homosexual adoption

[weasel]

underbear1:You would deny even one child a loving adopted home because of your predjudicial views about what gay couples are capable of?

http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf

Ah, yeah I would. Think of it this way since you have proven to be incapable of understanding anything not spoon-fed to you. Deciding the right home / family for a child is like planning to construct a solid building. It has to be built on firm foundations because, obviously, we don't the house to go anywhere. It has to be made from the right materials, built by the right people, and maintained by the right people. No one builds a house on the San Andreas fault line. No one builds a house on sand. Why? Because that environment is always shifting and changing. Sooner or later that house will collapse and you will be worse off than before you started.

The adoptive child is the house in the aforementioned metaphor. The bad foundations / building grounds are the homes of homosexual couples who have proven that the environment they provide is unstable.

"Homosexual partner relationships are significantly and substantially less stable and more short-lived on the average compared to a marriage of a man and a woman, thereby inevitably contributing to a substantially higher rate of household transitions in foster homes with a homosexually-behaving adult."

Again, if one tries to build a house (i.e child) on sand (i.e. the inadequate surroundings provided by homosexual couples) the house (i.e. child) will be worse off than before if that environment collapses which has an increased likelihood of doing so because of the homosexual couple.

"In a household with a homosexually-behaving adult, the foster child would be exposed to additional stress with the impact of the significantly higher rates of psychological disorder (particularly affective disorders such as depression), suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide completion, conduct disorder, and substance abuse in homosexually-behaving adults. Thus, a foster placement in a household with a homosexually-behaving adult would risk exposing foster children to a substantially higher level of harm because research indicates that parental affective disorder results in higher rates of child depression, child maltreatment and neglect, as mediated by interpersonal stress processes."

Is this what you are arguing for? An increased risk of neglect, depression, and maltreatment for CHILDREN? Not only should homosexual adoption be ILLEGAL but children already under the care of homosexual partners should be relocated immediately. The minor damage in moving a house in nothing compared to the catastrophe of rebuilding one.

Additionally, should your responses be as lacking in substance as your previous ones, I can keep this up for a long time. I'm sitting on an arsenal of 80 pages of certified research (that's been used in a supreme course case) by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina. I'll be interested in what you can scrap together to refute this.

[underbear1]

" The bad foundations / building grounds are the homes of homosexual couples who have proven that the environment they provide is unstable."

You are guilty of generalizing an entire classification of citizens, parents or potential parents for adoptee children should be scrutinized case by case.
Having 80 pages of BULLSH*T doesn't impress me a bit..........dearie!

[underbear1]

Weasel if you haven't adopted a kid with HIV, too old to be cute, from a foster home, then you are a hypocrite trashing those who HAVE!

[rcne]

This has been one of the better debates I've seen on this issue. Its a question of generalities compared to specifics.

Each side has made valid points to support their argument. I see the validity in each viewpoint. And I was aware of gays (general term to cover all non-traditional) who did adopt the special need kids, and give them the stability of a family.

But, I also think you would be hard pressed to ignore the social stigma attached to the non-traditional family.

[underbear1]

There isn't one optimal family, and contrary to what 1950 TV shows presented, there NEVER was one type of family, there were extended families, there were divorced parents, there were alcohol and heroin addicts having children, even when those TV shows were made.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: rcne But, I also think you would be hard pressed to ignore the social stigma attached to the non-traditional family.

If I was an orphan living on the streets eating garbage, I think I could deal with the stigma in exchange for shelter, nutrition, and loving parents.

[rcne]

tman that was my point.

[Jack]

"In a household with a homosexually-behaving adult, the foster child would be exposed to additional stress with the impact of the significantly higher rates of psychological disorder (particularly affective disorders such as depression), suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide completion, conduct disorder, and substance abuse in homosexually-behaving adults. Thus, a foster placement in a household with a homosexually-behaving adult would risk exposing foster children to a substantially higher level of harm because research indicates that parental affective disorder results in higher rates of child depression, child maltreatment and neglect, as mediated by interpersonal stress processes."

The vast majority of foster children killed by their adoptive parents were placed with heterosexual couples.

Not only should homosexual adoption be ILLEGAL but children already under the care of homosexual partners should be relocated immediately.

Thus, using your "reasoning", children in the care of heterosexual couples should immediately be relocated for their own good and the practice of allowing heterosexuals to adopt children should be made illegal.
Studies like you quote have little interest in the welfare of children. It's underlying agenda is simply to stigmatize gay unions even further.

[weasel]

Quote by: Isherwood The vast majority of foster children killed by their adoptive parents were placed with heterosexual couples.

So? If there is a connection you fail to connect the dots. If anything, the state has placed great trust in heterosexual (not homosexual) couples to allow them to adopt children.

Quote by: Isherwood Thus, using your "reasoning", children in the care of heterosexual couples should immediately be relocated for their own good and the practice of allowing heterosexuals to adopt children should be made illegal.

That is NOT what I said. I clearly stated "Not only should homosexual adoption be ILLEGAL but children already under the care of homosexual partners should be relocated immediately." If you are going to quote me, do so properly or don't bother at all.

Maybe this isn't about gays wanting to adopt. Maybe this about gays wanting to fullfill a selfish (possibly perverse) desire at the expense of the adoptive child. You must be a Michael Jackson fan, Isherwood.

http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf

"B. Higher Rates of Psychological Disorder and Substance Abuse in Homosexuals Exposes Child to Harmful Stress:

Campbell and colleagues conducted a 1980 study of family foster care, which found that in
16% of the “worst placements,” the foster parents had psychiatric problems, compared to none of the parents having psychiatric problems in the “best placements.”14 In their 1984 journal article entitled, “Correlates of effective foster parenting,” Jordan and Redway similarly concluded that the characteristics of successful foster parents include “willingness to learn, ability to request and receive help, warmth, acceptance of children and their behavior, a high tolerance of frustration, excellent communication skills, and good physical and emotional health.”15 Orme and Buehler’s 2001 review of research related to foster family characteristics that affect children’s social and emotional adjustment pointed to research indicating that the parent’s mental health is among “family factors that likely contribute to children’s social and emotional adjustment.”16

However, individuals with homosexual behavior have repeatedly been found to have a significant and substantially higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse in studies with large probability samples of the adult population. If foster children are placed in homes with a homosexually-behaving adult, those foster children will be exposed to additional stress with the impact of the significantly higher rates of psychological disorder (particularly mood disorders), suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide completion, violence, substance abuse, and HIV/AIDS in homosexually behaving adults."

Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't mean that it isn't true.

[Jack]

So? If there is a connection you fail to connect the dots. If anything, the state has placed great trust in heterosexual (not homosexual) couples to allow them to adopt children.

Exactly my point. The state has entrusted straights to adopt children despite the fact that children killed by their adoptive parents are in heterosexual homes.

If you are going to quote me, do so properly or don't bother at all.

That is a quote. I didn't quote you in that sentence you referred to. I took what you said and turned it around. If you're going to object to something, at least be accurate in what you're getting upset about.

Maybe this isn't about gays wanting to adopt. Maybe this about gays wanting to fullfill a selfish (possibly perverse) desire at the expense of the adoptive child. You must be a Michael Jackson fan, Isherwood.

And you, sir, are a piss poor debater if that's your idea of a comeback. Since far more adoptees, hell, children in general, are molested in straight households than in gay ones, I'd have to suspect that straight people are the ones with a disturbing agenda, and thus should be banned from adopting or even having kids. Yes, I'm being as extremely unrealistic as you are being when I say that.
Just because you like the evidence doesn't make it true.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

the answer is simple: there is a specific formula that has been in effect for eons of years. Deviation from this well traveled path is sketchy. Genes are a powerful thing. I wonder how it fits into all of this, the gay couple not having any genetic relation to the adopted child. It could just be the gay persons natural development into being something "god-like"(raising a child, owning a pet, whatever). Who knows. Just judge the gay couple on a case by case basis for their competency.

[weasel]

Let me ask you this gay-supporters: how would a child be better off (i.e. more secure, porductive, satisfied) in the custody of a homosexual couple, which has been proven to be unstable, compared to the custody of a heterosexual couple?

[Osborn F Enready]

I have nothing against gay adoption, if the child is old enough to understand the concept of gay/straight differences, or if there are no homes available from straight couples.

Being a choice between a gay single, or a hetero single, I would say the child should go with the hetero single.

I ONLY say this due to our species as humans, and the way we relate to nature.

Children are impressionable when they are young, and sometimes those impressions can set life paths. I DO NOT think a child will become gay, just because they are raised by a gay parent. I do however think it could cause more confusion in a child already confused by the overwhelming pressures we as a society ALREADY INFLICT on our children, in the guise of percepted "normalcy".

Regardless, I think a gay couple, a gay single, a hetero couple, a hetero single, ALL MAKE BETTER PARENTS, and ROLE MODELS than any state facility, ever, anywhere, period.

Love, patience, and trust are all that are required for a good parent. Sexual prefrence should not be an issue except in the process of selection, to minimize gender or role confusion as much as possible.

Is there a state adoption home that is empty, in any state of our union?

[Jack]

how would a child be better off (i.e. more secure, porductive, satisfied) in the custody of a homosexual couple, which has been proven to be unstable, compared to the custody of a heterosexual couple?

Are you presuming that heterosexual couples are always stable? What if the homosexual couple was "proven" to be stable? What "proof" do you offer, anyway?
Would I want a child to be adopted by a straight but psychotic couple rather than a loving, caring gay couple? No. And that's about as sensible a comparison as you offered.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: weasel Let me ask you this gay-supporters: how would a child be better off (i.e. more secure, porductive, satisfied) in the custody of a homosexual couple, which has been proven to be unstable, compared to the custody of a heterosexual couple?

That's not a point I care to argue.

The point I want to argue is that if the choices are: A) no family or B)a homosexual couple wants to adopt you and has the means to support you, B should always be the answer.

[underbear1]

The real issue is gays and lesbians can parent, biologically. The issue is would heterosexuals either step up and adopt kids languishing in foster care, or step aside and let gays do it?

[weasel]

Quote by: Isherwood Are you presuming that heterosexual couples are always stable?

No. That would be foolish to make such a generalized statement. What I am saying is that heterosexual couples, on average, (normal distribution / bell curve) are more stable thus more capable of meeting the needs of the adoptive child.

Quote by: Isherwood What if the homosexual couple was "proven" to be stable? What "proof" do you offer, anyway?

The homosexual couple is not stable; hypothetical rhetoric doesn't prove your point either. In terms of proof, you must have been only partially conscious for most of this thread. The evidence I have went to the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Arkansas has adapted it to defend its standing on the "regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior." I'm not going to bother posting the link since I've done ten times already. Maybe you'll pay better attention this time.

[underbear1]

weasel, I couldn't have picked a better nickname for you.
IGNORE~

[weasel]

I will take that as a complement.

[belverron]

Unless you mean to say that his statement makes you complete, the word you were looking for is compliment.

And please stop using statistics jargon where it serves no purpose or is just plain wrong.