The views presented here are based on extensive social science research and scholarship, on my clinical experience as a psychiatrist that includes consulting with adoptive and foster children for several years, treating adoptive children for almost 35 years, writing about their treatment in a textbook for the American Psychological Association (1) and as the father of three adopted daughters.
“Lisa Diamond reported in her book, Sexual Fluidity, that “more than two-thirds of the women in my sample had changed their identity labels at least once after the first interview”
What the hell is an identity label? Unqualified to be an adoptive parent maybe?
I am a 41 year old adoptee.
Never had a desire to find my “real” parents as I had been placed in a good home.
There were 4 or 5 kids my age in high school Saskatoon that were also adopted. I thank God I was placed where I was.
A friend of mine and his partner have 2 kids they adopted from the States.
IMHO the character of the parents is more important than the sex.
Who is qualified to judge the credibility of two people to be parents? Can’t win job.
Any two horny 16 year olds can become parents but that makes them no more qualified to be successful as my lawyer friend and his partner.
Very flammable subject. Predict high number of replies to this post.
This is an excellent article explaining the obvious.Jeff K, I find it hard to believe that you think it is no matter to a child that he has either, no mother or no father? Marriage for the sake of conception, can only be between a man or a woman, as it was meant to be. Adoption should only be the placement of the child in a normal home situation. I’m not married, should I be able to adopt a child? It would be improper unless there was no other possibility. Besides I would probably be trumped by a gay person because of their duel nature. A single straight male would be the last person to be considered.
So I go to the bottom of the article and click on the arrow beside the number of comments.
It allows me to sort them by
1 Social Ranking
2 Chronological
3 Revers Chronological
Shouldnt #1 piss these commenters off? Aren’t they all equal?
Of course it isn’t, accesorizing is serious business.
The beautiful thing about nature is that it will take care of this problem. The infertile don’t reproduce. They have to import the genes that will determine their offspring. Same sex unions have no next generation.
To paraphrase what Mike Holmes once opined when asked what an
ordinary customer should expect from a tradesman in the way of skill:
“A child’s standard cannot be perfection in parenting, but a child should still
get a competent attempt at parenting that achieves the illusion of perfection”.
Intolerance in the comments, yes, but also fisking. It seems many of the cited abstracts actually say the opposite of what the author says. In any event, it is quite clear that the adoptees are better off in a same-sex adoption than not adopted.
Also, every time a same-sex couple adopts a child, god kills a kitten. We have to put a stop to this!
“The beautiful thing about nature is that it will take care of this problem. The infertile don’t reproduce. They have to import the genes that will determine their offspring. Same sex unions have no next generation.”
The wonderful thing about religious nutters is that even those who nominally accept evolutionary theory don’t actually have the brains to understand it. The human race has existed for 200,000 years, but these dumbasses think that homosexuality will be “bred out” in the next 50.
Besides my opinions and beliefs on same-sex marriages or same-sex unions being able to adopt, I believe the biggest threat to the family unit is selfishness.
I step into this controversy fearfully. There seem so many that simply know whats right for those who don’t have a voice.
The fact (scientific) being portrayed in this essay is that children do better in stable parenting unions. Homosexual relationships do not usually provide that type of union. Is this true or false? Are there fewer breakups with the resultant fighting in homosexual unions? The essay says “no”.
I like Sgt Lejaune’s comment. A child should at least get a chance.
And libertarian; “In any event, it is quite clear that the adoptees are better off in a same-sex adoption than not adopted.”. You know d**ed well that will never happen. The SS adopters will be chosen by the authorities over the dual sex union every time.
Intolerance of small dead, teabaggin’ yahooism is always appropriate.
I suspect that majority of children brought up by homosexual couples will follow the lifestyle of the couple that brought them up.
Canada has rather low childbirth – below replacement levels. That’s why Canada has to have high immigration levels.
So I wonder are they any studies done clarifying how many children brought up by homosexual couples end up having stable heterosexual relationship?
Unfortunately, libertarian, the attempted fisking ignores something the article explicitly addressed: most positive studies of same-sex adoptions get their results through self-reporting by the participants, who were aware of the political consequences of their answers. That’s enough to discredit the study methodology.
So, in other words, miserable psychotic kids are lying about being well adjusted in order to keep their horrible parents from losing rights.
If you believe that, I’ve got some wonderful waterfront property to sell you.
Another result of Same sex adoption
“11-year-old boy of Lesbian parents wants sex-change operation ”
http://uselessjunk.net/showthread.php?344951-11-year-old-boy-of-Lesbian-parents-wants-sex-change-operation
The question is, well adjusted to what?
The death of western civilization as it thunders forward through the public education system?
No wonder the raised children of lesbians are down with that program. They ARE that program.
Any sane person today will appear maladjusted to nanny-state scolds and snoops, angry at the excesses of political correctness, and the way things are going, ready to defend his or her freedom by any means necessary.
I honestly believe that same-sex marriage is a Satanic rite that will lead to the multiplication of social problems in the next generation.
What are they going to do, drag their kids along to the gay pride parade to ride on the floats, expose themselves, and have group sex? Maybe not this year, but the trend is in that direction. And many sensible people suspect that gay adoption is just for the convenience of child molestation in the home.
Sorry to be so harsh but I’m sick of seeing the daily manifestation of the mental illness of Canadian society (in the big cities especially). This country has basically lost its mind.
Yeah, peter, they’re well adjusted to freedom. I know that you’re scared by the idea of a society which isn’t controlled by iron-age mysticism, but you’ll have to learn to deal with it. In the meantime, it’s nice to know that you at least realize you’re maladjusted by modern standards. One of these days you might even stop beating your wife.
“of course it isn’t, accesorizing is serious business.”
Great comment, Bruno. Accessorizing accounts for a goodly percentage of these adoptions.
They claim sexual identity is not important to a child, but the rest of the time they shriek that it’s the most important thing in their own lives.
And, Alex, as always, you’re a loathsome little POS with little reason, and your wife beating slur proves it. It’s likely caused by jealousy: your sweaty nights online aren’t really a satisfying substitute for a heterosexual relationship, are they?
Freedom doesn’t always lead to positive results.
Odd how AIDS has been mostly confined to the homosexual practitioners.
Not a healthy atmosphere for children from that one fact alone.
I’ll let others decide what they think is best.
However, nature has dictated that the way to create the next generation must be done as a byproduct of a union of one man, and one woman. Because of that, those that prefer to enter into a homosexual union, have chosen to be in a childless union. The only way they can obtain children (and I purposely use the term obtain) is through surrogate parents. No one is born pregnant, a child does not magically fall out of the sky through wishful thinking, nor through some legislated fiat of the state. Nature has legislated that children are the result of a union between a man and a woman, fact not legal fiction. Every child has a mother and a father, and no judge or endless amount of social engineering can paper over this.
Alex writes: “The human race has existed for 200,000 years, but these dumbasses think that homosexuality will be “bred out” in the next 50.”
This assumes that homosexuality has a genetic component, and there is little if any evidence for that assumption.
Alex – you don’t really believe that children don’t benefit from a father, do you? The prisons are filled with individuals raised by mothers who couldn’t discipline their sons.
You don’t really believe that a dedicated, selfless mother does nothing to improve the life of her children do you?
Society should think of the children’s needs, not the homosexual’s’wishes, when determining adoption policy.
My main point that I left out, is that any couple that wishes to adopt in an effort to normalize their union, are not acting in the interests of the child.
The poverty hucksters, and social engineers may want to create new rights, but unfortunately for them, the ruse is up when they challenge biology.
My main point that I left out, is that any couple that wishes to adopt in an effort to normalize their union, are not acting in the interests of the child.
The poverty hucksters, and social engineers may want to create new rights, but unfortunately for them, the ruse is up when they challenge biology.
Since its a scholarly article, one of the most important things being said here is about the quality of the available evidence. Which, according to the author, is crap. He’s not wrong, IMHO. Self report is the weakest form of “evidence” available.
This is a recurring theme in the social sciences the last 30-40 years. The Cause is more important than The Truth, so study design, peer review, journal objectivity, all these things have been systematically corrupted by political activists to further Leftist policy. Gun control, climate, economics, the list is long.
Presently, if an honest researcher proposed a study of adoption that was properly designed, that researcher wouldn’t get funded. Guys whose conclusion fits the agenda and is made in advance of the data, they get funded.
When we say the Ivory Tower leans Left, this is what we mean.
Therefore, people who actually care half a damn about the kids put up for adoption can’t depend on the “scholarly” literature. So they have to fall back on traditional usage and common sense. Kids need a mother and a father, they need parents who -like- them, they need food clothing and shelter. So placement with same sex couples, with emotionally immature or unstable couples, with nice but broke couples, these things are a bad idea.
Duh.
Sure, the good, stable same sex couple is better than the junkie/alcoholic/child abuser couple. That’s not an argument -for- same sex adoption, is it?
Bottom line, if a little kid needs to be adopted they’ve already taken major damage. They should get the best shot at a normal life that society can arrange. Deliberately and knowingly corrupting that effort for slimy political purposes is evil.
You don’t make deals with evil.
The human animal never changes. In the early years you could sell us any number of murderous religions, administered by poisonous minds, that could rationalize, condone and enable everything up to and including mass murder. You still can, actually.
Later on other neat stuff could be sold en masse to the stupid: socialism, fascism, eugenics, antisemitism etc ad nauseum.
Today the stupid people are into global warming, homosexuality and political correctness – as pushed by the same type of zealous cretins that handled the Spanish Inquisition centuries ago.
Liberals are nothing new. They are merely sacrificing children to different gods and priests, and the homosexuals are merely a new noble class.
And we are the new heretics.
jeff K at November 20, 2011 1:03 AM
Never had a desire to find my “real” parents as I had been placed in a good home.
That’s because you’re a bloke,Jeff. I am a very similarly aged adoptee. One day the agency that handled my adoption, at a a few weeks, asked if I minded my biological mother to contact me; I said, yeah, why not. They also were doing a survey at the time concerning adoptee parents & children and reconnecting.
It turned out that 95% of men, be they fathers or sons, just weren’t interested in meeting; 95% of women, mothers or daughters, were. Actual stats! An incredible divergence along gender lines.
The only question that matters is: In the case of adoption whose rights matter more: the adoptive parents’ or the child’s?
It’s nice to that liberals are consistent.Not only does a living fetus not have rights, but a born infant’s rights are clearly less important than an adult’s. I wonder: at what age are they equal?
I predict there is going to be one helluva screwed-up generation coming up, not just because of gay adoption but because of the whole barrage of reproductive technologies. Human beings created in laboratories, from donor eggs or sperm, birthed by surrogates, etcetera, will grow up having no freaking clue who they are. People DO want to know where they came from, what their heritage is, who their ancestors were. That’s human nature.
Expect to see a lot of alienated and rootless people undertaking elaborate quests to try and “find themselves” in the future…
Nuke the gay whales and this problem would be cured.
Another point to consider: some of the gays and lesbians I know have a deep-seated loathing and hatred of members of the opposite sex. When an 11-year-old boy being raised by a lesbian couple wants a sex-change operation to become a girl – something is seriously wrong in his upbringing.
Margaret Somerville Ethicist at McGill was crucified for pointing out that maybe emotion should not be a major argument for this debate. That perhaps just once maybe we could focus on what is best for the children. Even after defending the gay community previously, she is now vilified by them. Tolerance indeed.
If any of you would like to go over and comment on the original website, that would be much appreciated. We need a little balance to the student craziness!
“Deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother harms the child.(12) Social science research supports this view. Adoptive children have experienced early-life abandonment trauma and should be protected from the additional trauma of being exposed to a cruel social experiment. Will no one step forward to protect these children?”
Well, yes, “someone” will and has! In this country, REAL Women (RW) of Canada—with lawyer and founder, Gwen Landolt, at the helm—has stepped forward for decades—and, for their trouble, have been thoroughly vilified by all the trendies. (A cruel irony: these idiots think that all other forms of nature, e.g., smelts in California, must be preserved at all costs. However, when it comes to human beings and the natural family, they believe in moving in and taking over, even if it means mass destruction: abortion, anyone?)
Realizing that the destruction of the natural—let’s call it the “green”!—family is one of the main goals of the progressives, RW has opposed all progressive legislation that has elevated the sexual whims (masquerading as rights) of adults above the needs and authentic rights of vulnerable children.
Such bone-headed, progressive legislation has facilitated destabilizing our children’s lives, by sanctioning both unstable relationships—common-law as equal to marriage and same-sex unions—and the deliberate removal of children from one or both of their own parents—through surrogate parenting, artificial insemination, and same-sex unions. (Adoption of children whose own parents, for one reason or another, cannot care for them is a separate issue. Such children, as many have pointed out here, should be placed with stable, loving, heterosexual, married couples. As Bill Gairdner notes, it’s not that other unions can never provide adequate care, but, on a scale of “good, better, best”, our children deserve the best: a stable, loving home with a married mom and dad.)
Another irony: REAL Women has had to raise its own, considerable funds in order to intervene in the court cases that have increasingly destabilized our children’s lives. On the other hand, the Court Challenges Program (thankfully, stopped by the Conservatives), at times, run by lesbian lawyers, has largely paid the costs of the radical feminists and homosexuals, who have bypassed Parliament (and our spineless MPs) to impose their selfish, self-centred, social experiment, anti-child agendas on the rest of us, via activist judges.
For the past three decades, REAL Women has opposed all legislation that puts adult desire for sexual “freedom” ahead of the needs and rights of our children. RW has intervened, at times all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, to oppose legislation sanctioning abortion, the elevation of common-law unions to equal to marriage, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parenthood, and now same-sex “marriage” and, the next step, adoption.
And who’s won every time? Not RW and certainly not our children, who are treated like chattel by the progressives, a more immature, selfish, Me-Me-Me, quite vicious if they don’t get their way (OWS, anyone?) group of bullies one can’t imagine. But under the false guise of their “rights”, they get to indulge their whims, with our vulnerable children as their guinea pigs.
The data show that children who are not living with their own, married, biological parents are at far greater risk of abuse than those who are. E.g., Women in common-law relationships are four and a half times more likely to be abused than are married women (Canada Centre for Justice Statistics). These unions also have a notoriously high record of not lasting. Then, besides living in a single-parent situation, many of these children become vulnerable to abuse by the mom’s often serial, sexual partners. This situation is often replicated in same-sex unions, where abuse and promiscuity are common. Why would a society deliberately put its children in harm’s way?
This is a taboo subject. The propaganda surrounding it is all that’s allowed in “polite company”. I believe that Canadians instinctively recoil at the danger our children are in, sanctioned by our activist courts, school systems, lefty churches, government policy, etc.
Kyrie eleison. And thanks, Kate, for providing an opportunity for the truth to be told.
Peter O’Donnell, Phantom, Big Bad Jim and others, well said.
Well written and scholarly article. The positive aspects of “gender complementarity” as Fitzgibbons puts it, is supported by common sense as well as the evidence he presents.
Many leftists, who believe free speech is having their words repeated back to them, will not be pleased by this piece. Somewhere a Human Rights Commission may be stirring.
Well, I don’t know the statistics, nor the credibility of the studies.
But I do know that there must exist a correlation, between parents who are f***ed in the head, and kids that are f***ed in the head.
That some (small?) percentage of gay and straight parents have their screws loose doesn’t mean that either type of parenting should be outlawed by the state.
Is this our Alex?
http://www.facebook.com/britmck
lookout, well said.
One generation of political correctness will not undo millions of years of human evolution. Whereas the specifics of tribal child-rearing arrangements may have varied through time and location, the presence of parenting and role modeling by members of both sexes has been constant. Whereas same sex couple parenting may be preferable to institutional child rearing in some circumstances, it hardly constitutes best practice in the interests of the child.
Bruno’s comment is very incisive. Gay/Lesbian adoption is about pandering to the wants of the couple in question while ignoring the needs of the child. It’s beyond selfish.
If there is a waiting list for heterosexual couples desiring to adopt, why are same-sex couples even considered?
One reason only: they have had the best PR for thirty-some years.
At the same time, family life has been downgraded; abortion is killing millions of babies, and now children are being overtly sexualized.
Is there anyone who thinks this is a coincidence?
If this trend isn’t reversed, children are in grave danger.
The only people who can prevent it? Heterosexuals.
heard on the ‘net: It doesn’t take a village to raise a child. It takes a mom and a dad.
P.S. “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Leonardo da Vinci
@gellen 10:26 AM
‘abortion is killing millions of babies’
One abortion is a tragedy. A million abortions are a statistic.
What lookout said.
Why not make a contribution, folks, to REAL Women, unsung heroines?
http://www.realwomenca.com/
Cross-posted at Blazing Cat Fur on the same topic:
Even here in Canada Christian heterosexual couples are prohibited from fostering or adopting children if they won’t vow to toe the gay party line.
For about 1% of the population, the rest of the population has to bend over and do obeisance and it’s always the children who suffer. Many mother/father households are thus prohibited from taking care of children who desperately need stable family homes — which experience and research demonstrate that same-sex households often aren’t. Violence in same-sex relationships is frequent and that’s a fact not an opinion.
The world’s going to hell in a speeding bullet.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-06.html
“The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse.
Various studies have shown that children raised by a single mother comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways. Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer of these social disorders and you will see what liberals’ destruction of marriage has wrought.
A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared. ”
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-06.html
Rizwan: you obviously have a point, but I missed it.
The acceptance of millions of babies being killed is not a statistic. It is a tragedy, a failure of an enlightened society, and part of a much larger strategy.
Let’s look at the social experiment where young males are raised with the absence of a father more times than not. That would be the American urban black population. How’s that workin?
@ Robert of Ottawa
You bring up a favourite topic of mine. We live in a country where we don’t force women to have children and where we allow women to terminate pregnancy because of an unwanted child. On the other hand, unwilling fathers are forced into child support for up to 30 years because women use deceit to secure a sperm donor and a future income stream – in some cases from numerous men.
I would say that the 95% of men who don’t want to contact their (adopted) progeny probably don’t do so because the majority just don’t know that their children exist unless they are forced into child support. And when men do find out, I suspect they are exercising the only opportunity to “abort” a child that men in this country are allowed – a privilege that women are given without question or sanction.
As for the type of adopting couple, I would have to say that it should be on a case by case basis. But I also have to agree with the articles overall conclusion – that homosexual couples are a far worse bet for a stable household than heterosexual couples. One only has to look at the rates of domestic violence, which are far, far higher in homosexual couples, to realize that point.