Gay adoption is good for children

[Autodidact]

I would be very offended if someone told me I was unfit to be a parent. I can understand why gays are offended if I say that about them. All I can say is that they may be loving and kind people and they may do their best to provide shelter and care and love for an adopted child, and I salute that, and they may have better discipline techniques than I have, and they may not be as quick to temper as I am, but nevertheless, I believe God ordained the institution of marriage and expects us as a society to stick to it in His way, and the gays should find other ways to share their kindness and love with others, but not through adoption, and then I hope they don't all hate me and think that I hate them and want to make their lives miserable, because I don't hate them or want that. I know these are are unwelcome words and may make me sound bad to some people, but that is the way I feel.

And here I thought you wanted to make a well thought out, rational argument. Instead we just get your religious beliefs. I guess that puts you in a position of justifying why we should base public policy on your religious beliefs, particularly when it conflicts with what is best for children.

As far as being offended, well, I'm not very offended, because I know it's wrong. I have 3 kids and know I'm doing a better job of raising all three of them, including the adopted one, than the average parent, so it really doesn't bother me. It just strikes me as ignorant.

 

[Autodidact]

Hypothetically, if I had only two alternatives, 1) a kind and decent gay couple who would love and care for the child or 2) a mother and father who would not be kind and loving and who would be emotionally absent, I would chose the gay couple. But, if we add 3) a kind and decent father and mother who would love and care for the child, I would chose (3) over (2). We should do everything humanly possible to find type (3) families for children in the system. I'm not convinced that this is not possible.

This is not hypothetical, people. There are thousands of children, right now, who need families and don't have them. If you don't believe me, click here.
So, here are actual children who need families, and there are actual gay and lesbian families who would like to provide one. Is someone here saying that should not be allowed? That it's better for these kids to keep waiting? Before you answer, please click on the link provided.

 

[Scott C.]

God shouldn't have got Mary pregnant, however he managed it! Not that I actually believe that God had anything to do with her pregnancy. The girl got herself in the family way in the time honoured way, imo!

How are you relating this to this thread?

 

[Scott C.]

And here I thought you wanted to make a well thought out, rational argument. Instead we just get your religious beliefs.

Hold on. I was answering a specific question about if I would be offended if someone told me I was an unfit parent. I now see your request for the well thought out argument explaining my beliefs. Stay tuned...it's going to take some thought...

 

[McBell]

Hypothetically, if I had only two alternatives, 1) a kind and decent gay couple who would love and care for the child or 2) a mother and father who would not be kind and loving and who would be emotionally absent, I would chose the gay couple. But, if we add 3) a kind and decent father and mother who would love and care for the child, I would chose (3) over (2). We should do everything humanly possible to find type (3) families for children in the system. I'm not convinced that this is not possible.

And by what reasoning do you feel that this is actually serving the best interests of the Children and not what it looks like, serving the best interests of your religion?

 

[fallen angel zar'roc]

This doesn't seem like the best forum but couldn't find one more suitable. I would like to discuss the assertion that permitting gay and lesbian people to adopt is beneficial to children. Would anyone care to argue the other side?

People's sexual orentation shoudn't effect them adopting children. Most straight people have kids and don't take care of them and people say thats better than letting gay or Lesbian couples take care of them. You should never base judgement of people on sexual perf or religion. If you read my religion it might sound wrong, but I was a catholic be for I became a Luciferian.

 

[Autodidact]

Some organizations that have issued policy statements supporting gay adoption rights:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Psychoanalytic Association,
National Council on Adoptable Children
Child Welfare League of America
National Association of Social Workers
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] American Medical Association
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] American Psychiatric Association .

None of these are gay organizations. None of them have a pro-gay agenda. All of them are research, science based. All of them are concerned with the welfare of children. Probably most important are the Child Welfare League of America and the National Council on Adoptable Children. All of these neutral, child-welfare organizations think it's best FOR CHILDREN to allow them to be adopted by gay and lesbian parents.

National Council on Adoptable Children: [/FONT]

Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents.

[W]hen any class or group of adults is wholly excluded from fostering or adopting, children's welfare is compromised. Children's best interests are served when child welfare agencies review prospective parents individually to determine if each is able to care for, nurture, and advocate on behalf of a particular child or sibling group. Foster parents who develop a healthy, long-term bond with a child should be the first choice for adoption.

As I said in my OP, Gay adoption is good for children. And that's what matters, not gay rights, and not the purported rights of some religious groups to control other people's morals.

 

[Starfish]

Hypothetically, if I had only two alternatives, 1) a kind and decent gay couple who would love and care for the child or 2) a mother and father who would not be kind and loving and who would be emotionally absent, I would chose the gay couple. But, if we add 3) a kind and decent father and mother who would love and care for the child, I would chose (3) over (2). We should do everything humanly possible to find type (3) families for children in the system. I'm not convinced that this is not possible.

I agree here. It seems to boil down to how important is a father and how important is a mother. Two loving adults, regardless of gender is good, but the traditional loving father and mother, married, raising the children together is best. That way the child is not lacking anything. Men contribute something unique to parenting that women can't and visa versa. This really is not meant to be an insult to gay couples.
For example, in nutrition, we need protein and we need vegetables. Both are good, but they're not the same. We need both, not two of one or two of the other. (Stupid analogy, but it was the best I could think of.)

 

[Tragon]

Two loving adults, regardless of gender is good, but the traditional loving father and mother, married, raising the children together is best.

In a way I agree that it would the optimally best option for the child if he/she could grow in "normal" home with loving mother and father who are married. However do we feel this because it is really the best option for the child or is it because of cultural norm that guides our flow of thought in favor of the traditional solution? In current state of the society I would say the absolutely best option for the child would be the situation you described, but I would like the suggest an idea that if gay couples with children would become more and more common within the society it would loose its status as secondary option when compared to traditional family. I personally already accept them as equals, but some people need more time and some will never learn.

As far as gender roles for the child, I once again partially agree with you that it is best for the child to get the ideas of gender roles from the traditional setting where the boundaries of roles are clear and child can easily observe them. However despite of child growing with same sex parents I find it hard to believe they would be totally locked out of the influence of traditional gender roles. They would learn them if they are let to interact the world around them normally and I am sure not many gay couples would want to keep their children in basement 24/7. Traditional parents can't always give really realistic image of gender roles either. If I would follow my father in that sense for example I would probably resemble a caveman when it comes to gender roles. Luckily I paved my own path and I am aware of the traditional gender roles and most of the time I act accordingly to them despite my dad not giving me the best influence.

All in all only thing I might see wrong with gay adoption is because the child might be looked differently because of having gay parents, but in grand scale I think it isn't enough reason to keep gay couples from adopting children. People's views would change over time and perhaps after longer period of time people would wonder why didn't gays have right to adopt children in the first place. Child needs loving parents and gay parents aren't any less loving than straight parents.

 

[rojse]

The alternative is not between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. The choice is: if you don't get a homosexual couple, you are still in foster care. There simply is not enough heterosexual foster parents out there to adopt all of the children.

 

[RUone2]

As a gay man who was in a mixed marrage (man/women) for 23 years and who has three wonderful children by that marriage, and now in a 15 year relationship with another man who had two chioldren from his "mixed marriage" an who I raised from th3e time they were12 and 14 years of age, I can tell you that our two boys have often told me that they wonder what would have happened to them if I had not come into their lives. Now they are grown adults, thy have no problem accepting me as Pop while they call my partner dad. Our only problem is getting them out on their own, both are smart enough to appreciate that they get charged very little rent, both have very good jobs, and neither shows any inclination to go it alone. Both are socially active, both straight, both cheap skinflints. I can think of no reason for a well adjusted gay person not to adopt or be a foster parent, except it puts a reeal dent in your social life. Gays like straights are put through rigorus questioning just as straight people. It's not a question of gay /straight, its a matter of parenting ability. Please dont deny the posibility of a loving home just because of a persons sexual orientation, it just does'nt make good sense.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree here. It seems to boil down to how important is a father and how important is a mother. Two loving adults, regardless of gender is good, but the traditional loving father and mother, married, raising the children together is best. That way the child is not lacking anything. Men contribute something unique to parenting that women can't and visa versa. This really is not meant to be an insult to gay couples.
For example, in nutrition, we need protein and we need vegetables. Both are good, but they're not the same. We need both, not two of one or two of the other. (Stupid analogy, but it was the best I could think of.)

Sorry, an assertion without support is not a well-reasoned argument. Do you have any evidence that this is true?
Obviously, any two adults are going to make different contributions. There may be some women or men who are more different from each other than another male/female couple. What is this unique, valuable contribution that only a man can make?

Research indicates that in most families, mothers spend more time with their children than fathers. Could it be that children in lesbian families get more parenting? Which is what children really need, and what really benefits them.

 

[Autodidact]

As a gay man who was in a mixed marrage (man/women) for 23 years and who has three wonderful children by that marriage, and now in a 15 year relationship with another man who had two chioldren from his "mixed marriage" an who I raised from th3e time they were12 and 14 years of age, I can tell you that our two boys have often told me that they wonder what would have happened to them if I had not come into their lives. Now they are grown adults, thy have no problem accepting me as Pop while they call my partner dad. Our only problem is getting them out on their own, both are smart enough to appreciate that they get charged very little rent, both have very good jobs, and neither shows any inclination to go it alone. Both are socially active, both straight, both cheap skinflints. I can think of no reason for a well adjusted gay person not to adopt or be a foster parent, except it puts a reeal dent in your social life. Gays like straights are put through rigorus questioning just as straight people. It's not a question of gay /straight, its a matter of parenting ability. Please dont deny the posibility of a loving home just because of a persons sexual orientation, it just does'nt make good sense.

Thank you, RU. I think the people taking the opposite position in this thread are not familiar either with the statistics, research, or with real gay and lesbian families.

 

[Smoke]

Men contribute something unique to parenting that women can't and visa versa.

What, specifically?

 

[Autodidact]

Somethings that gay parents model for their children, just by being gay parents:
Courage. Integrity. Honesty. Doing what you think is right, not what others tell you. That love is the most important thing, more important than conforming to arbitrary societal norms. The ability to move outside prescribed sex roles. The philosophy that you should do what you think is right, and be open about what you do.

 

[Starfish]

Much of my position is a result of my religious faith. I have a firm, unwavering conviction that God is real and therefore, though sometimes his ways are not easy to understand, I will follow him. If someone has no belief in God, this means nothing, and I understand that. Homosexual behavior is against what God wants for us; not the people, the behavior. So teaching this to children as acceptable behavior is, by my beliefs, wrong. I have learned throughout my life that he knows better than any of us. We use our limited knowledge, logic, and understanding of life, but without him, we are fallible.
I don't doubt that gay couples love their children and are good parents. But, to me, there is a higher law here, and I trust that obedience to God's laws is paramount to our overall survival. I've seen this over and over for many years. His way is always best in the long run.
Again, I completely understand that my faith means nothing to another. I'm just sincerely trying to explain where I'm coming from.
I am not "homo-phobic". I would never treat anyone with disrespect. We are all God's children, equally loved.
So, when the option exists, a loving mother and father is best for a child. It is natural and as God intended.

(Sorry for the long thread.) The next question might be: Did God create gay people? God created everyone. And we all have flaws and weaknesses. We all have our individual crosses to bear. It seems so unfair to be gay in a society that is unaccepting. It's also unfair to be handicapped, or to be different in any way. I also firmly believe that eventually, no one, if obedient to God's ways, will be denied any blessings whatsoever. That would include marriage and children.

My faith and beliefs are different from yours, and I understand you resenting it if it seems I am imposing them on you. But I have to trust God, over me, over you, over everyone. How dare I feel this way? I have to.

 

[Francine]

What, specifically?

Men can show their boys how to write their names in the snow without moving their feet around. That's about it.

 

[McBell]

Men can show their boys how to write their names in the snow without moving their feet around. That's about it.

You forgot the walls.
We can write our names on walls as well.

 

[Autodidact]

And America waits in vain for that well reasoned, well-supported argument against gay adoption. Maybe we're not seeing it because...it doesn't exist.

 

[Autodidact]

That's cool, Starfish, you're just explaining where you're coming from, not trying to persuade anyone.
Which may be why you're not.

Anyway, I would like to point out that there are actually at least two pieces to your position. One is that we should follow God's law, etc. The other is that Starfish knows what God's law is, and it's against gay adoption. I submit that this is not the case. At least, not based on scripture. For example, God does not have a law against lesbianism. So maybe you're assuming that God's law happens to match the value system you were raised with. When you go back and read your scripture with a different view, you may gain a different view of what God's law is.

This is what happened with slavery. Clearly, scripture authorizes it. When society's values changed, Christians started reading God's law differently, and few contemporary Christians practice it.

In much the same way, as equality for gay people becomes a social value, many Christians are taking another look at what they think God's laws are in this area.

btw, there are thousands of gay Christians in America. Many of the gay and lesbian parents I know take their kids to church regularly. I don't agree with them, but who am I to say. I also know two gay/lesbian families who raise their children as observant Jews. And, of course, Judaism has no problem with lesbianism.