Gay adoption

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
On this one I am not sure and want opinions:

Should gay adoption be allowed?

[Gin 'n Tonic]

Yes, of course.

[dr_venkman]

Why would you want to adopt a gay?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Your reasons?

[lastchance]

Why not?

[[censored]]

I don't know.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Should gay adoption be allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

An easy yes.

Could they really do any worse than the stellar job the str8 couples in society are doing?

Could they do a worse job than the struggling single mother who bitches and moans about how tough their lives are with a kid? (rampant in wash. state)


Sexual orientation does not make a better parent.

b

[James Boston]

Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child? It seems like I've read this before.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child? It seems like I've read this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

No,
actually they have found that it does not matter.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child? It seems like I've read this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

No,
actually they have found that it does not matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, ill bet anything "they" have found both that it does matter and that it doesnt.

[vulturesrow]

Wrong. The commonly cited studies that show this contain some serious methodological flaws which greatly detracts from their viability. There are lots of studies that show the benefits of two parent homes and also many studies that show the importance of opposite sex interaction within the family.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child? It seems like I've read this before.

[/ QUOTE ]No they absolutely have not.

check out www.apa.org (http://www.apa.org)

[Vince Young]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child? It seems like I've read this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

No,
actually they have found that it does not matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's your answer.

[wmspringer]

If they're qualified, why not?

There are a large number of children waiting to be adopted. Even if being adopted by a heterosexual couple is better for them than being adopted by a homosexual couple, that's still probably better than not being adopted at all.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child? It seems like I've read this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

If so they were obviously heterosexual psychologists. I've had many a friend in my life with a gay parrent (in some cases two!). I even had a friend who's father had a sex change, yet remained married (and in love) with her mother. He is not gay, he just felt more comfortable with breasts and no penis /images/graemlins/blush.gif Interesting enough his child was one of the kindest people I have ever met.

Of my friends who have a gay parent, only one grew up to be gay as well. All are rather well adjusted. Of course my sample size is small.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I even had a friend who's father had a sex change, yet remained married (and in love) with her mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did the mom take it??? If my wife decided she needed a penis I would be pissed!!!!!

[yaomama]

[tolbiny]

If you don't allow it then you cant let any kids get adopted untill they "decide" weather or not they are gay.

[tolbiny]

Nice avatar.

Where's mat when you need him?

[andyfox]

Sure. What's wrong with adopting a gay person?

[[censored]]

OK I have decided. It should be left up to the states and prior to the state would need to enact Civil Unions.

[The Dude]

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the "rightness" or "wrongness" or homosexuality. However, I am staunchly opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marraige, and I support homosexual couples' right to adopt.

[fimbulwinter]

no, but not for any of the obvious reasons.

1. homosexual couples are much less likely to remain in long term relationships thus greatly increasing the chance the child will grow up in a broken home.

2. homosexual couples who adopt are much more likely to be financially very well off and are much more likely to spend that money on luxury items and live in densely populated urban areas. I am of the opinion that raising a child "rich" is one of the worst things one can do for him/her, as is raising a child in an urban environment.

fim

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
no, but not for any of the obvious reasons.

1. homosexual couples are much less likely to remain in long term relationships thus greatly increasing the chance the child will grow up in a broken home.

2. homosexual couples who adopt are much more likely to be financially very well off and are much more likely to spend that money on luxury items and live in densely populated urban areas. I am of the opinion that raising a child "rich" is one of the worst things one can do for him/her, as is raising a child in an urban environment.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

Both ridiculous reasons.

According to i) you wouldn't allow blacks to adopt and according to ii) you wouldn't allow Jews to adopt.

Why not just judge each case on its merits?

[The Dude]

So you don't think any homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt for said reasons? Isn't that called the 'fallacy of composition?" (Even if your reasons aren't absurd to begin with.)

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the "rightness" or "wrongness" or homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude- you are being very undude.

[Utah]

No. But then again I dont think anyone should be able to adopt.

Adoption should be outlawed in this country as a matter of standard practice and it should only be allowed in very extreme situations. Adoption is a nasty business, which exploits the weak and helpless.

[lehighguy]

As a libraterian I have always supported gay marraige and gay rights on the grounds that an individual has the freedom to choose whatever path they want. The government has no right to get involved in peoples personal lives.

However, the issue of wether I think being gay is a good thing is an entirely different matter. I'm fairly indifferent on the subject as it doesn't effect me. When the topic of adoption comes up we are talking about a situation in which having gay parents has a profound impact on a childs upbringing. As such it begins to matter if being gay has a positive or negative impact.

In the case of adoption we can assume that the child is already under a great deal of stress. Given the status of homosexuals in our society being adopted into a gay household can only add to that stress. This will effect thier developement in a negative way and it is a fact of life we must live with. It is a reason against gay adoption.

The much more important reason I worry about gay adoption is that I wonder if the child is getting shortchanged. I grew up with a mother and a father. Both of them influenced my developement in a unique way. I think it is healthy for a child to have both a strong masculine and feminine influence during his/her developement. That is one thing a same sex couple can't provide, and a key reason I worry about gay adoption.

Are there some gay parents out there that would be better then some straight parents, of course. I'm sure if you go out and find a very upstanding gay couple they can do a better job then Mr. and Mrs. get divorced 50% of the time. That is why I think gay adoption shouldn't be illegal. However, not everyone is allowed to adopt a child, they must go through a process in which they are evaluated. I think being gay should be a factor in that process and a negative one at that. So that, all things being equal (income, family history, psycological stability, various parenting qualities, etc.) a straight couple will be more likely to adopt a child then a gay couple.

Gay marraige is such an easy question because the choice only effects those involved. With adoption the choice effects other people, most importantly children. As such it becomes societies business.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
I think I want it to be allowed (I dont't know) but your points are very valid. It provokes me a bit when it is made like a gay rights issue as adoption should be child-centered.

[Dead]

Of course it should be allowed.

Not allowing it would be discrimination.

[player24]

It will be interesting (some day long in the future) when we begin to see data from long term studies on the sexual preferences of adults who were adopted by a homosexual parent or a homosexual couple.

Is homsexuality environmentally caused, genetically caused, or some combination?

Most people who believe that there is an enviornmental link would probably assume that a child adopted and raised by an openly gay couple will have an above average tendency to be a homosexual in their adulthood.

I assume this issue will be studied intensively - but we won't know the results until many years in the future.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
1. homosexual couples are much less likely to remain in long term relationships thus greatly increasing the chance the child will grow up in a broken home.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean in comparison to the 60+% divorce rate of married str8 couples? Gotta do better than this.


[ QUOTE ]
homosexual couples who adopt are much more likely to be financially very well off and are much more likely to spend that money on luxury items and live in densely populated urban areas

[/ QUOTE ]

Str8 couples do this also. Financial means should be one of the first things considered.

These 2 reasons suck

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Adoption should be outlawed in this country as a matter of standard practice and it should only be allowed in very extreme situations. Adoption is a nasty business, which exploits the weak and helpless

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure you'll get christmas cards from all the orphans.

b

[James Boston]

There's seems to be some disagreement on the answer to my original question, and I don't know. My point was this. Many posters were saying that a gay couple would make better parents than some people are to their own biological children, and this is no doubt true. Still, IF we know that the male/female 2 parent home is the ideal situation, we shouldn't be placing children in ANY other environment, even if it occurs among children and their biological parents.

[Utah]

huh?

Do you think that is what adoption is about? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Where do you think the babies come from? It is rare for the parents to be dead. However, if that was the case I would consider that to be an extreme situation and I would have no problem with such an adoption. I am referring to the sickening daily practice in the U.S. where huge numbers of children are adoption and which have nothing to do with children being orphaned.

Did you see the 20/20 special on where all these supposed orphaned babies in Guatamela come from? Adoption is nothing but a multi billion dollar business which takes children from poor and/or defenseless families to be sold to rich families. Dont kid yourself that these babies are not sold. The $20,000 to $30,000 it takes to adopt a child in the U.S. has nothing to do with the cost of the actual adoption.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Should gay adoption be allowed?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[Beerfund]

Lesbians should be able to adopt but not dudes because they would molest the kid, but this is obvious.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, IF we know that the male/female 2 parent home is the ideal situation, we shouldn't be placing children in ANY other environment,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's realistic, isn't it? Where are you going to put them in the meantime?

b

[bernie]

So basically you think the possibility of giving the kid a better chance at life isn't in the equation? No matter what the circumstance, it's all just one big blanket.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that is what adoption is about? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Where do you think the babies come from? It is rare for the parents to be dead. However, if that was the case I would consider that to be an extreme situation and I would have no problem with such an adoption. I am referring to the sickening daily practice in the U.S. where huge numbers of children are adoption and which have nothing to do with children being orphaned.

Did you see the 20/20 special on where all these supposed orphaned babies in Guatamela come from? Adoption is nothing but a multi billion dollar business which takes children from poor and/or defenseless families to be sold to rich families. Dont kid yourself that these babies are not sold. The $20,000 to $30,000 it takes to adopt a child in the U.S. has nothing to do with the cost of the actual adoption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is the only thing adoption's about? Based on 1 episode of 20/20?

b

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, IF we know that the male/female 2 parent home is the ideal situation, we shouldn't be placing children in ANY other environment,



That's realistic, isn't it? Where are you going to put them in the meantime?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it actually the other way around? That there is more of a surplus of prospective parents than there are kids for adoption? Prospective parents are competing over adoptions--or, at least that's my second-hand impression (I don't work in the industry or anything). A friend of a friend just paid $20K to adopt a baby from China--and they are middle class whites in New England suburbia. It was a long and exhausting process and finally they got selected as the adpotive parents-to-be.

[Dead]

For BABIES, MMMMMM. It seems that every couple in America who wants to adopt, wants a BABY to adopt, and not a 6 year old. There are a surplus of 6 year olds, and a shortage of babies. How very American of us.

[InchoateHand]

No, there is a severe shortage of parents willing to adopt children.

Adopting BABIES, from other countries, is very popular for a number of reasons. They don't have to live in the long awkward legal limbo that comes with working with state human service departments, and most importantly, they get BABIES.

There are a ton of children removed from their home outside infancy. These children have a next to zero chance of being adopted. People want a baby, not a four year old, and they are willing to throw down 30K to get it from China rather than the town one over.

I watched a close friend and co-worker go through the nightmare scenario of working with the state--it took 18 months before they got the kid, and another two years before they had unambiguous legal custody over it. At any point in that process a judge could have returned the child to the very much still living (though woefully negligent) biological mother.

[vulturesrow]

Im not saying anyone made this claim, but surely no one thinks thinks a gay couple would be more likely to adopt an older child vice an infant?

[InchoateHand]

No I'm not saying that either, but if the overall pool of potential adoptive parents is widened, I think it gives those hard-to-adopt kids an extra shot, and I'm unwilling to strip them of that rare chance.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically you think the possibility of giving the kid a better chance at life isn't in the equation? No matter what the circumstance, it's all just one big blanket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless there are extreme circumstances involved, a child should not be seperated from his parents. The whole "giving the child a better life thing" is just one big ass lie told to birthparents to get them to give up their children.

If you do the research you will find that adoption causes tremendous damage to a huge percent of adoptees. There can be little that is more traumatic to a child than losing their natural parents and there can be little that is more traumatic to a parent than losing thier child.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is the only thing adoption's about? Based on 1 episode of 20/20?

[/ QUOTE ]
Adoption is about terrible loss and it is about lies told by the adoption industry to keep their massive money machine churning. It is an idea in this country that has failed miserably. The U.S. needs to follow Australia, which has all but eliminated adoption.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't psychologists said that a two parent (of opposite sex) home is the best way to raise a child?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and that's why there no pyschologists who are divorced and have perfectly raised healthy children.

Bad parents are bad parents. It doesn't matter if they are gay or not.

Lawrence

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Lesbians should be able to adopt but not dudes because they would molest the kid, but this is obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually do a study on children who were molested and find a correlation between gay men and molestation?

Or are you just making this up because you a [censored] piece of [censored] who discrimates against homosexuality without trying to understand it better?

Lawrence

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lesbians should be able to adopt but not dudes because they would molest the kid, but this is obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually do a study on children who were molested and find a correlation between gay men and molestation?

Or are you just making this up because you a [censored] piece of [censored] who discrimates against homosexuality without trying to understand it better?

Lawrence

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I guess the second one if those are my only choses but I thought I was making a joke, sorry if I offended your homosexual anus.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it actually the other way around? That there is more of a surplus of prospective parents than there are kids for adoption? Prospective parents are competing over adoptions--or, at least that's my second-hand impression (I don't work in the industry or anything). A friend of a friend just paid $20K to adopt a baby from China--and they are middle class whites in New England suburbia. It was a long and exhausting process and finally they got selected as the adpotive parents-to-be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't deny that someone was profiting from it, nor that it was a business, I said there was some good in it also. There's more to it than just someone profiting from it financially.

b

[ACPlayer]

If you do the research you will find that adoption causes tremendous damage to a huge percent of adoptees. There can be little that is more traumatic to a child than losing their natural parents and there can be little that is more traumatic to a parent than losing thier child.

If you were counselling a young pregnant girl who was adamant about not keeping the child would you recommend an abortion over adoption?

[Utah]

That is an excellent question.

There are very few women who are adamant about not wanting to keep their child. Most place for adoption because they feel tremendous pressure to do so or they feel that they dont have the means to raise the child. In essence, they would easily keep the child if they had the emotional and financial support needed. They place because they are told that a young girl cant raise a child and they are told about some wonderful two parent family waiting to raise the child. The girl is never told that the child will likely hurt greatly over the loss of the child and that she will hurt tremendously for the rest of her life.

It is not either adoption or abortion. These women should be given the support so they can raise their children.

If a women was given the support, told the truth, and she understood the reality of her situation and she still wanted to place the child then I certainly think adoption is a better than abortion. However, I know many adoptees who say that they would rather have been aborted than to be taken from their mothers.

[InchoateHand]

Not to be snide, but your alternative requires a social welfare system far outstripping the current meagre American effort. By-the-way, I fully agree with you, but you are going to have to raise/re-distribute taxes to provide the means you speak of, because they are not realistic right now.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I know many adoptees who say that they would rather have been aborted than to be taken from their mothers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow what an incredibly dismal view of life they must have.

What ever happened to the concept of the salmon swimming upstream to spawn against the odds and all that? Isn't that in our natures? Seems so many humans succumb to depression and/or just give up way too easily. Just my take FWIW. The creative spark of life which brought us into being is not very well represented or consciously valued by many humans it does seem.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
I know many adoptees who say that they would rather have been aborted than to be taken from their mothers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be kidding?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be snide, but your alternative requires a social welfare system far outstripping the current meagre American effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
The best solution is to simply prevent unwanted pregancies. Once a woman gets pregrant and she doesnt want to then there are only bad options left. Can you imagine what would happen if all the money and energy poured in the abortion debate was poured into preventing pregnancies. Everyone would win.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow what an incredibly dismal view of life they must have.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is more than just their view of life. They have been permenantly damaged. You can suffer damage as a child to which you simply cannot fully recover. imho.

These are not neccessarily people who are losers who are looking to blame others for their lot in life. I know some highly successful people that feel this way.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there is a severe shortage of parents willing to adopt children.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to fly in the face of what Utah is stating i.e. that adoption is basically a means to exploit the poor and defenseless. If there are an abundance of children who've had their birth parents removed one way or the other and thus require adoptive parents, then how could the adoption industry be exploiting these children? My guess is that most of the children who've had their birth parents removed from them in one way or another would be considered poor.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a ton of children removed from their home outside infancy. These children have a next to zero chance of being adopted. People want a baby, not a four year old, and they are willing to throw down 30K to get it from China rather than the town one over.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically the way I understand the situation i.e. that prospective adoptive parents want infants rather than toddlers or older.

[ QUOTE ]
I watched a close friend and co-worker go through the nightmare scenario of working with the state--it took 18 months before they got the kid, and another two years before they had unambiguous legal custody over it. At any point in that process a judge could have returned the child to the very much still living (though woefully negligent) biological mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is basically what I've observed. My observation is that the Courts are vigilant in protecting the natural rights of parents to raise their children and its a long and expensive process to remove custody from birth parents when those parents don't want custody taken away. Yet there is an abundance of children that are removed from their birth parents nonetheless if what you're stating is true. If there's an abundance of toddlers and above who need adoptive parents wouldn't this indicate that there are lots of children that would benefit from adoption at a much earlier age?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there is a severe shortage of parents willing to adopt children.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is simply not true. There is an overabundance of parents wanting to adopt healthy white babies. You couldnt produce enough healthy white babies to fill the need out there.

I think it is important to seperate traditional children adoption from foster care type adoptions. There is a huge shortage of parents willing to adopt such kids. I certainly think that for those children with zero chance of a healthy relationship with their natural parents than I am comfortable with adoptions in those cases. However, it shouldnt be assumed that all these parents need to do is provide a loving environment and these children will be fine. The reality is that these children are often already severely damaged and regardless of the circumstance they will suffer great trauma at the loss of their natural parents. I know a wonderful mom who adopted an older child. The boys natural father is in prison and will be for 20 more years. She still keeps the child in contact with the father because as she put it, "there are simply some things that I cant give the child that the birthparents can".

[ QUOTE ]
I watched a close friend and co-worker go through the nightmare scenario of working with the state--it took 18 months before they got the kid

[/ QUOTE ]
Respectfully, that wasnt a fight that your friend should have been involved with. It is an issue for the state. I have a huge problem with private parties attempting to terminate the rights of other parents because it taints the process. This doesnt mean that awful parents shouldnt lose their kids. It just means that there should be two stages. 1) State (alone) determines fitness to parents 2)Private party proves fitness to parent only after step one is complete.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of a friend just paid $20K to adopt a baby from China--and they are middle class whites in New England suburbia. It was a long and exhausting process and finally they got selected as the adpotive parents-to-be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Respectfully, they bought themselves a baby.

The whole going to china thing to get a baby is so corrupt and unhealthy. Parents go to China because they can get a baby quickly and because they dont have to worry about birthparent rights. These children are especially Fvcked because these adopting parents think they are rescuing this child and they dont realize that the child will likely miss their natural parents terribly. Therefore, the child will be forced to surpress their feelings probably their whole lives.

[thatpfunk]

This is one of the most absurd answers I have ever read in the politics forum.

Of course it should be legal. There is no logical and rational argument against it.