Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

Well, assuming this "homosexuals adopting kids" will continue, perhaps some provisos should be designated for the gay adopting couple:
- Electric trains will circle the base of the Christmas tree.
- Two circus visits per year.
- A Thanksgiving trip to a city that has a respective parade.
- All the comic books the child will read.
- Summer visits to both new grandparents.
- Has own tv, computer in own room.

In other words, at least make the child more comfortable than children with biological parents. Yes, some compensation for all the kidding from peers he or she (child) might get due to the home situation. At least some cognizance should be made to the reality from the perspective of a child with friends/peers in an old-fashioned family.

And, is it not possible that an adopted male would tend to have a different experience than an adopted female? Perhaps, based on the gender of his or her parents? If there has been studies on this, has there been any information to the public, or is it just "potluck" for a child?

0 Replies

Everyone knows the liberal media want our children to be stolen by homosexuals.

I did manage to find some legal documents here: http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/young/pdf/howard.pdf

Which, among other things says:

Quote:

Publisher Information
Note* This page is not part of the opinion as entered by the court.
The docket information provided on this page is for the benefit
of publishers of these opinions.

I'm not at all sure what that means.

And I'm not sure why Mass. would keep two disctrict court databases (the other is here: http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/)

0 Replies

HAHAHAHAHA. Foofie! That is seriously funny. "Potluck". I'm wiping away laughter tears.....

Lord knows that if you want to adopt you just walk in and say "Hey you! Give me a baby!" and then you walk out a parent. Nothing could be easier! It's like shoe shopping with less choices.

You're a riot!

Nope. Nothing "potluck" at all about the family you're born into. That's why kids never end up in foster care in the first place.

0 Replies

Oh... studies.... they're all over the place.

Here's one: adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/Lesbian and Gay Adoption Report_final.doc

And a snippet from it:

Quote:

RESEARCH ON PARENTING BY LESBIANS AND GAYS

Recently, several reviews of research have been published on the mental health and parenting capacity of lesbians and gays, as well as on the psychological outcomes of children raised by these individuals. The findings of this growing body of research are consistent, leading to the following conclusions:

Homosexual parents are no more likely to be emotionally disturbed than their heterosexual counterparts. Specifically, no differences have been found between lesbian mothers and divorced, single-parent mothers in depression, self-esteem, and general psychological well being.

No link has been found between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.

Homosexual parents have not been shown to be deficient in parenting knowledge, skills and/or behavior. Lesbian mothers display levels of warmth and child-focused behavior comparable to that of heterosexual mothers. Furthermore, research has found no differences in parenting attitudes of gay versus heterosexual fathers.

Homosexual couples establish co-parenting relationships that are at least as effective as their heterosexual counterparts. In fact, lesbian couples tend to share childrearing and domestic responsibilities more equally than heterosexual wives and husbands, and lesbian parents of children who are not theirs biologically generally are more involved in their care and display greater parenting skills than do heterosexual fathers. The findings comparing non-biological lesbian co-parents and heterosexual fathers probably have more to do with gender role behavior, however, than sexual orientation.

Children raised by homosexual parents display no significant differences compared to children raised by heterosexual parents in depression, anxiety, self-esteem, conduct problems, intellectual functioning, or many other areas of social and psychological adjustment.

Children raised by lesbian and gay parents report experiencing periodic homophobic teasing that, at times, is stressful. The fact that these youngsters sometimes experience teasing or ridicule, and yet do not show evidence of increased adjustment difficulties, suggests that they possess considerable internal resiliency and/or strong support systems.

Being raised by homosexual parents does not increase the risk for gender identity problems. Children in lesbian-headed households do appear to display less-traditional sex-typed dress, play, and behavior than children raised by parents who are heterosexual, but these indicators are well within the normal range and are not indicative of adjustment problems.

Adolescents and young adults raised in lesbian and gay households are no more likely to self-identify as homosexual than those raised in heterosexual households. However, they do report experiencing more same-sex attraction and same-sex experiences than similar age individuals raised by heterosexual parents.

0 Replies

I personally know gay couples that have adopted children and the children are well adjusted and happy. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with how loving a person is to their child. I once lived next door to a lesbian couple who were raising a little boy. Today he's the owner of his own company -- and he's straight! And he's married! And he has kids! How could this be???

0 Replies

"40% of children adopted in Massachusetts"? Bullshit. Try 3%.

http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2006/03/26/same_sex_couples_face_unique_adoption_hurdles/

0 Replies

And, I might add, Massachusetts, the only state in the Union with legal gay marriage, also has the lowest divorce rate of any state. We are doing better with family values here than you are, GungasnaKKKe, no matter where you are, so you are invited to just butt out.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Oh... studies.... they're all over the place.

Here's one: adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/Lesbian and Gay Adoption Report_final.doc

And a snippet from it:

Quote:
RESEARCH ON PARENTING BY LESBIANS AND GAYS

Children raised by lesbian and gay parents report experiencing periodic homophobic teasing that, at times, is stressful. The fact that these youngsters sometimes experience teasing or ridicule, and yet do not show evidence of increased adjustment difficulties, suggests that they possess considerable internal resiliency and/or strong support systems.

While women can today sue employers for a male boss making possible harrassing innuendos, it is fine to allow adopted children to live with "teasing and ridicule"?

This sounds like a double standard. Especially since the "internal resiliency" of the children allows them to tolerate the problem. Yet adult women need not be resilient to a bosses inappropriate comments.

In my opinion, some gays subscribe to an agenda that will make the lives of some adopted children problematic in relation to peers. But, apparently there are studies that state this is fine. Sort of like saying that as long as individuals can rise above, and not be damaged by prejudice, being put in a position of receiving prejudice is OK. To me it sounds like sacrificing children for the betterment and normalization of the gay community.

I say this since what the study cannot yet validate is how many children of gay adoptive parents have a need to "hide" their respective family (gay parents) from peers/associates as adults. In effect, while the gay parents have come out of their closet, so to speak, the children of such families might just have to live a life where his/her family history needs to be in the proverbial closet, so that they can function in a society that is not all liberal/progressive by far; especially in some regions. Makes one's career choices, or promotional opportunities limited. But, hey, at least gays were able to live a normal life with marriage and children. Is that not what really counts? Yes, I am being sarcastic.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

2004 wasn't that long ago. I mean, there were wheels then and cars had rubber tires and what not....

I meant this date: February 13, 2001 from your second or third article. Seems to indicate this is not some new-fangled threat and, of course, nothing you've posted has anything to do with gay adoption.

0 Replies

All kids face some kind of teasing and ridicule and yeah, adopted kids face more hurdles than most; especially kids that are older when they're adopted.

Why did your mom and dad give you away?
Why don't you look like your parents?
Are those your grandparents?

And gay parents aren't really anything new. Back in the olden days gay people typically married people of the opposite sex since it was not "okay" to be gay. They had kids. There are probably less kids with gay parents now.

What really counts is that children don't languish in foster care until they age out and have no place to call home. That kids don't endure a dozen difffent homes and a dozen different schools where a dozen different classrooms full of kids completely understand that the kids who suddenly appear and disappear are foster kids.

I remember one day my son and I were walking the dog and someone asked what breed the pup was, I replied "mutt".

My son became furious, outraged. Why? "Because a mutt is something nobody wants -- like a foster kid."

Simple yes or no question: Have you adopted a child from foster care, Fooie?

0 Replies

GungaSnaKKKe wrote:

Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

No, because I don't abuse my kids. Got it?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

And I'm not sure why Mass. would keep two disctrict court databases (the other is here: http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/)

That's one. Where's the other?

0 Replies

The other one is: http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/young/pdf/howard.pdf

That is the one I quoted from that said something about how this did not represent a court decision.

Edit: I should have knocked off the end part making it http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

The other one is: http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/young/pdf/howard.pdf

That is the one I quoted from that said something about how this did not represent a court decision.

Edit: I should have knocked off the end part making it http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov

PACER is the service offered to lawyers. It normally requires sign-up and a password to access. Not sure why you were able to get into it, although it's possible that certain documents or closed cases are made available to the public.

0 Replies

Thanks for the explaination! I was wondering what that was all about.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

What really counts is that children don't languish in foster care until they age out and have no place to call home. That kids don't endure a dozen difffent homes and a dozen different schools where a dozen different classrooms full of kids completely understand that the kids who suddenly appear and disappear are foster kids.

I remember one day my son and I were walking the dog and someone asked what breed the pup was, I replied "mutt".

My son became furious, outraged. Why? "Because a mutt is something nobody wants -- like a foster kid."

Simple yes or no question: Have you adopted a child from foster care, Fooie?

You need not personalize this thread with a question about me. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the topic, so I need not answer.

I understand many would agree with your point that aging out of foster care is not a positive experience for some; however, my only point is that being adopted by gay parents is, in my opinion, a booby prize of sorts, compared to the child that gets adopted by the Ozzie and Harriet American straight couple. I say that since the word heard often amongst adolescent boys, when one boy is considered less than totally masculine, is the "f" word (which also has a meaning of a bundle of sticks for fuel). This could be torture for a boy who has two daddies, whether or not the word is directed towards him.

This reminds me of the controversy over bullying in school. Many believe the bullied child eventually overcomes the hurt from the bullying. However, then there is the child that commits suicide from the bullying. So, in my opinion, being adopted by gay parents is a less than positive variable that I believe society should accept, and compensate for in some way. In other words, gay parents, in a heterosexual society will never be equal in all respects, from the perspective of many a child, with two heterosexual parents. Gayness and heterosexuality are not equals in this society, and children should not be the shock troops, in my opinion, to make the two persuasions more equal.

0 Replies

Quote:

You need not personalize this thread with a question about me. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the topic, so I need not answer.

I'll take that as a "no". And that's fine. Not many people have, especially not the Ozzie and Harriet's who adopt. Adopting from foster care is a whole different thing than private adoption (with some exceptions).

I just think that having a family that loves you and wants you is critically important to any child.

Foster kids have already been given the shaft by heterosexual "families" or they wouldn't be available for adoption through foster care. If someone is willing to raise them and love them and protect them, I don't care if they're Martians.

I know what impermanance and inconsistency does to a kid -- even and maybe especially a very young kid. It's horrific and life long.

Gays who adopt are typically professional, well educated, double income families, they aren't pedophiles or perverts. They are perfectly capable of raising a child better than some bigoted asshat who allows their child to bully kids at school just because they aren't quite as "lucky".

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

GungaSnaKKKe wrote:
Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

No, because I don't abuse my kids. Got it?

Doesn't sound like the Howards were abusing their children either; sounds more like 100% of the abuse in the picture was being provided by agencies of the state govt. of the people's republic of Mass.

0 Replies

And you know this because... the Howards say it's so?

And even were that true this one case is... evidence of a nationwide conspiracy to steal babies and give them to gay couples?

Good on ya, GungaSnaKKKe. Fight the good fight.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

And you know this because... the Howards say it's so?

And even were that true this one case is... evidence of a nationwide conspiracy to steal babies and give them to gay couples?

Good on ya, GungaSnaKKKe. Fight the good fight.

Nah...he believes in world net daily:

WorldNetDaily is a for-profit website that provides primarily evangelical-conservative-oriented news and editorials, publishes letters to the editor, maintains forums and conducts a daily poll. Besides providing articles authored by its own staff, the site links to news from other publications. The website's Commentary page features editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and Chuck Norris. However, it also features weekly columns by libertarians Walter Williams, Vox Day, and Ilana Mercer as well as liberal Bill Press and pro-life moderate Nat Hentoff.[9] The site also offers products for sale in a fashion similar to its news articles, advertising these products with related news stories. Typically these are products sold by its related book service, Book Service, publishing house, WND Books, or its retail operation, ShopNetDaily. The site also contains advertisements for WND's printed magazine, Whistleblower, and other companies. WND also operates the G2 Bulletin, a subscription-only website described as an "intelligence resource" for "insights into geo-political and geo-strategic developments."

Wikipedia on World net daily

Its founder:

Biography

Farah made a name for himself in 1990, when he became editor of the Sacramento Union newspaper under the ownership of Daniel Benvenuti, Jr., and David Kassis when the three turned the paper in a more conservative direction.[2] Benvenuti and Kassis bought the newspaper from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who was also a conservative and would eventually fund the Arkansas Project in an attempt to bring down Bill Clinton. After fifteen months as editor of The Union, Farah stepped down, in part from the 30 percent decline of the paper's circulation. (The Sacramento Union was bankrupt by 1994, but became an online monthly magazine in 2004.)[2] Prior to working at The Union, Farah was the executive news editor of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner (now closed) and served as editor-in-chief for various California dailies and weeklies.

Farah began working with Rush Limbaugh on the book See, I Told You So, which was released in 1994. Yet, by 1997, Farah co-founded the Western Journalism Center with James H. Smith, (former publisher of The Sacramento Union and former CEO/publisher of the revived Sacramento Union webpage). This group supplied Christopher W. Ruddy (founder of NewsMax) with "additional expense money, funding for Freedom of Information Act requests, legal support and publicity during his" investigation of a Clinton conspiracy surrounding the suicide of Vince Foster.[2] In the 1994-95 course of the Center Scaife-connected foundations gave $330,000 in donations to the group.[3]( By May 1997, Farah set his eyes on the internet and set up WorldNetDaily (WND) as a project of the Center. In 1999, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc., with offices in Cave Junction, Ore. was incorporated in Delaware as a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit Western Journalism Center with the backing of $4.5 million from investors.[4] As a result, Farah and the Western Journalism Center possess the bulk of the WND stock, but the remainder is owned by about 75 private investors. In August 2001, Business Week cited Farah who claimed WND had began to profit employing 25 workers.[5] Currently the webpage has a staff of 20 people. His second wife, Elizabeth Farah, also contributes to WND.

In 1996, Farah wrote a book with Richard Pombo concerning property rights.

In addition to directing the news-gathering operation at WorldNetDaily, he is also a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and nationally syndicated columnist. His radio service contains a variety of shows focusing on current affairs as well as topics on conservatism, liberalism and Christianity. However, on December 20, 2005 Farah announced he was "calling it quits on his national radio show next year" with the last day on January 13 2006. Farah said this was to spend more time with the WND website & his family [6] He is also the founder of ShopNetDaily where books on Christianity, politics and other world issues are sold.

He is considered a trailblazer as an architect of the "anti-liberal establishment" news outlets, which include talk radio, conversative publications, and on-line sources.

Wiki again

Some familiar nuts?

Coulter? Limbaugh? Evangelical christian press?

Usual suspects...usual hysteria.

Why don't they get back to witch burning where they belong.

Oh...some world net fun.

McDonalds is part of a conspiracy to spread homosexuality and transexuality:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69996

World Net on 9/11:

9/11 attacks

On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America". [22] Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own denouncing Postrel and Taranto as "political correctness police".

The Soy conspiracy:

Soy/homosexuality link claim

In December 2006, WorldNetDaily published Jim Rutz's editorial "Soy is making kids 'gay,'"[39] in which Rutz claimed the existence of a biological mechanism whereby dietary intake of female hormones can "feminize" young boys. Since some soy products contain natural estrogens, Rutz concluded that, although adults are sufficiently developed to "fight off some of the damaging effects of soy," consumption of soy products by a male infant increases the chance that the boy will grow up to be gay.

Rutz, the founder of of "Megashift Ministries," is not a doctor or nutritionist. His claims are contradicted by research done by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania.[40] The article was referenced by Frank Rich in a New York Times op-ed piece on December 17, 2006, describing the reaction to homosexuality among many members of the Republican Party.[41] The liberal advocacy organization People For the American Way mocked Rutz's claims in its online "RightWing Watch" feature, commenting "sometimes you just have to marvel at the things published by WorldNetDaily."[42]

The article generated varied reactions in mainstream media, and WorldNetDaily published subsequent Rutz commentaries in which he provided further documentation for his claims[43][44], such as the fact that "Orientals simply do not eat as much soy as Westerners think."

0 Replies

Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know