Catholic Bigotry?

[DjDan]

You seem absolutely incapable of understanding we are talking about children who are being put up for adoption. They do not have functioning mothers or fathers; either the state has taken them into care due to the inability of the parents to raise their children; or some, or all, of their parents are dead, or they have voluntarily decided they do not want to raise the children themselves.

 

This is very, very sad, but it happens a lot.

 

The collapse of adoption has left many thousands of children brought up in care, by a bureaucracy.

 

I would much rather a child from 'care' be brought up by a Mother and Father. You can't tell me there are no more 'straight' couples out there wanting to adopt children? It's not like we are at such a desperate point where homosexuals are to 'fill the gap'.

 

I've made my view very clear, and yes, it is adoption that I'm talking about. I believe that we should give a child the best future possible.. but I do not believe that that is to be found in a homosexual home. Regardless of the individuals. It's not the individuals here that I'm talking about. It's the simple fact that we are deciding to deny a child of a mother or a father. I believe that where possible, both should exist.

 

You say

Would you choose to deprive a child of a mother?

Would you choose to deprive a child of a father?

That's exactly what you are doing when you choose to believe that a child should be raised without one or the other and in a home with two Mothers, or two Fathers.

 

Here I do think you are been panglossian.

 

These children are already been raised in an environment lacking a mother and a father, they are living in an institution which no matter how successful it is, is basically lacking in the love and nurture a home can give a child.

 

The issue is how can the state change these children’s environment to improve their circumstances.

 

Please note the relative clauses here: improve. This is reality and not some ideal.

 

You are very strongly saying that the love and nurture a gay couple will be able to give a child is not worthwhile. That keeping a child in care, awaiting your ideal (and maybe non existent) candidate to come along, is better than placing them in a gay home.

 

What I am saying is, put them in a home with a mother and a father. Not in a home where there is 'no mother' or 'no father'.

Yes, a gay couple can equally love a child.... but a gay couple cannot equally be both a 'mother and a father' to a child.

 

 

I really have to say that is an incredible statement: boy you must hate gays.

 

Absolutely not. This is about them adopting chidren, not about them as inidividuals.

I may not approve of what they do, but that in no way means I hate them. I happen to know one personally.

 

 

You keep trying to make this a religious issue! I'm talking about it from a moral outlook. As Lonan made the point.... it's not only religious people that hold this view, because this is a moral issue! I firmly believe that we should try as much as possible to place children in homes with both a mother and a father.. and that homosexual adoption goes against this.

 

We don't know the lasting effects of placing children in homes of homosexual couples.... and I don't believe we should take a 'risk' with the lives of children. It may be okay, it may be not... but if it's not... what then? Place children in homes in which circumstances they should have been.... if not for the unfortunate (death of parents or rejection etc.)

 

A child was born through a mother and a father... and i believe he/she should continue to have a right to be brought up by such.

[Albert Tatlock]

Surely there must have been studies done on this? Searching about shows lots of biased 'facts and figures' about adoption, including those being adopted by gay families - such as they are 'four times more likely to become homosexual' etc. etc.

 

Anyone caught light of any serious (non-church, non gay) research on the impact of children being adopted by gay families?

 

It seems people can't get past the religious or 'moral' side of the argument here, because religeous people are biased by what it says in a 300 year old book, just as middle class conservatives are biased because this 'isn't normal' and not the values (many church linked views) they want to push, just as gay people and their supporters are biased fighting for their own rights.

 

Personally, I think a male and a female parent are best and should always be the first environment in which to seek to foster/adopt - and political correctness and religion shouldn't even come into the equation. If the state controls adoption, it has a responsibility to research this properly away from these irrelevant arguments of religion and so called middle class morality, to do what is best for the kids involved.

 

I don't like the way as a society we seem to be experimenting with kids lives just to enforce 'our own values', 'our own human rights' - or even kids 'human rights' (e.g. in the case of corporal punishment) which has resulted in the production of a generation containing an unusually large percentage of uncontrollable, lazy and undisciplined yobs who now think they can get away with (and often do get away with) anything. Because we handle these kind of debates so badly, it's little wonder the world is becoming a little bit more ****ed up each day from the consequences of our previous actions.

[Chinahand]

Gay adoption is a tricky issue. My instinct is that gay couples should not be allowed to apply to adopt purely because in the ordinary course of events a gay relationship would never lead to a child. Most heterosexual couples who adopt have either already had children of their own or have been prevented from having their own children because of infertitlity. Gay couples are in a rather different situation.

 

Please do not misconstrue me. I'm a firm believer that people should not suffer discrimination in work and social settings because of their sexual orientation, and there are many excellent gay teachers, nurses and carers who do a great job of teaching and caring for children. I just feel that the parental roles should probably be fulfilled by a couple who could (at least theoretically) naturally produce a child. I am open to persuasion, but have yet to be persuaded by the arguments that have been raised.

Thank you. A very lucid expression of my own thoughts on the subject.

 

dwatterson and Lonan3 I don't know what to make about this. You both seem to be stating that you don't think a gay couple is capable of raising a child.

 

I still don't understand this at all.

 

You seem to be saying that the reason for this is that a gay couple is incapable of having a child. Here I'm stuck. I know of examples where people have had children, then realized they are homosexual and moved from a hetro to a homo-sexual family. Given the repression of homosexuality I imagine there are many gay people who have fathered/mothered children. I also imagine many have had to do it alone, due to the pressures in their relationship causing them to divorce/ fail to find a stable homelife. Are you really saying a gay person who for what ever reasons is left alone to raise a child should not attempt to enter a relationship and doing so would damage their children?

 

Is the nature of the problem the fact they are out? I can see the parent going from a position of loneliness to one of support massively helping improve the environment for the child. Do you really think I'm totally wrong in that?

 

Also there must be examples of where a sister or brother is gay, and where another sibling dies etc, and so the child is adopted within the family. I can see no reason for saying this is any different than if a childless brother takes on the burden of his brother/sister's children.

 

As I've tried to explain, when making child care choices, the authorities are faced with a large number of difficult issues.

 

The argument seems to be that no matter how suitable the gay couple is, there will always be a better hetrosexual couple coming along who would be better.

 

I don't see that. The authorities have to make a decision at some point yes or no. I can easily imagine a time when an adoption committee has some doubts about a hetrosexual couple (say they score 51%), but agrees in the end to proceed with the adoption. The next day/week a far more suitable candidate arrives - how should the committee react - unfortunately it is reality they have to make a choice at some time. If the candidate is suitable, and a decision has been made then that is it - as long as the criteria has been met the adoption should proceed. Some people may get 51%, others 91%, but that shouldn't mean the 51% people should suddenly be stopped from adopting.

 

The argument been given is either that all homosexuals will always no matter what score 49% or lower, OR that even if they get 50%+ the adoption should always be put on hold until a suitable hetrosexual candidate turns up. Both arguements seem falacious and bigoted to me; sorry to say that, but I can see no other way of describing it - can you? An honest attempt to answer that would be appreciated.

 

Even the argument about mixed environments seems to me very flawed. Gay couples will still more than likely have grannies and grandpa's and uncles and aunts and mixed company to provide a mixed environment for their children.

 

The image I am still getting is of people condemming homosexuals as being incapable of providing a sufficiently good environmnet to raise a child in, no matter what their actual circumstances are.

 

DjDan fully admits it: the person, the environment they provide are all irrelevent, its the homosexuality which is the problem, and that over rules everything else.

 

He says that's a moral choice which he is stoutly defending. Over rules everything - that makes homosexuality a very very very big deal indeed. I don't understand why.

 

It's the no never attitude I just don't get - and what I condemn.

[Chinahand]

Anyone caught light of any serious (non-church, non gay) research on the impact of children being adopted by gay families?

 

This from the The American Psychiatric Association seems reasonably authoritative:

 

Research over the past 30 years has consistently demonstrated that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. The research also indicates that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults.

 

And this from the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute provides a detailed examination of the issues.

 

This is from the summary, and the body of the report provides academic references to the research backing up the statements.

 

Opposition to same sex parenting can be based on the perception that relationships between two women or two men function in a manner fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships. However a same sex relationship is no more likely to end in a breakdown than a heterosexual relationship and both exhibit similar strengths and weaknesses.

Another underlying objection to same sex parenting is the claim that lesbians and gay men are not fit to be parents. However, empirical evidence supports the conclusion that lesbians and gay men, in their capacity as parents, function similarly to heterosexual parents.

There is a common concern that children raised by same sex parents will exhibit more developmental problems than those raised in heterosexual families. Studies comparing children raised in lesbian or gay households with children raised in heterosexual households have found no discernible differences in personal

and psychological development, self-esteem and peer relationships. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that adult children of lesbian and gays are likely to identify themselves as lesbian or gay. There is also no empirical evidence to suggest that having a lesbian or gay parent makes a child particularly vulnerable to

sexual abuse.

Concern has also been expressed about the children of gay men and lesbians being more vulnerable to teasing and harassment due to the stigmatisation surrounding their parents’ sexual orientation. Children may in fact be the victim of teasing as a result of their parents’ sexual orientation. Despite this, evidence shows that these children’s mental health was not adversely affected. Children raised by lesbian or gay parents learn to deal with perceptions that their family is different. Of importance is the fact that lesbian and gay parents are aware of the difficulties that a child may face, many themselves having grown up being “different”.

[DjDan]

Fatherlessness is a growing problem in Australia and the Western world. Whether caused by divorce and broken families, or by deliberate single parenting, more and more children grow up without fathers. Indeed, 85 per cent of single parent families are fatherless families. Father absence has been shown to be a major disadvantage to the well being of children. The following is a summary of the evidence for the importance of fathers and the need for two-parent families.

 

One expert from Harvard medical school who has studied over 40 years of research on the question of parental absence and children's well-being said this: “What has been shown over and over again to contribute most to the emotional development of the child is a close, warm, sustained and continuous relationship with both parents.”

 

Or as David Blankenhorn has stated in Fatherless America: “Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation.”2Another expert puts it this way: “There exists today no greater single threat to the long-term well-being of children, our communities, or our nation, than the increasing number of children being raised without a committed, responsible, and loving father

Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more like to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls “show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male”.19A US study found that girls who grow up without fathers were “53 percent more likely to marry as teenagers, 111 percent more likely to have children as teenagers, 164 percent more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92 percent more likely to dissolve their own marriages.”

 

www.fatherhood.org.au/fatherlessness/index.html

 

^ Tell me how a lesbian couple would fit into that equation?

 

Woman + Woman = No Father figure.

[John Wright]

Apparently catholic Social Services placed 200 children last year. I don't know hwo many children were adopted total. it is small compared with historically as more young women keep their children, instead of having them "stolen" by adoption societies as happened right up until the late 1960's

 

Weneed to keep this in perspective, There are probably more children born to gay couples via donation, surrogacy, implant and plain old turkey basting than there are adopted. There are gay and lesbian parents, there have been for years, we also need to realise that there are good non nuclear families, step families, single parent families all of whom cope admirably, provide good role models and bring up great well adjusted kids.

 

There are problem children to adopt, there are few willing to take them on, most wantba white baby and not a 4 year old traumatised child or child with disability.

[Chinahand]

DjDan, I'd really take the time to read the Tasmanian study:

 

Research comparing lesbian with heterosexual mothers has not found any marked differences in self-esteem, psychological adjustment or attitudes toward child rearing. There is no evidence suggesting that lesbian mothers are less maternal than their heterosexual counterparts. The American Academy of Paediatrics in reviewing the body of scientific literature found that “lesbian mothers strongly endorse child centred attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers”.

 

Both single mothers and lesbian mothers have to deal with the lack of male role models: your souce show that the millions of single mothers are failing in this, my source shows that the tiny number of lesbian couples would seem are better prepared. The fact they have had to fight and overcome prejudice to be able to be a parent probably explains this.

[John Wright]

I would like to contribute personal experience.

 

I hope no one laughs or uses it against me. It can be diificult putting your heart on your sleeve

 

I am adopted. I have known since I was able to understand these things at a fairly early age. I was three when it was explained to me. My sister arrived, also adoted, my mum didn't have a fat tumy like the mum of my friend down the road who was having a child at almost the same time. In other words I have known nearly 50 years.

 

The explanantion was lovingly and carefully done. I suspect my parents were lightyears ahead of some adopters. Yes there can be good and bad adopters

 

My mum died when I was only 7 and my sister just 4. From then I was brought up by my father. He was a great dad to both of us. I can never remember wanting emotionally. We had female relations who provided female role models.

 

I have now made contact with my birth mother. It was 1956, she found she was pregnant, the boss, party, need I say more. She was 18. Her mother made her go to a mother and baby home many miles away to be out of the way so no one knew of the shame she was bringing on the family. I was born. Two days later the religious types in charge got her to sign forms, removed me whilst she was out of the room and that was it. She was sent back to her mother, I was gone. She had kept a couple of small mementos to take home, where her mother found them and destroyed them whilst telling her to forget about me forever.

 

That was how social attitudes were then.

 

I have no regrets and I don't blame my birth mother. I have found her and we get on well. I couldn't have had a better adoptive family even 'though in social terms it was broken.

 

I have two friends, one a lesbian mother, turkey baster from gay donor. Child sees his "father" at least one weekend per month, they holiday together and the child stays with dad for holidays. Role models of both sexes but not a nuclear family.

 

The other friend is in a gay relationship. They know two lesbians, a couple, again AID, the two couples and baby see each other weekends, they holiday together. The child has two mums and two dads. Next yera a surrogacy is promised so the male couple can have a child.

 

Both children seem very balanced, they are wanted and loved.

 

I fostered, as a single man for about 12 months, 10 years ago, a teenage young man, 15 years old. Never again, I couldn't cope eventually with a teen going out of control. I think I was a reasonable role model. I didn't have the skills just for 16 to happen!. We do get on now he has grown out of the terrible teens. He doesn't know his fater and had an abusive step father. He now sees me as a surrogate father if he needs a chat.

 

The sheer fact that we have had a couple centuries of nuclear and extended families should not be allowed to blind us to the fact that there are successful alternatives capable of delivering qulaity child care and balanced young adults, just as there are many conventional couples and singles who are not.

 

How dare any adoption placing body limit the placement options on the basis of doctrine, faith or belif rather than ability, for those whose well being they proffess to care.

 

The same applies also to long or short term fostering where it can be the skills which fosterers are required to have to deal with badly damaged youngsters which are far more imoportant than who sleeps with whom.

[John Wright]

And now for some law

 

In UK it is probably illegal for adoption societies to discriminate already their duty is to find the empirically best adopters for children in their care. Notions of faith, belief etc just don't come into it. By suggesting they exclude ceratin prospective adopters who they refuse to assess they are reducing the childs chances

 

However the new regulations on goods and services proposed under the equality act make it plain that you cannot be denied sale of goods or delivery of services or a beer at a pub or a bed in a hotel because of sex, race, sexual oreientation, religious belief.

 

I don't get the fuss about Jade, but the acceptance that a gay man or woman can be discriminated against and the rights of the child, which are paramount disregarded, clearly if Jade was being racist it was unacceptable, the same has to be true about sexuality of prospective adopters and the availability of the best adopters for children after thourough investigation and assessment of the needs of the child and what the adopter can deliver.

[ans]

You can't tell me there are no more 'straight' couples out there wanting to adopt children? It's not like we are at such a desperate point where homosexuals are to 'fill the gap'.

 

Number of children adopted as a % of all children being looked after (UK)

 

 

You really are a stunning advert for your church. Not only are you a prissy dork, but you're an intolerant bigot too! Way to go champ.

[DjDan]

^ and what does that prove?

 

looks like adoption is going up in percentage. (which is what i suggested)

[DjDan]

A little more study:

 

A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population.55

 

Numerous studies indicate that while nearly 5 percent of males report having had a homosexual experience sometime in their lives, the number of exclusive homosexuals is considerably less: Between 1 and 2 percent of males report exclusive homosexual behavior over a several-year period.56 However, J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission."57

 

Even though they attempted to argue otherwise, Golombok and Tasker's study revealed in its results section a clear connection between being raised in a lesbian family and homosexuality: "With respect to actual involvement in same-gender sexual relationships, there was a significant difference between groups...None of the children from heterosexual families had experienced a lesbian or gay relationship." By contrast, five (29 percent) of the seventeen daughters and one (13 percent) of the eight sons in homosexual families reported having at least one same-sex relationship.58

 

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

[John Wright]

Historically and today the greatest number of near birth adoptions do not go into care they go straight from birth mother to adoptive parents via adoption society assessment and placement subject to local authority approval and court order.

 

It is adoption of older children, in care which is on the increase, that is mainly overseen by local government, not adoption societies, and the increase is because they are accepting non nuclear families to place more difficult kids

[ans]

^ and what does that prove?

 

That only just under 6% of all children in care are adopted currently. Yet you seem to think that 'normal' people are falling over themselves to adopt. Why be so blinkered and close minded as to completely discount a significant portion of the population for no apparent reason other than you can't see further than the end of your own homophobic nose. To save you the humiliation of scratching your head with paper and pen trying to work out the sum, the graph shows that over 94% of children in care are not adopted.

 

Yeah, the adoption system is in no way in need of people willing to offer loving homes to children without them.

[DjDan]

Ans, you're the foolish looking one here. Let's take another look at your post:

 

You can't tell me there are no more 'straight' couples out there wanting to adopt children? It's not like we are at such a desperate point where homosexuals are to 'fill the gap'.

 

Number of children adopted as a % of all children being looked after (UK)

 

 

You really are a stunning advert for your church. Not only are you a prissy dork, but you're an intolerant bigot too! Way to go champ.

 

You quote me as saying "You can't tell me there are no more 'straight' couples out there wanting to adopt children? It's not like we are at such a desperate point where homosexuals are to 'fill the gap'" - thus suggesting that adoption rates are not at crisis point, and that there is not a significant decline in numbers of children being adopted.

 

Thus the words: You can't tell me there are no more 'straight' couples out there wanting to adopt children?

 

You then post a graph which illustrates this point, proving an increase in percentage of children being adopted.

 

So how does this prove me wrong? you have backed up my argument.