Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

gungasnake wrote:

The Howard children clearly were not being abused, by the Howards at least,

there is no evidence that you are correct in this comment

0 Replies

foofie wrote :

Quote:

My point is from the perspective of the adopted child, and eventual adult, and how having homosexual parents might result in his/her life being more difficult, since in this society that still displays homophobia, having homosexual parents might be something one needs to hide

"having homosexual parents might be something one needs to hide"

why ?
i'm probably one of the oldest members on a2k and couldn't care less whether someone's parents are homosexuals or have red hair - i don't see what difference it should make , unless someone has a bias against red-haired people .

i'm sure you know that in some marriages one of the partners turns out to be a homosexual later in life , AFTER one or more children had been born .

should all these children feel stigmatized ?

i thought we had entered the 21st century some years ago - perhaps may calendar is wrong .
i also thought america was an "enlightened and modern society" .
hbg

0 Replies

I try not to engage with either foofie or hawkeye for varied reasons, pretty disparate at that.

So, I won't.

Please don't assume community silence means some kind of agreement.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foofie wrote :

Quote:
My point is from the perspective of the adopted child, and eventual adult, and how having homosexual parents might result in his/her life being more difficult, since in this society that still displays homophobia, having homosexual parents might be something one needs to hide

"having homosexual parents might be something one needs to hide"

why ?
i'm probably one of the oldest members on a2k and couldn't care less whether someone's parents are homosexuals or have red hair - i don't see what difference it should make , unless someone has a bias against red-haired people .

i'm sure you know that in some marriages one of the partners turns out to be a homosexual later in life , AFTER one or more children had been born .

should all these children feel stigmatized ?

i thought we had entered the 21st century some years ago - perhaps may calendar is wrong .
i also thought america was an "enlightened and modern society" .
hbg

Clearly it isn't. Like most societies. Shrugs.

I always find myself on an odd side in these debates.

I think placing kids (and I give, of course, no credence at all to Gunga's pathetic drivel about heterosexual people's kids being recruited for gay couples) is always a balance of possibilities and relative benefits and drawbacks.

Of course there is prejudice against gays...and this, in my view, needs to be taken into account in placing kids.

Kids have no voice in where they are placed, generally, so, if possible, they need to be placed in the least possibly further traumatizing place possible (at least) or in the most healing place possible (at best.)

A good gay couple would likely come way above what I gather to be commonly available to kids being fostered in the US and in my country, which is often no placement at all, or very marginally nurturing, but nicely heterosexual, foster parents.

However, I don't think it fair to dismiss the effect of homophobia on a child's growing up life...even when the gay people are their natural parents and the child is not traumatised.

This is not an argument for not placing with gay parents, but it is one of the myriad of factors needing to be taken into account, if possible, when placing a kid.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I try not to engage with either foofie or hawkeye for varied reasons, pretty disparate at that.

So, I won't.

Please don't assume community silence means some kind of agreement.

True that.

It's like arguing with a bad smell.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

it appears that science has not been allowed to look at this question, that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality.

And then he lists a carefully edited portion of a document from Familyaction-dot-org. Family Action-dot-org describes itself as an organization ". . . with a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored," and " . . . to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Judeo-Christian worldview . . ."

Oh yeah, there's a balanced, unbiased source. Trust the Rapist Boy to give us the straight low-down . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
it appears that science has not been allowed to look at this question, that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality.

And then he lists a carefully edited portion of a document from Familyaction-dot-org. Family Action-dot-org describes itself as an organization ". . . with a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored," and " . . . to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Judeo-Christian worldview . . ."

Oh yeah, there's a balanced, unbiased source. Trust the Rapist Boy to give us the straight low-down . . .

Jesus wept.

0 Replies

Quote:

This is not an argument for not placing with gay parents, but it is one of the myriad of factors needing to be taken into account, if possible, when placing a kid.

As always, dlowan provides the voice of rational moderation.

Being adopted by a gay family in, say, Seatle, Washington is not going to carry the same stigma as it would is, say, Ada, Oklahoma.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
it appears that science has not been allowed to look at this question, that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality.

And then he lists a carefully edited portion of a document from Familyaction-dot-org. Family Action-dot-org describes itself as an organization ". . . with a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored," and " . . . to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Judeo-Christian worldview . . ."

Oh yeah, there's a balanced, unbiased source. Trust the Rapist Boy to give us the straight low-down . . .

Feel free to point to evidence that the question has been settled in science. I find no evidence that it has been. The link I gave was valid, it does not matter if the organization has an axe to grind, if they can find legitimate scientific studies to back them up then they may be right.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
I try not to engage with either foofie or hawkeye for varied reasons, pretty disparate at that.

So, I won't.

Please don't assume community silence means some kind of agreement.

True that.

It's like arguing with a bad smell.

You can't argue with me because I have not taken a position on the question, only said that society has rights and that it appears that science has not studied the question enough to be of assistance. As for the former if you don't agree then you are the radical not me, and the latter the position of science on the matter is central to any discussion on the topic, if you think that I am wrong about what science says then what you need to do is bring that evidence to the table. Short circuiting the process with name calling makes you both the stinky ones in the room not me.

0 Replies

It's hard to imagine that anyone might seriously argue that it would be better to place a parentless child in an utterly dysfunctional heterosexual home rather than a homsexual home consisting of adopted parents who are loving well-adjusted and in no way desirous of influencing their adopted child's sexual oreintation.

Of course this is rarely, if ever, the choice presented to social service workers.

There are two essential points to this discussion:

1) Homosexual parents are, at least, as likely to be effed up as their heterosexual counterparts. The liberal side of this debate tends to include an assumption that homsexual partners, irrespective of the issues associated with their sexual orientation, will reliably make good parents because they "really really" want a kid.

2) All things being equal, a child is better off with heterosexual parents.

A loving, functional homosexual family is a better place of residence for an unwanted child than the foster care system.

Homosexual parents who wish to adopt require a great degree of scrutiny than heterosexual parents.

The two situations are not equivalent as respects the introduction of a child.

While certain homsexual parents can, easily, be a better alternative for the adopted child than certain heterosexual parents, this is not a reason to put homosexual couples at a equal position with heterosexual couples when considering placement of parentless children.

To the extent anyone might argue that there is no difference, my response is: Nonsense.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Quote:
This is not an argument for not placing with gay parents, but it is one of the myriad of factors needing to be taken into account, if possible, when placing a kid.

As always, dlowan provides the voice of rational moderation.

Being adopted by a gay family in, say, Seatle, Washington is not going to carry the same stigma as it would is, say, Ada, Oklahoma.

Indeed...that's why I get annoyed with the blanket stuff about placing kids with different race etc. parents, too.

Each situation is different.....and one is always looking for the least worst option....

0 Replies

To argue that children should not be placed with a homosexual couple (or a couple of a different color of skin) on the contention that the child might be stigmatized, without knowing whether or not there were a better placement, and especially knowing that the homosexual couple (or couple of a different color of skin) would be the best qualified couple to raise the child--is mere idiocy. And, as i've pointed out, to assume that the child would be more likely to be harmed by social stigma, rather than by a relative incompetence of the care givers, enshrines bigotry using the welfare of the child as an excuse.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
it appears that science has not been allowed to look at this question, that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality.

And then he lists a carefully edited portion of a document from Familyaction-dot-org. Family Action-dot-org describes itself as an organization ". . . with a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored," and " . . . to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Judeo-Christian worldview . . ."

Oh yeah, there's a balanced, unbiased source. Trust the Rapist Boy to give us the straight low-down . . .

Feel free to point to evidence that the question has been settled in science. I find no evidence that it has been. The link I gave was valid, it does not matter if the organization has an axe to grind, if they can find legitimate scientific studies to back them up then they may be right.

I haven't alleged that "the question" has been settled. In fact, i assume that there is no question to be settled, other than in the minds of people who approach the topic warped by their own bigotry. It is more than a little ironic that you say: " . . . that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality." and then cite an organization with a demonstrable prejudice based on their version of morality.

Giving a link to an abstract does not constitute evidence that the organization providing the abstract has found legitimate scientific studies to back up their claim, a claim for which there is good reason to suspect the provenance given the nature of the organization.

You just posted some tendentious crap, and now want to go all righteous on us as though you had provided solid evidence which no one has refuted.

Time enough to deal with your silly claim when you actually provide some evidence for it, the biases (if any) and the bases (if any) for which can then be reviewed.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
it appears that science has not been allowed to look at this question, that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality.

And then he lists a carefully edited portion of a document from Familyaction-dot-org. Family Action-dot-org describes itself as an organization ". . . with a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored," and " . . . to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Judeo-Christian worldview . . ."

Oh yeah, there's a balanced, unbiased source. Trust the Rapist Boy to give us the straight low-down . . .

Feel free to point to evidence that the question has been settled in science. I find no evidence that it has been. The link I gave was valid, it does not matter if the organization has an axe to grind, if they can find legitimate scientific studies to back them up then they may be right.

I haven't alleged that "the question" has been settled. In fact, i assume that there is no question to be settled, other than in the minds of people who approach the topic warped by their own bigotry. It is more than a little ironic that you say: " . . . that morality positions have been allowed to impede a fair evaluation of reality." and then cite an organization with a demonstrable prejudice based on their version of morality.

Giving a link to an abstract does not constitute evidence that the organization providing the abstract has found legitimate scientific studies to back up their claim, a claim for which there is good reason to suspect the provenance given the nature of the organization.

You just posted some tendentious crap, and now want to go all righteous on us as though you had provided solid evidence which no one has refuted.

Time enough to deal with your silly claim when you actually provide some evidence for it, the biases (if any) and the bases (if any) for which can then be reviewed.

BS, there have been enough children bought up in openly homosexual homes that the outcomes can be evaluated. What is the nature of the outcome? I don't know but given the nature of man, at times full of cruelty, we best find out before we make any determination on whether adoptive kids should be placed in openly homosexual home.

I'll say this again as you did not understand it the first time; what any one person or group says is not the point, what does the preponderance of the scientific study say? Are those studies sound or are the critics right that they are flawed? Do we have enough good science to proceed? If we don't know the outcome of kids growing up in openly homosexual homes then we need to find out, or else admit that adoption no long functions on the theory that the kids best interests take priority over all else. If anyone is comfortable placing kids in these homes without knowing the general historical outcomes then I see no other conclusion then that in their opinion the rights of gay want to be adoptive parents takes priority of the kids best interest in the mind of the one opining.

0 Replies

hawkeye, I thought your whole gimmick was "sexual freedom for adults" even if it meant throwing a few kids "under the bus".

Am I mistaken or haven't you said that before?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

hawkeye, I thought your whole gimmick was "sexual freedom for adults" even if it meant throwing a few kids "under the bus".

Am I mistaken or haven't you said that before?

By this I meant kid sexual freedom, of which i said that I was speaking of teens. There is no gimmick, for me health takes priority over ideology, and I have been arguing that kids as individuals and society in general would be more healthy if teens were allowed more sexual freedom, if society was less conflicted about sex. We alternate between being very sexual (the market place, fashion....) and quite sexually repressive (kids, kink that involves power games...) we are as a society very unhealthy when it come to our sexuality. My arguing that kids should not be placed in openly gay homes if science can show that the kids suffer from the setting (either as kids or later as adults) is wholly consistent with my opinions on sexuality, health rules.

0 Replies

It's obvious. This is all about role modeling.

There would be less homosexuality, if only heterosexual parents would have sex in front of their kids more often to demonstrate how it should be done.

(The above does not reflect the viewpoint of A2K, it's moderators or the real opinion of the author of this post.)

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

I'll say this again as you did not understand it the first time; what any one person or group says is not the point, what does the preponderance of the scientific study say?

I'll say this again, as you obviously don't understand. At such time as you provide a reliable source for what the preponderance of scientific study says, there will be something worth discussing (perhaps). Until that time, all you've got here is chin music.

0 Replies

Hmmm...

We'll there is this, hawkeye...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3290390#3290390

where you said...

Quote:

I can't go with adults losing the right to consent to sex because the moral police don't like what they consent to, and I would not make a person who has reason to believe that he/she is in a mutually consensual arrangement guilty of rape.

I also would not allow most of what we call statutory rape, but I am willing the throw the kids under the bus if it will help the adults gain sexual freedom.

0 Replies

Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know