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.
Alex if you think this country is free then you aren’t even half as intelligent as I gave you credit for…
“Is this our Alex?
http://www.facebook.com/britmck“
Posted by: Celina at November 20, 2011 10:16 AM
I doubt it. I think “The Lion King” might be a little too advanced.
gellen – Stalin is meant to have said “one death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistic”. You can’t say he was all talk.
“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.”
This is, of course, an idiotic argument. Allow me to demonstrate:
Small C – you don’t really believe that children don’t benefit from millionaire parents, do you? The prisons are filled with individuals raised by people who weren’t millionaires.
NEXT!
“Society should think of the children’s needs, not the homosexual’s’wishes, when determining adoption policy.”
I agree – which is why we should ignore the idiots who turn into blubbering piles of toxic goo the moment they hear the word “homosexual”. We need to make the decisions on a case by case basis. Your statement flies directly in the face of these fools who want to take away the possibility of a child being adopted by a kind, caring, competent couple who also happen to be gay.
Many, many decades past the “Frankfort School” came to the conclusion that communism would not sell in successful western industrialized society and knowingly/unknowingly joined the already engaged campaign by the Bolsheviks to undermine western, democratic society by breaking down the family unit, dis-solving religious practice etc.
This same-sex adoption agenda is just a furtherance of that/those campaigns.
It is not a coincidence that much of this “progressive” thought did not exist prior to the late 19th leftist movements.
The argument that homosexuality is normal hence to be tolerated is like considering cancer to be acceptable. Both are random mutations which nature eliminates from the gene pool….like mules…
“The argument that homosexuality is normal hence to be tolerated is like considering cancer to be acceptable. Both are random mutations which nature eliminates from the gene pool….like mules…”
Just like priests and nuns, right? Random cancerous mutations, which nature eliminates from the gene pool.
” In any event, it is quite clear that the adoptees are better off in a same-sex adoption than not adopted.”
Is there a great pool of unadopted children out there? Don’t think so. I guess there are handicapped and old kids that the government tries to chintz on by adopting out instead of adequately funding care alternatives.
Black Mamba @ 12:25, you got that right about it not being all talk.
sasquatch nails it. This is exactly what it is all about.
Like Robert Service says in his last chapter of “Comrades: A History of World Communism”, just because Marxism and communism failed in Russia and Eastern Europe does not mean that like minded westerners will not attempt the same experiment with the excuse that the Soviets did it wrong.
Alex
Would you consider Elton John’s recent adoption a case of accesorizing or a wise placement?
and the homosexuals are merely a new noble class. homosexual adoption = COMMUNISM
Okay lots of people hitting up the crazy pills today. My name says it all I guess.
“There’s no evidence homosexuality is genetic/biological”
Please go back to the 1950s and take the creationists with you we really don’t have room for mysticism in this century.
I think that this ‘experiment’ is still in it’s infancy. Same sex marriage and adoption have not been around very long.
If it turns out that SS adoptees turn out to be significantly more dysfunctional,chances are that the agencies will use that in their evaluation of prospective parents.
OTOH,here in Canada,we have a policy that prevents ‘white couples’ from adopting native children. Wrong,but it is taboo to question this policy.
I consider all persons of the ‘Social Sciences’, particularly psychology (I am not Tom Cruise) to be very suspect, including the author and his detractors. I trust neither.
The only people more full of crap are social conservatives. Every time we discard some arcane senseless law-bans on gambling, bans on SSM, and bans on divorce-we get the same hysterics about The End of Society. And it never happens. What a bunch of bed wetters.
” In any event, it is quite clear that the adoptees are better off in a same-sex adoption than not adopted.”
Is there a great pool of unadopted children out there? Don’t think so. I guess there are handicapped and old kids that the government tries to chintz on by adopting out instead of adequately funding care alternatives.
Posted by: Scar at November 20, 2011 1:03 PM
No offence Scar, but as someone who used to work in the protection industry I can tell you that it is better for a child to go through life with at least ONE GD person who loves them, even if they are gay then to be brought up by wonderful folks who could quit the next day. Foster families are needed and serve a purpose but it is not meant to be a replacement for permanency and a sense of worth and belonging.
Imagine being a child growing up knowing that not one single soul cared enough for you to make a permanent commitment.
Bring on the stable gay couple and anyone who has room or the income to take even one more child out of foster care/ group homes and doesn’t needs to just suck it up and shut up.
What lookout said.
REAL Women are heroines. They’ve predicted the negative outcome of every rotten, state-sanctioned, feminazi/gay agenda for the Canadian family all on their own dime. The NAC/SOW feminazis absolutely hate them, and have seen to it that any large$$e from the state was strictly limited to infrequent grants of five figures (low-end), whereas they ensured never-ending six-figure grants for their causes — that is until the CPC came along.
What I don’t understand, is that for roughly 1% of the population the rest of us have to bend over and do obeisance — and it’s always the children who suffer. When observant Christian, heterosexual, mom and dad families can’t, in conscience, toe the gay party line, they are prohibited by Children’s Aid Societies from fostering or adopting children who desperately need stable family homes.
Observation and research demonstrate that same-sex households are often challenged on the “stable family” continuum as documented violence in same-sex relationships is frequent — and that’s a fact not an opinion.
Of course, there are always exceptions and some same-sex families do a good job of parenting — but exceptions don’t make good practice or policies. Common sense and millennia of experience do.
The Grey Lady, turn your argument around, if you would.
What do you think of committed Christians, who in conscience cannot accept the gay lifestyle and can’t/won’t promise to when asked by adoption/fostering agencies, being prohibited, because of this, from adopting children who desperately need a stable home?
The rights of gays in Canada are more than adequately protected. It’s now the rights of Christians that are severely limited and often trampled on.
What are your thoughts on that?
libertariangenius – what evidence is there that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality? And here’s why social conservatives aren’t “full of crap”, one which a libertarian might appreciate: If social norms no longer exist to govern behavior, what will there be to stand between humanity and chaos? The State. As for “…hysterics about The End of Society. And it never happens” – move to Detroit.
wallyj writes, “If it turns out that SS adoptees turn out to be significantly more dysfunctional, chances are that the agencies will use that in their evaluation of prospective parents.”
Do you really think so? If you do, you’re naïve.
Same-sex adoption is a purely ideological, political phenomenon. Adoption agencies have become fronts for left-wing, progressives. E.g., If the well-being of our children were their first priority, why have these totalitarian apparatchiks:
1) banned long term, highly competent foster parents of hard-to-place BABIES, unless they agree that foster children, as young as 12, who think they’re homosexual, must be encouraged to explore their sexuality? (These dedicated caregivers looked after BABIES, but have been sacked for not supporting the agencies’ pro-gay agenda.)
2) required Catholic agencies to embrace the gay agenda? For declining to, rather than being sacked, many fine, Catholic agencies have removed themselves from supervising adoptions.
3) ignored the many married, heterosexual couples, who are ideal adoptive parent material? Many such couples now register with private agencies.
wallyj, because they’re fronts for a radical, left-wing agenda, these agencies will, most certainly, be wilfully ignoring “S[ame]S[ex] adoptees [who] turn out to be significantly more dysfunctional”. If you really think otherwise, I believe you’re missing the point.
lookout,not naive,but hopeful that common sense and knowledge will eventually win over a political agenda.
Sexuality is obviously a purely biological phenomenon and as such is genetic in basis. There is a great deal of evidence that genetic and non-genetic factors play a role. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation.
Homosexuality is likely an extremely complex multifactorial interplay similar to autism.
Social norms do exist to govern behaviour and are good IFF there’s a rational basis for them. Detroit is a socialist hellhole I somehow doubt Gay Hordes had anything to do with that apocalypse.
Has there actually been an incidence of parents being turned down an adoption because they didn’t accept the ‘gay lifestyle’ or is this more SoCon self-pity fantasy?
lookout, apparently, sees commies under every rock. It’s this kind of delusional paranoia that needs to be eliminated from political discourse before any serious discussions can be had.
Bless you, wallyj! If you think that dedicated, totalitarian, progressive ideologues will ever bow to common sense and knowledge . . . no way! That’s something they’ve never done and they’re not about to change now.
I appreciate your optimism, but I believe it’s seriously misplaced.
All the best!
Homosexuality is likely an extremely complex multifactorial interplay similar to autism.
Come back when you have some proof.
“Detroit is a socialist hellhole I somehow doubt Gay Hordes had anything to do with that apocalypse.”
The breakdown of the family did, though.
@batb
You are exactly right. The other day one of my friends admitted to working on Sunday. Now, when I want to execute him, I have to do it in secrecy like some kind of common thug! I’m telling you, this country is out to make Christians third-class citizens, and they are succeeding.
So, Powerfactor, the point you make so wittily if I understand you is that it’s impossible for Christians to be discriminated against because we do not live in a theocracy and therefore certain sanguinary tribal laws laid out in the most archaic parts of the Old Testament, which Christians do not actually consider applicable to their religion in any way, are not enforced. Am I with you?
Powerdouche, as you shall henceforth be called – wait, I’ll try again. Christians don’t in any way want to do something horrible (executing people for working on the Sabbeth; is that even in there?), so therefore anything they actually do want must be evil and stupid. Correct?
“Has there actually been an incidence [sic: it’s incident] of parents being turned down [for] an adoption because they didn’t accept the ‘gay lifestyle’ or is this more SoCon self-pity fantasy?”
Posted by: libertariansaresmarter
[They are? Why couldn’t this person do his/her own research? Whoops, I’m forgetting that emotion, not facts, are all that counts for these adolescents of all ages.]
It took me a matter of minutes to come across these Children’s Aid Society of Toronto documents. One can see that the gay agenda is heavily promoted.
1) Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2008. Backgrounder: Equitable Child Welfare Services Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/ Expression Policy.
The last paragraph of this document:
“Moreover, the risks and negative outcomes for LGBTQ youth rise dramatically when their families or caregivers reject them. Conversely, positive outcomes, access to social support and life satisfaction increase substantially when families and caregivers accept, support, affirm AND ADVOCATE for LGBTQ youth. (Emphasis mine)
http://www.torontocas.ca/files/Backgrnder%20to%20policy.Gender%20Diversity.mar17-08.pdf
2) “Anti-Homophobia at CAST [Children’s Aid Society of Toronto]
“At CAS of Toronto we CELEBRATE the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual (LGBT) communities in order to educate and create a safe and welcoming environment for our clients and workers who are a part of these communities.
“Homophobia is an attitude, feeling or aversion toward gay men, lesbians and bisexuals or toward homosexuality in general. Homophobia surfaces in various ways, both on a conscious and subconscious level. Most people see and recognize homophobia as it is played out in individual actions such as name-calling or threats, but homophobia is also systemic due to built-in institutional practices that put homosexuals at a disadvantage. When sons and daughters reveal that they are lesbian or gay to parents, 25% of families will react in a physically violent manner even though there has never been any violence in the home before.
“The other face of homophobia is heterosexism, which is the presumption that children will grow up to be heterosexual. Children and youth who discover that they are not heterosexual have already internalized all the negative messages about being gay, lesbian or bisexual and feel deep shame and fear. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT FAMILIES BE SUPPORTIVE SO THAT THESE CHILDREN AND YOUTH FEEL SUPPORTED AND CAN GROW UP TO BE HEALTHY AND WHOLE ADULTS.
“In June, at 30 Isabella, the Out and Proud Program hosts a barbecue to celebrate Pride and to honor youth who have made a difference in our world by speaking out about homophobia or through example have made the world a more welcoming place for LGBT people. All agency staff, foster parents, alumni, kin providers and volunteers are invited. We hope you can come and join us to celebrate the achievements of these young people. . . .” (Emphasis mine)
Whether one agrees with these manifestos or not, does one honestly believe that such openly proud CAST zealots won’t be on the lookout for suspect, adoptive parents, such as observant Christians—or even Jews or Muslims?
For the questioner, who seems deficient in the inference department, I’m quite sure that adoptive parents, who don’t, in the CAST’s own words, “CELEBRATE . . . gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual” orientations, would be shoved to the side, one way or another.
I know, FOR A FACT, that exemplary, observant Christian, longstanding, foster parents, with otherwise unblemished reputations, have been sacked for not agreeing to sign a pro-LGBTQ credo.
So, there we are. “SoCon [,] self-pity fantasy”, anyone?
The Indians are extracting hundreds of millions from social experiment boarding schools. The mentally retarded hundreds of millions of dollars because they were sterilized because they lacked the ability to functionally parent. At my old age I want to go to law school so I can lead the class action lawsuit in 20 years against the government for victims of same sex adoptions. Do you think I won’t find thousands to sign up?
Scar
But this time the social engineering is being done with nothing but the best intentions…oh…wait…
@Powerfactor
I feel your pain. The other day I tried to sell my daughter into slavery, and the cops threatened to arrest me. These progressive leftards are stomping all over our rights!
Scar equates SS adoption with child seizure and forced sterilization. You can get all the law education in the world I still wouldn’t want you as my lawyer.
Fiddle: I just posted a link containing summations of reams of studies displaying a genetics-sexuality link, particularly twin studies. Why don’t you try to come up with some evidence that homosexuality isn’t genetic? Science, after all, is based on disproving hypothesis.
The question ia not whether a child is better off being adopted by homosexual parents or remaining without a family. The question is, “do same-sex parents provide the best environment for them?”. The answer is no. This was once just common sense.
Also, check out the study by Walter Schumm. It’s interesting to see the unusually high rate of children raised by homosexual parents that identify as gay themselves. (as much as 10xs that of the average population)
Weird because I thought homosexuality was genetic, you know “born that way”. Again, common sense is becoming all too uncommon.
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/19668089
lib, are you arguing that there’s no social component to sexuality at all?
I agree that sexual preference is strongly influenced by genetic and epigenetic factors, however, there’s no question that social factors play a large role as well. For instance, it’s clear that many of the “conservatives” on this site would prefer same-sex partners – they merely suppress/deny that desire due to the stigmatization associated with it within their social group.
lookout@ 3:20 p.m.; ” homophobia is also systemic due to built-in institutional practices that put homosexuals at a disadvantage. ”
Well,you’re really dampening my optimism.
If I’m comprehending correctly,the CAST has determined that the approximate 3% of the children who may be gay take precedent over the 97% that may not,and are justifying this under the guise of correcting ingrained prejudice.
The road to hell and all that.
Don’t mind bursting a bubble now and then.
The problem with the same sex/homosexual advocacy is that they ignore one of the cardinal rules of grammar.
An action or behavior is defined as a verb, therefore it should not be confused with a person, place, or thing, that which is defined as a noun.
A couple, no matter what their sexual behavior, should only be a factor if it becomes apparent they intend on doing harm to the child. The fact that the couple may define themselves by their behavior is moot as long as the approval to adopt is done based on the childs welfare, not to legitimize the couples behavior.
Adoption is for the benefit of the child not the surrogate parent.
The moment the agency feels the candidate is not willing to sacrifice for the benefit of the child is the moment the adoption papers get shredded.
That is to say that the agency has a lawful obligation to reject an application if they feel the patents behavior is not beneficial to the child.
Why don’t you try to come up with some evidence that homosexuality isn’t genetic?
Much more entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself trying to prove it is genetic. Every so-called study you cite has been shown to be an exercise in wishful thinking.
Alex
On-line psychoanalysis, impressive.
For the sake of debate let’s agree that there are nature and nurture factors at play. With that in mind, would you care to answer my previous question regarding Elton John?
” there’s no question that social factors play a large role as well”.
Are you suggesting that SS parents will influence a child’s sexuality?
BTW,a quick poll of the conservatives here who would prefer same sex partners reveals that none would choose you,and we all know that you really suck.
syncro:
I ignored the question because I didn’t see the relevance, and because I have no grounds for judging the suitability of Elton and his partner as adoptive parents. I don’t particularly like him, but that alone is not enough to make that kind of judgement.
Actually Batb you are correct, fundamental Christians are viewed as a defect rather then an asset. I know that, you know that, the whole frickin world knows that. There is an inate distrust and suspicion in the system.
Any one stupid enough to say aloud to government officials, whom they are trying to get children from, knowing that social services is a “gay” area of employment, that they have an issue with gays is obviously to stupid to raise children.
Fiddle: name one. ONE.
Alex, don’t you think that the ‘all my opponents are closet homos’ move is really just undermining your whole point?
I don’t think all my opponents are closet homos. Just a certain subset. Besides, there’s certainly a correlation between vehement homophobia and closet-homosexuality, especially when religion is a factor.
O.K. Alex, you don’t want to speak to the EJ issue, but follow me here. The reason I asked is because I am interested in the issue of children as an accessory and it’s my belief that this issue is bigger than same sex or traditional couples.
It seems to me that having children has somehow evolved into a Right rather than a Responsibility.
Until the advent of reproductive technologies, biology dictated that only fertile, traditional couples could procreate.
Now anything goes, surrogacy with any combination of genetic inputs, invitro manipulations, batshit crazy single moms scarfing fertility drugs, tweenies having babies like they were cabbage patch toys, ageing career couples taxing our already overloaded healthcare systems demanding their “own” babies long after the best before date on their reproductive years has passed, 57 year old welfare recipients demanding and getting medically impregnated only to become a 59 year old single mom/welfare recipient, gay activist demanding adoption as a right…ya get the picture?
Babies ARE NOT accessories…Having babies IS NOT a Right…Having babies to legitimize a lifestyle is selfish…
Which brings me back to Elton John, when little Zachary turns 16, Sir Elton will be 80. Driving lessons should be fun.
Wallyj – Alex has driven me to reconsider my orientation.
Black Mamba…NNNooooooooooooo…
“Until the advent of reproductive technologies, biology dictated that only fertile, traditional couples could procreate.”
This isn’t really true, but let’s pretend it is – so what? If homosexuals couple adopt a child, it’s still a straight couple that’s procreating. And why would you fall back on the naturalistic fallacy anyway?
“Babies ARE NOT accessories…Having babies IS NOT a Right”
So if we passed a law saying christians aren’t allowed to have children, you’d be ok with that, because babies are not a right.
I don’t think you’ve actually thought this through.
Don’t be obtuse Alex, only a man and a woman can naturally procreate, beliefs are immaterial.
Ohhh and we are talking human reproduction…right?
“Driving lessons should be fun”. – syncrodox
“Alex has driven me” – Black Mamba
I can’t put my finger on it,but this is disturbing.
batb
Jesus said, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you”
“Don’t be obtuse Alex, only a man and a woman can naturally procreate, beliefs are immaterial.”
Your original statement included the phrase “traditional couples”, which is where you were wrong. A man and a woman can procreate without having to be a couple. If we extend it further and discuss child rearing rather than simple procreation, a child can be raised by a woman, a man, multiple women, multiple men, or an entire community of men and women. All of those family-models have existed “naturally” at some point in human history.
Of course, your pointless complaint about procreation still has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex couples becoming adoptive parents. You’re the only one talking about procreation. Either explain why it’s relevant, or admit that you’re just grasping at straws.
Because Alex in order for gay couples to have children they have to be bought or stolen.
Children spring from procreation in case your education is so lacking.