Reply With Quote
Satisfied would be more like it.
Satisfied would be more like it.
Is there any evidence to support that gay parents provide unsuitable conditions for children?
kids growing up in gay households is not suitable...
yes because heterosexual people provide a safe, stable environment 100% of the time.
based on?
I'm just opposed and, just like the gays-in-the-military issue, I don't feel children are upon whom we should be conducting social experimentation. When possible, children should be raised in traditional two-parent, heterosexual homes. Let's improve our orphanages and group family homes to pick up the slack.
C'mon, you can't tell me Rosie O'Donnel's home is a suitable environment for raising children.
Until the nature or nuture/genetics or environment questions are answered, I don't think we have the luxury of making the foster care system a petri dish.
But, that's just me.
Personally, I don't believe that a person's sexual preference prevents them from providing for a child and providing a safe enviroment where the child is taken care of. I imagine there are varying definitions of providing for a child, but as long as that child has clothing, medical care, shelter, nutrition and is in a place where they are safe from harm as much as possible, I would bet that is a start.
Uh, if you want to start naming celebrities who probably provide bad homes for children, I would bet money the hetero's outnumber the 's.
While this is far from scientific, I'm very close friends with a few people that came out of homes with same sex parents. One of them is one of my best friends, and she hasn't suffered in the least.
This is ridiculous law with it's roots in religion, fear, and bigotry. There is no proof that sexual parents are any less capable of providing a suitable environment for children. I would venture to say that there are current hetero foster parents who are horrible at what they do, yet are allowed to continue doing it.
This law paints sexuality as a bad thing. And while that may be the personal opinion of many people, I don't think there's anything to it scientificly.
Maybe we need a law banning celebs from breeding!
You know Manny, you may be right.
However, as long as there is militant gay activism - I'm opposed to anything they want to do, period.
I too, have friends that are the product of same sex households and, they are fine as well. However, their "parents" aren't then ones you see on the news demanding preferential treatment simply because they're gay.
I'm opposed to people that join organizations such as ACT UP having any influence over children and, if you give in on this point, it mutes the real problem of giving tacit approval for militant activists (Rosie O'Donnel) to warp little minds.
I, too, think it's bad legislation. I think legislation should be passed that directly addresses the suitability of the adopting/foster parents...regardless of sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, however, if you want to deny a person the privilege of foster/adoptive parenthood based on behaviors related to militant gay activism and how that might not be good for the child, it is immediately translated into gay-bashing, phobic, discrimination and the denied person becomes a cause celeb whose personal unsuitability is lost in the iconic status the rest of the gay community thrusts upon them.
So, I'm in favor of denying adoption and foster parenting to all sexuals. They can't naturally reproduce children anyway so, it isn't unnatural for them not to be parents, is it? Let's figure out a way to weed out the crazies without them being able to turn it into an issue over their sexuality (heterosexuals are denied all the time) and, then, I might be in favor of gay adoption. Until then, forget it.
Trophy children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
On Feb. 2, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it was endorsing sexual adoption. The response from the pro-family community was woefully inadequate. It consisted of bellyaching about the flawed or biased nature of available studies, hand wringing about the lack of empirical evidence or the simple assertion that children of two-parent, married heterosexual couples do best.
The report made by the AAP's Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health says that there is "no existing data to support the widely held belief that there are negative outcomes" for children raised by sexual parents. Furthermore, the committee asserts, "No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up with one or more gay parents."
While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in sexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.
The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Ins ute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a sexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.
The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.
It was the first study to examine the character of sexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the sexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the sexual parent.
The study with the second largest number of children of sexuals is the only one that has compared children of coupled married heterosexual parents and coupled cohabiting heterosexual parents to coupled paired sexual parents.
Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos, an associate professor of sociology in Australia, ran an investigation to compare the school performance of 58 children who were being raised by sexual couples to 58 closely matched children being raised by married couples and 58 children being raised by cohabiting partners.
The children's school teachers were ask to rate their scholastic achievements, participation in varies group activities as well as their socialization skills. The teachers also reported on parental involvement through their observations as well as by interviewing the children.
The children of sexual couples scored dramatically lower than the average of the children of the other two groups in verbal skills, vocabulary, composition and basic mathematical skills. The children of the sexual couples performed better in social studies but only slightly. Also, there was an important difference in the social development. The children of sexual parents were less likely to be involved with sports or other group activities. They were considered by their teachers to be introverts and loners, and were uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from that of their co-habiting sexual parent.
Far from being ideal parents, the sexual couples were less likely to visit the children's schools, volunteer or help the children with their homework.
Sarantakos was published in 1996 in the obscure journal, Children Australia. He gave no indication that he was aware of the "best interest of the child" argument being used to promote gay adoptions. He made no reference to any of the published studies regarding sexual parents that could best be described as "junk science," nor has his report been cited in any of the contentious literature about sexual parenting.
Pro-family groups can be forgiven for not citing Sarantakos. It is not available in any of the conventional databases or indexes. (A synopsis is available through Family Research Ins ute.) However, Cameron and Cameron should be a primary weapon in the quiver of those who defend children and work to keep them from being used as trophies for the mainstreaming of sexuality and the advancement of gay rights.
Jane Chastain is a WorldNetDaily columnist and radio talk-show host.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26549
kids have enough to deal with in school much less having to worry that they can't bring their friends over bc they are gay or lesbian...
i dated a girl who had a sister who was lesbian.. the 12 year girl would never have friends over bc her mother was a lesbian... kids shouldn't have to deal with this type of ...
Des, that's an interesting read. I'm going to do some more reading on those studies.
I know what your saying, and I agree with much of it (especialy that much gay activism is actualy counterproductive to sexual equality), but I'm not sure this is the right way to handle that.
It's not a clear-cut subject by any means. Generally, I believe kids are better off in heterosexual homes, but it's not always the case. Are kids better off being raised by a single parent than a sexual couple? Are kids better off being raised by an orphanage than a sexual couple? And at what point should the kids themselves be able to choose?
I'd love to just be able to say, "Yes, gay parents can raise children just as well as non-gay parents!", but based on the research I've read I can't, at least not yet.
Des...what is it that you have found that brings you to that conclusion? (not trying to be a jerk...really curious)
I'm not either but, I say err on the side of the children. Let non-activist gays get the rest of their community in order -- and then, we'll talk.
So you're against activists...rather than Gays or Hetero's....what is it.....
I say 2 parents is better than one...regardless of sexual preferance...now I have friends who have excelled in a single parent environment and some that haven't. I also have gay friends who were raised by over bearing parents who were very religious. I also have gay friends who's parents were both english teachers....actually out of the 4 boys in the family, 2 are gay the other married and straight...What does this all mean...nothing...there is proof in all situations to proof anyones point. I can prove a million examples of abuse, neglect and intolerance in straight parenting...once gays have more freedom to adopt children..I'm sure they stoop to this level of parenting as well as us straights. Remember, we are all human.
Every group has its "militant" activists. Just because blacks had the Black Panther party and whites have the KKK doesn't mean that they are excluded from raising children. Sexuality is as much a part of a person's iden y as race, and we don't (or at least we pretend not to) discriminate foster and adoptive parents based on race - foster and adoptive parents should be chosen based on personal merit and ability to provide care for a child. As an adoptive child, I can tell you from the stories my parents have told me that becoming an adoptive parent at least is a rigorous screening process with random visits and personal essay writing. The problem is not with adoptive parenting I don't think, it's with foster parenting - from the foster kids I've talked to it seems like the state will give kids to anyone, and that's what's wrong. Everyone needs to be screened better before fostering kids, and that doesn't need to be sexually based.
And most people aren't demanding "preferential" treatment because they are gay - they want equal treatment. There's a difference. Gay rights were not included in the agenda for the most part when the Civil Rights battles were going on, sexuals are still fighting for acceptance because they are the last of the major minority groups to get it.
So, you're saying a Grand Wizard would be able to adopt today?
No, but an anglo sure would.
(the KKK being an anglo extremist group)
How many people advertise Grand Wizard status today? If you don't say anything and the background checks don't say anything, then what would stop the state from giving them a child if they didn't flagrantly use racial slurs in front of child services?
So? All anglos aren't Grand Wizards. But, all sexuals are gay.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
