jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (49 posts)

Homosexual adoption

  1. Moshka profile image61
    Moshkaposted 3 years ago

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

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 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!

    2. maxoxam41 profile image77
      maxoxam41posted 3 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?

    3. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 3 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.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477#1
      {2} http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
      p.14 Conclusion

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 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?

        1. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 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!

        2. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 3 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?
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 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.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image88
              Quilligrapherposted 3 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? lol
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wel … osterone-1

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 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!

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

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

    1. Moshka profile image61
      Moshkaposted 3 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?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 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.

      2. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

        1. Moshka profile image61
          Moshkaposted 3 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?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. Moshka profile image61
              Moshkaposted 3 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.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 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.

                1. Onusonus profile image80
                  Onusonusposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

                  1. psycheskinner profile image82
                    psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 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?

              2. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

              3. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 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

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 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.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 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?

                  2. Moshka profile image61
                    Moshkaposted 3 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.

                2. psycheskinner profile image82
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

                3. Moshka profile image61
                  Moshkaposted 3 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.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 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. yikes

          2. psycheskinner profile image82
            psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 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

    1. Paul Wingert profile image77
      Paul Wingertposted 3 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.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 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.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

 
working