hat to Douglas Adams.

 

[kdrier]

Well homie, you won't convince me nor most of the population that a homosexual family is just as suited for a child than a traditional family. the fact that it's even an argument makes me giggle inside.

and for the record bud, How about you try actually reading all the links instead of just looking where they came from, there is more than just one. Of course people that researched that a traditional family is more suited than a homosexual one is because they disagreed with it, just as the people who supported it are the same people who found it to be "equal". No matter what kind of smoke you try blowing that's the fact of the matter.