Homosexual adoption

1. 61

   Moshkaposted 9 years ago

   Do you believe that a child is better off being reared by gay parents or should straight parents take precedence?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Silverspeederposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The title of your post implied that we could now adopt homosexuals..........
      
      
      Homosexuals are people, there are good and bad people, good people should be allowed to adopt no matter what their race, colour, sexual orientation or religious belief's (or lack of them) are.
      The hard part of course is determining who are the good people!

      replyreport
   2. 64

      maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The alliance of women with men gave birth to homosexuals in what way the alliance of two homosexual will promote homosexuality? Being VERY liberal, if two men are better parents than of different sexes, why not?

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings, Moshka. It is nice to meet you. I am looking forward to your second hub. Will it be soon?
      
      “Children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,"  reports noted pediatrician Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. "In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures." {1}
      
      This was the conclusion that Dr. Perrin presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition after selecting 15 solid, evidence-based studies for review. She and her team analyzed possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment, sexual orientation and strengths. The results were clinically the same for cases with two heterosexual parents as with same sex parents. No differences were found in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, intelligence, self-esteem, peer relationships, well-being, or gender identity.
      
      "The children all had a similar emotional experiences with divorce," she said.
      
      Among the interesting departures from the general population, children raised by lesbian parents had more contact with their natural fathers then did children raised in a new blended family by their heterosexual mothers after a divorce. In addition, lesbian couples displayed a greater tendency to share household and child care tasks more evenly.
      
      Dr. Perrin said, "The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous."
      
      A later study from the University of Virginia, Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?, reached similar conclusions. They found positive outcomes for parents and children in adoptive families were associated more with family processes than with family structure. {2}
      
      The OP statement asks, “Do you believe that a child is better off being reared by gay parents or should straight parents take precedence?” Medical professionals and academics continuously respond in a unified chorus that children do equally as well in both environments.
      
      Thanks for the thread, Moshka. I sincerely hope you enjoy a rainbow after every rainfall.
      
      {1} http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477#1
      {2} http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
      p.14 Conclusion

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous."  (Dr. Perrin)
         
         Question for discussion: the statement seems to indicate that all children of lesbian show a tendency towards more feminine attributes, presumably including male children.  "less aggressive", "more nurturing to peers" are certainly feminine traits and "more androgynous" could be taken that way as well. 
         
         However much we all applaud these traits, is it a good thing to deprive male children of their birthright of testosterone and all that comes with it?  It would seem that being raised by only women (and one must wonder if the same thing is seen with single Mom's) takes children away from the traditional masculine traits that are built in by evolution.  Is this a good thing or is a part of what has allowed mankind to become what it is?

         replyreport
         1. 82

            psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Way to distort the message.
            Basically all the research shows kids in same sex household do just fine and are not disadvantaged.  But you can take any minor difference and make it scary if that is your agenda.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I THINK:
               It IS scary to make male children less masculine and female children less feminine! They will not be happy and will always feel the compulsion to feel guilty for being who they really are. They will not feel allowed to express their true qualities, (masculine or feminine) and will suppress them.  Anger will arise on a subconscious level; an anger which they will not be able to work through or resolve, therefore the passivity.
               Perhaps gay parents should only be allowed to rescue orphans of an older age after true sexual-orintation identities are at least formed. The age would depend on the data we have regarding what age sexual orientation and affiliation is complete, as set forth by experts in human development.
               My conclusion:  It is best to work with whatever nature gives us wherever/ whenever possible!

               replyreport
         2. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The word “all” does not appear in her statement.Howdy Wilderness.
            
            Oops! I think you may have misunderstood a portion of my post. 
            
            By inserting the word “all” into your interpretation of Dr. Perrin's statement, you completely distorted her context and meaning. The children adopted by lesbian parents, just like the children of heterosexual parents, displayed a similar variety of behavior traits across a normal spectrum of intensity, i.e. ranging from slight to greater. However, of the children observed to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous, the study found, more of them had lesbian parents then had heterosexual parents. Your interpretation has led you away from the actual findings.
            
            I also stated in my post, "children raised by lesbian parents had more contact with their natural fathers then did children raised in a new blended family. " Perhaps you missed that part.
            
            There is no evidence in this study that the result of adoption was “to deprive male children of their birthright of testosterone and all that comes with it.” Besides, even if that was the case, who is to say that “the traditional masculine traits that are built in by evolution” could not use some further evolution? Just the same, being raised by a same sex couple or by a single mother has no noticeable affect on masculinity. In the same manner, being raised by a heterosexual couple has no affected on becoming gay.
            
            Your final question might very well make a good discussion. "Is [traditional masculine traits] a part of what has allowed mankind to become what it is? " I have read some very convincing speculation that if more women were heads of state the world might have fewer wars. Do you think that might make an interesting discussion?
            

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I understood it all right, and agree that absolutes are inappropriate.  I did not expect to be called on that, but probably should have, and apologize for the error.  No absolute was intended.  But if a normal spectrum is noted in children of same sex parents, I misunderstood the point being made - I did read it as a lessening of those traits.  Which is what you repeat here, not a normal variation of the traits.
               
               It would indeed make an interesting discussion, for there is more to "masculinity" than war (assuming that the statement that women leaders would result in fewer wars).  Increased competition, as a very strong starter, and competition is much of what has driven our progress for centuries.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, back atcha!
                  
                  I did indeed associate testosterone mostly with aggression without thinking about its affect on competitiveness with peers. I agree it would indeed be interesting.
                  
                  I have just learned, “In men and boys, the right pointer finger is shorter in relation to their right ring finger than it is in girls…Scientists have found that the difference is a clear marker for fetal exposure to testosterone. The higher your testosterone level before birth, the lower your pointer-finger-to-ring-finger ratio.” {1}
                  
                  Egad! My right pointer finger is longer than my ring finger. Should I see my doctor?
                  
                  {1} http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wel … osterone-1

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I've heard that before, about the fingers.  It IS interesting, too.  Why would a single hormone have that kind of affect on a specific finger?  Odd, isn't it?
                     
                     Yes, aggression isn't the only thing testosterone produces.  Strength comes from it, and probably other things (vision of moving things, spatial awareness, concentration, etc.) as well - likely many of the differences between male and female abilities.  Are those traits you mentioned earlier as being "lesser" tied at all to a "gift" for mathematics/engineering?  Certainly I don't have an answer to such questions!

                     replyreport
2. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   A child is better off being adopted by any suitable person or couple.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What about your own parents? Would you be okay with it if your father married another man and your mother was out of the picture? Your new mother is now another man. Are you okay with that?

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         A parent, unless dead, should never be "out of the picture".  Your scenario has produced another parent to love you, that's all, and the insinuation that that is a bad thing is false.

         replyreport
      2. 82

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Yes.  If dad came out as gay I would support him. 
         
         Dad's hypothetical lover would be potentially my stepfather, but probably not, because in the real world my Dad's actual girlfriend is just that.  In no way my Mom.
         
         And even if you think the gay and solo parents of the world are suboptimal, institutions are worse.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I agree that Institutions are much worse for anybody. However most people who are going through the adoption process have to wait two to three years on average to adopt. Of course we can not tell who is going to be good and who is going to be bad parents, but lets compare apples to apples.
            
            Assuming that both the gay and straight parents are generally good people, and knowing the time and effort it takes to go through the process of adoption, how do we choose which couple would be the premium option for the benefit of rearing the child? Would you not prefer every child to have both a mother and a father?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               You are asking the people of today's society? really? why????

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Because I believe that proponents of homosexual adoption are neglecting to account for the detrimental aspect of being raised with both a mother and a father. People say in the name of tolerance that it is okay, however they themselves usually would not give up their own mothers for another man, and yet they wish it on somebody else.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     There is a "detrimental aspect of being raised with both a mother and a father"?  Could you be more specific?  The huge majority of people throughout history have had both a mother and a father, without any detrimental aspects I've noticed or heard of.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Would you have prefered to be raised by another man over your own mother?

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           I know people raised by same sex parents and solo parents who would not trade them for anything.  Certainly not some generic person of the "appropriate" sex.  And looking at the I see no detriment at all in their lives.  Good and loving parents of all kinds are acceptable to the child and that makes then acceptable, in fact totally honored and celebrated, by me. My own mother was a solo parent for much of my childhood and I support her choice to do so completely and without reservation.

                           replyreport
                        2. 96

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           No, I'm rather fond of my Mom.  On the other hand, were I raised by two men, I suspect I would be as fond of them as I am my Mom.
                           
                           But what has any of that do do with detrimental effects of being raised by one of each sex?

                           replyreport
                  2. 82

                     psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     What detrimental aspects? If you want to assert they exist, maybe find some evidence first?

                     replyreport
                  3. 77

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     He obviously meant "beneficial" rather than detrimental. And he is not talking about solo. He is talking about heterosexual vs homosexual parents and which should take precedence as far as the the ideal scenario.
                     He is wondering if society is going totally bonkers.
                     No. Don't judge the world by a few keyboarders in the HubPage Forums. Millions in America still have common sense. Have faith in that, Moshka.
                     TWISI

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        OK - what is beneficial to being raised by heterosexual parents instead of homosexual ones?  I can only think of one; being teased by the children of bigots, who are teaching their children to be bigots as well as hurtful bullies to anyone different than they are.  And, just like mixed race marriages, that will slowly disappear when more and more homosexual couples adopt.  In the long run, then, it is beneficial to society (and ultimately children) to have more homosexual parents.
                        
                        TWISI.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           And there are no thought police around arresting us. So that is good! No one can put us in jail for thinking our own thoughts, can they?

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              As long as they remain inside your head, no.  Don't speak them all, though - some places will murder you, jail you or merely ostracize you.  Including, to a large degree, the peoples of the US and if you doubt that you haven't come out of the sexuality closet yet.

                              replyreport
                              1. 77

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I am not for bashing of any sort.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 61

                           Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           I think denying a person to have a mother simply to make a political point is the folly of our generation. Only until the last decade has this become a serious issue in the political arena. It seems to me that the rights of a child in the minds of some people are very limited. The same people who advocate homosexual adoption or surrogates, are also advocates of abortion. I've even seen some say that a baby should not be labeled with a gender at all, (so not to confuse it later on in life).
                           
                           So perhaps one day all of the hateful bigots who prefer to label men as men, and women as women will slowly disappear as well. All the races will meld into one and everyone will become A-Sexual, because that seems to be the only thing that will make some people happy with all that pesky diversity in the world to deal with.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I see two alternatives:
                              1.  Denying the children that second father (or mother as case may be).  You seem to think that is worse than denying the child a mother; can you explain that?
                              
                              2.  Denying the children any parent(s) at all, as most older children cannot find adoptive parents.  Can you explain how that is worse than a homosexual pair of parents?
                              
                              The rest seems to be nothing more than homophobic ranting, assigning insinuations to homosexuality that aren't there at all.  People for homosexual adoption also promote abortion, which has nothing to do with the question of adoption at all.  They apparently say a baby should not be assigned a sex.  Recognizing the sex of a person seems to play a part in the rant, somehow.  Racial strife and bigotry will disappear, which you seem to think is a bad thing.  None of it was worthy of discussion, let alone consideration in connection to gays adopting children without parents.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ah, I disagree with you, it must make me a bigot.
                                 
                                 1. You are making an assumption on something I never said. The line for adoption is extremely long and takes years for even a straight couple to accomplish. Now they have to compete with with the politically correct crowd. Most of whom would never themselves trade their mother for another man. But for a false feeling of morality they would be fine with it happening to somebody who doesn't matter at all to them.
                                 
                                 2. Assumption number two, you neglect to cover the fact that I said a straight couple should take preference over a gay couple in adoption. I never even hinted that a child should go without any parents at all. I did however say that growing up in an institution is much worse.
                                 
                                 I personally think that there is much beauty in the diversity of races, why you would want to remove peoples racial cultural or gender identity all together is beyond me. But rather than creating one big A-Sexual master race, It would be much more effective to call for a return to traditional moral values.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    If the line to adopt was as long as you say, we would not have some 400,000 children in foster care on any given day.  While it is difficult to adopt, it is NOT because there is a lack of children needing homes/parents.
                                    
                                    I know you said straight parents should get preference, you just didn't offer any reason for it.  I asked for reasons a straight couple is superior in parenting, but you never offered anything.  Just nonsense that Moms are better than Dads or some such.
                                    
                                    A return to traditional moral values - like those in the early US, when one specific race in the US were all slaves?  Or just when one race is forbidden to marry another because...well, because of bigotry or maybe outright racism I guess.  Certainly there can be no other reason to interfere like that in someone's love life.  That you think there is "beauty" in differing races is grossly insufficient reason to prevent mixed race marriages.  Even as an excuse, as opposed to a reason, it is insufficient.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Nothing really to add but I wanted to post in a thread where Wilderness and I are in total agreement
                                       Doesn't happen too often.

                                       report
                                    2. 61

                                       Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       You are right, those are the traditional values of Democrats. But I was speaking of more conservative traditional values; All men are created equal, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, that sort of thing.

                                       report
                                       1. 96

                                          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Giving lip service to fine ideals does not indicate belief.  SAYING that men are all equal while denigrating and persecuting some (gays, blacks, women, etc.), well, the actions speak far louder than the words and it has typically been Republicans doing so.  SAYING that god has ordered the golden rule (and He did) while persecuting others for being different or trying to force everyone into the Christian mold doesn't indicate an actual belief or acceptance of that all important moral.  The religious fail rather badly here, but seem incapable of understanding that - their wishes to force conversion and "living right" far outweigh their weak moral structure.

                                          report
                                          1. 61

                                             Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             There hasn't been any real civil rights battles since the Democrats left the South. KKK is practically gone, Jim crow laws are out, in fact the only thing they've done for civil rights is demand sepcial rights for special interest groups.
                                             
                                             The rest is just a bunch of anti Christian ranting not worth addressing.

                                             report
                           2. 82

                              psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I think denying a orphan adoption into a loving family is the greatest possible folly, whether this is hetero, homo, or single parent.
                              
                              And if the world happens to become asexual in the far future, that might be a very good thing.

                              replyreport
                     2. 82

                        psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course he is talking about solo, because he is saying male and female parenting energy is needed.  That applies just as much to solo as to same sex.

                        replyreport
                     3. 61

                        Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, Beneficial. Of course I would not judge the world by the few loud voices, forums are something akin to writing on a bathroom wall. Otherwise we would all be getting paid to do it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           "...forums are something akin to writing on a bathroom wall."
                           
                           Now, that is the most profound thing I have ever heard read in the forums. Welcome Moshka! Happy scrawling with the rest of us!  (Have you ever done that (wrote on a bathroom wall or stall)??? I did one time. As a very young teen, I etched my name in the YMCA locker room bathroom stall. Then, every time I saw my name there I was so embarrassed!!! Sorta like here.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Moshkaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Can't say I ever wrote on the bathroom wall, but I do get a laugh reading it from time to time.

                              replyreport
            2. 82

               psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Premium is not on the table while kids languish in institutions. I think that if the are screened and suitable any person or couple is great if they will provide that child with a bonded parent.  Exactly how "premium" each is, is a case by case thing. Those who will take older or disabled kids would be high on my list of great candidates.

               replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   The point they are making is that love is love. But of course, it is untypical and does not have to be seen as typical.  Adjustments will have to made on many levels by those who witness the situation and by the children themselves. Those who have accepted homosexuality and view it as just fine want others to do so as well.  But, its not just fine because when two people of the same sex are cohabiting the balance provided by male and female energies within the primary relationship (of the parents) is completely off. This opinion will spark a lot of controversy, but the fact remains: the benefits of male / female polarity are absent. One simply cannot deny that obvious fact. Stick to your common sense. Of course we have to accept others, just not their behavior when out of line with God's plan. God's plan is rather obvious. Why some feel the urge to go against nature is beyond me. They should not raise children in my opinion. Of course, love is love and so we have to accept it on that level, even if we do not agree on all levels.
   TWISI

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Paul Wingertposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      God's plan? What exactly is God's plan? Did God tell you this personally or are you making this up? "This is God's plan!", "God will take care of it!" and my favorite,  "It's God's will!"  <--- All excuses for a magic man that doesn't exist.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Nature is evidence of God's plan. He planned for humans to reproduce, obviously. Homosexuality may be a "reaction" to overpopulation. I do not know.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Where does homosexuality amongst animals fit in then? They can't be aware of over population.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               You're getting really scary, John... this must be the third time in a month!

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I know, do you think I should take a break from hubpages for a month or two?

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Maybe both of us.  Get back into swing, then come back and have at each other.

                     replyreport