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.
“Jesus said, “(11)Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (12)Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you”
Placing these 2 particular verses together especially when preceded by 8 other “Blesseds” might alter the meaning slightly. Verse 11 relates to false accusations. Don’t read too much into it concerning gays.
I think God had it covered in the Old Testament.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
Better give back you wedding ring, thief.
Grey Lady: “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 [sic] stupid to raise children.”
Grey Lady, Christians who foster and/or adopt aren’t trying “to get” children. They’re trying to help them, to give them a stable family life. I can assure you that far from being “too stupid to raise children,” the Christian families I know who used to foster — and one child was adopted — are exemplary families, loving, caring, generous, sacrificial, and disciplined.
As lookout points out above @3:20 PM, it’s not a matter of Christian couples shutting up about their convictions about the gay lifestyle, they’re coerced into signing on to the pro-LGBTQ agenda of the CAST. In CAST’s words, “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.”
Your quoting Scripture at me is unnecessary. I’m not talking about Christians being persecuted so much as I’m talking about the tragedy of very fine faith-filled mother/father families being made “ineligible” to foster and/or adopt children through the CAST.
The big losers are the children who can now only be fostered/adopted by pro-LGBTQ families. What a myopic policy! Given that it’s well documented that only about 3% of individuals are in the LGBTQ category (the Kinsey-generated 10% has been proven bogus), why does the CAST tailor its policies to the possible 3% rather than think of the welfare of the other 97%? Ninety-seven percent of children needing to be fostered and/or adopted are being deprived of being brought up in Christian, two-parent homes.
So, the LGBTQ supporters are happy. What about the kids?
The Grey Lady:
True, but Lord Voldemort said, “I’m going to kill you, Harry Potter. I’m going to destroy you. After tonight, no one will ever again question my powers. After tonight, if they speak of your name, they’ll speak only of how you begged for death, and I, being a merciful lord….. obliged.”
Alex, the human reproductive imperative is not a naturalistic fallacy. The concept of a naturalistic fallacy is a false intellectual construct. As is the Right of parenthood.
I gave plenty of examples of heterocentic thinking in this regard along with the homocentric position.
Kids are not a kommodity..get it?
I understand what you’ve said, and I’ve detailed multiple issues with what you’ve said. You apparently don’t “get it”. This does not surprise me. If you were capable of understanding the errors in your argument, you would probably have avoided making them in the first place.
Thanks for trying, anyway. Cheers.
1) The Grey Lady writes, “Any one [sic] stupid enough to say aloud to government [sic] officials, whom they are trying to get children from [sic: children are NOT chattel, Grey Lady], knowing that social services is a ‘gay’ area of employment [?], [and] that they have an issue with gays [,] is obviously to [sic] stupid to raise children.” (IMO, The Grey Lady seems “too stupid” to express her facile ideas with even a modicum of coherence.)
What utter poppycock, Grey Lady. As if it’s the fine Christians’ fault that the progressives are out to get them. There’s no way observant Christians can win with these weasels. (So, give credit for skulduggery where credit is due.)
First of all, the Christian couple will be REQUIRED to state their stand on the LGBTQ issue. As much as they might like to avoid this gun held to their heads, it’s not going to happen: not because the Christians are too stupid, but because the progressives are altogether ruthless and put ideology ahead of the needs of our children. (Talk about breaking arbitrary UN declarations!)
Get your facts straight, Grey Lady.
2) wallyj, when you reference me: “lookout@ 3:20 p.m.; ‘homophobia is also systemic due to built-in institutional practices that put homosexuals at a disadvantage’”, PLEASE be sure to state that this is a pro-gay QUOTE I was referencing.
I DID NOT MAKE THAT STATEMENT!
3) I note that the person to whom I was responding is MIA. How drearily and pathetically predictable.
So kids are a commodity. Thanks for the clarification Alex. Cheers.
lookout there is more then one way to be grey.
“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.”
Ahh, yes. The Idiot’s Best Friend: Fallacy of False Dichotomy.
Because there are only TWO possibilities here, right, Brainiac? The angry, bigoted straight couple, and the worldly, happy, loving, competent gay couple. There’s no chance the gay couple could be a-fightin’ and a-hatin’ all ’round the clock, and that the straights could be in some small way… desirable parents.
Right, doofus?
Nobody said that a gay couple couldn’t have parental qualities, but that, given the option, letting the child live with male and female adoptive parents would be better for that child, in the end.
But as noted above, Trollex, with you liberals, there’s not much need to worry oneself about the needs of the unborn, or even the recently-born, when there are special interests at stake, right?
Oaf.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
batb asks “What about the kids?”
They are now pawns in a restructuring of society.
I seem to remember someone writing, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” I might be so bold as to change the words ‘think on’ to ‘DO’.
The point of the article has virtually nothing to do with homosexuality but rather what is best for the child. The article claims that through unbiased observation using determined outcomes, a child does best when it is raised in a loving home with both a mother (female) and father (male) present. If indeed that is true then let us aspire to the loftier goal. Getting bogged down in sexual practices and all forms of sexual deviancy hardly helps the child in any way. As a teenager son of a straight man turned gay once told me, “It didn’t help knowing my old man liked to get buggered”.
Posted by: mhb at November 20, 2011 6:58 PM
When did you stop beating your wife?
Did someone seriously say ‘having kids is not a right?’ Uh yes it is actually so long as the kid is sufficiently cared anything goes.
This link is relevant to any discussion of social ‘sciences’/psychology :http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/20/statisticians-can-prove-almost-anything-a-new-study-finds/
wo scientists from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, and a colleague from Berkeley, argue that modern academic psychologists have so much flexibility with numbers that they can literally prove anything.
“…Lord Voldemort said, “I’m going to kill you, Harry Potter. I’m going to destroy you. After tonight, no one will ever again question my powers. After tonight, if they speak of your name, they’ll speak only of how you begged for death, and I, being a merciful lord….. obliged.”
Posted by: Andrew at November 20, 2011 6:20 PM
I don’t know why you posted that, Andrew, but it is exactly the way I feel about Alex.
Sorry lookout,no slur of your character intended.
Hopefully none will be taken by others.
Posted by: Black Mamba at November 20, 2011 8:01 PM
Yes, little people often fantasize about being the brave warrior, bringing vengeance down upon those who have angered them. You much in common with the Taliban.
wallyj, no offence taken. Good to hear from you 😉
If I were one of the progressives posting here, I’d be positively embarrassed by the drivel I was spouting.
Of course, intelligence, knowledge, and logic are not the strong suits of such self-referential ignoramuses. Neither is being conscious of their own ignorance and arrogance.
If I were one of them, I’d keep (figuratively) my mouth firmly shut, so as to keep my glaring insufficiencies to myself. (Although they’re blissfully unaware of the fact, like Clement Attlee, in Churchill’s words, they “have a great deal to be modest about”.)
What pathetic, vainglorious losers.
Posted by: Alex at November 20, 2011 7:12 PM
… and now, we segue into The Idiot’s Second Best Friend: “Begging the Question”, or in common parlance, “The Drive-By Smear”.
Predictable, however. Alex, like most rodents, gets fearful vicious when cornered; this rat gets nasty before running and hiding. Who on SDA is surprised by that?
But he doesn’t stay hunkered in his own garbage for long! Trollex slithers back from his dung-heap to throw a half-ässed insult at Mamba at 8:14pm, completely missing the delicious irony of his post that is completely lost upon him.
Alex, please give us hope en passant: tell us you’re sterile, and cannot reproduce.
mhb
batb asks “What about the kids?”
They are now pawns in a restructuring of society.
Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at November 20, 2011 7:00 PM
Exactly. It’s a shame these homosexual partners think the world must revolve around their wishes.
Where has any court asserted that adoption is an inalienable right inherent to every person? Why would homosexuals claim a special right in this regard?
Wow. Phil@ 3:10a.m. We, who actually produce those children, should not have an opinion.. You are a hetrophobic Creep!
“Alex, like most rodents…”
We resent that.
Posted by: mhb at November 20, 2011 8:28 PM
*WHOOOSH*
You’re pretty stupid even by SDA standards, aren’t ya?
Having been educated and employed in the social service field, I can vet batb comments. Everything she has said is absolutely true.
The policy use to be that married male and female couples, given they passed the strict vetting process, were given precedence over single parents or homosexual couples.
This policy was based on extensive research and peer reviewed studies by experts in several relevant fields, including child development. The consensus of these studies concluded that a married heterosexual couple is the most suitable family environment for children who have been given up for adoption.
The facts and findings have not changed, what has changed in the last 7 years is pressure from the homosexual community with threats of lawsuits and human rights complaints coupled with affirmative action hiring policies for management positions within the social service ministry and those agencies that hold contracts with them.
There is little an adoption case worker can do if their placement recommendation is overruled by a supervisor; more oft than not, the caseworkers recommendation is approved depending on the case workers reputation and their relationship with their supervisor.
There are some very good adoption case workers out there who work very hard to ensure that the child and family are a good fit and do everything in their power to ensure politics are kept out of placement recommendations.
*WHOOSH* ??
WHAT a coherent response! ‘Proves my point. Ye Gods.
“From ghoulies and ghosties and long legged beasties and things that go bump in the night [and idiot progressives], good Lord, deliver us”.
Amen.
A**lick:
So, in other words, miserable psychotic kids are lying about being well adjusted in order to keep their horrible parents from losing rights.
Once again, our resident troll takes some time off from his sword swallowing lessons to demonstrate his complete lack of reading comprehension.
The article explicitly states, and many of the comments unwittingly confirm, that the studies he doubted were based on self-reports BY THE SAME-SEX PARENTS and not the children.
If A**lick believes that any significant number of same-sex couples who’ve adopted kids are going to self-report that their parenting skills are not as good as those of the people they disparage as “breeders”, I’ve got some waterfront property that I invite him to enjoy, face down, while the tide comes in.
Alex
Back away from the shovel…
Pity to Alex.
You fail to see that pregnancy is a fact of life, due to the randomness of the outcome, the parents cannot choose gender, or regretably in some instances whether conception actually occurs.
In some unfortunate events, the conception occurs as the result of momentary lapses in judgement, or as a result of rape. In some, there was intent, but later, because the union failed, there is now only one parent to raise the child, or the child is treated as chattel and used as a bargaining chip. In those occassions where the parent lacks the ability to care for the child, or the child has been abandoned, the ward is then placed under the care and control of the authorities. It is then that the adoption process may become an option, not always as some of the poor waifs become permanent wards of the state and get placed in foster care.
For this thread the subject at hand is that the writer of the article is substantiating that an adopted child fares better in an environment where there is a mother and a father.
I don’t recall in that article anywhere that stated factually that those that have a prediliction toward homosexual behaviour where pedophiles, criminals, child molesters, perverts, etc. etc..Alex presumed that was the case, and went on a troll for responses to prove racism, homophobia, etc.
The article was about what is best for the child, and stressed that the child should be placed with a married couple, where one spouse is male, and the other female.
I metioned earlier that the decision of placement should be made in the context of whats best for the child. Those that wish to adopt should be doing so because they are willing to sacrifice and not do so in an act of bad faith.
Imagine if the prospective parents are asked if in the future the child became embarrased by the parents behaviour, would they be willing to change their behaviour, or would they inform the child that they need to confront this, no matter what the consequences with their peers?
Its a rhetorical queation, but keep in mind that behaviour is by choice, and is not a predetermined outcome.
If it meant the difference between being able to adopt or not, should a prospective parent be willing to change, and then demonstrate they changed their behaviour, for the benefit of the child, or should they launch a civil action on the state?
Excellent post jospah.
Sorry,jospeh,or joseph.Whatever,still some very good points.
I see the trolls are out in force now. Go crawl back under your rocks, you retarded lefties!
Pathetic but funny Alex…you little droogie…
I’m inclined to the view that adoption by same-sex couples is not terribly different from that by heterosexual couples. Obviously there are a few examples of lunatic extremists, but even then, people have been known to survive awful mistreatment by their biological parents.
Overall, same-sex adoption is probably less dangerous than public education.
nv53: “I’m inclined to the view that adoption by same-sex couples is not terribly different from that by heterosexual couples.”
But, that’s not the point now. The point now is that Christian couples have to promise to support and nurture any GBLTQ tendencies in any child they foster or adopt, despite the fact that in accord with their so-called “freedom of religion” rights in Canada, they in conscience should not be coerced into such a promise.
Are gay couples going to be told that they need to support and nurture any fundamentalist Christian or clearly heterosexual tendencies in any of the kids they foster or adopt?
Not on your life.
As usual, with the progressives’ agenda, it’s only a one-way street when it comes to rights.
It’s sad, tragic actually, that the gay activists have elbowed their way into the spotlight because this discussion should be about the needs of the children who have no homes not the pseudo-needs of the adults who are fostering and/or adopting.
It will be the children who suffer the most, especially now that two-parent, Christian families will be prohibited from fostering/adopting by the LGBTQ-centric CAST and other public children’s aid societies.
Nv53, I hear you on the public education matter, but, to paraphrase the title of this thread, same-sex adoption is no joke. From my first post yesterday, here’s the crux of the matter, in plain English:
“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?”
So, nv53, I altogether disagree with your throw-way, line, “Overall, same-sex adoption is probably less dangerous than public education”, which has no basis in fact. In fact, the point of the article here and most of the responses is that our children are being used as guinea pigs in a dangerous social engineering project, which elevates adult sexual license to a right, while treating our most vulnerable children as chattel, with no rights, to be manipulated in a crass, ideological game. That’s the point.
Same sex adoption is education. A compulsory education for the child. Not only learn it, but live it…
As with anything compulsory, the Stockholm Syndrome soon prevails…
My wife and I have adopted one little boy, four and half years old at the time, and we are adopting a three year old girl. It has been an eye opening experience. I won’t go into detail but I will say the homestudy was intrusive and unpleasant. Everything in the best interest of the child! And the social worker was from a very Christian organization.
I have read a great deal about adoption and participated on discussion boards and I will tell you homosexual adoption is rarely a topic. What is, though, is Christian adoption. When I first heard someone talking about ‘saving’ a child I thought they meant saving them from poverty, or a life in an orphanage. As motivations go I didn’t think that was a good basis for an adoption.
Imagine how surprised I was to find out most people ‘saving’ a child actually meant saving for Jesus, saving the child from a non-Christian upbringing. I was stunned at the number of families who already had several biological children and then attempted to adopt. After I found out what ‘save’ really meant it made sense.
Imagine what it is like to be the child adopted not out of love, or out of a desire to be a parent, but because of a religious obligation. I have read many articles by children who were adopted into families like that, and many are quite resentful and relay stories of being told how lucky they are and how grateful they should be to be ‘saved’.
When I read the many good Christians who post here about gays adopting I can’t help but think about those for whom adopting isn’t an act of love for the child. I bet a lot of kids would rather have a loving gay parent.
Homosekuals should not be allowed to adopt children ,as it is not a natural situation for a child to be in , just like when a child is taken from it’s home because of abuse by the parent’s in straight heterosexual homes.
If the gubermint is going to step in ,on the these issues it should be continuous and steady in it’s approach , a child in an abusive heterosexual home if removed should be placed in a safe heterosexual home as that is the natural situation for a child to be reared in , same thing if a child is born ,and sadly unwanted it should be placed in the same situation becasue it is the natural environment to witch it was born .
It is kind of like a women who leaves her husband becasue of several physical abuse …the court system will compensate her (financially) to the same or similar standard of living them an provided her before especially if she did not work . Solitterally if she is a highschool drop out and she married a very rich man ,who beat the piss out of her regualarly and she left him , he would be on the hook for providing the same starndard of living sheh ad while living with him , so i feel that should apply to new borns or children in general ,not finacially but guardian wise , if a child comes from an abusive home and is removed it should be placed with hetero sexual parent in a non abusive home , same goes for a new born it took a man an a woman to create the situation the new born is in so there fore to me it makes sence to place the child with two loving hetero sexual loving parent’s. Gay’s have no special gay right’s in this situation as they have not contributed in anyway to the childs creation so there for they cannot appeal to the hearts of men to allow them the privilage of having a child , that is a natural punishment choosing to be gay , not even a godly punishment but if choose to be gay you forgo your ability to have children and will eventually through natural process eleimnate your flawed genes from the world , however that will never really happen as the world is fulll of sin ,and so some men will alway’s choose to smoke bearded cigars as apposed to a regualr one without viens in it, and women will choose to eat fish tacos’s as apposed to regualr ones. All we need to do as a society is protect our children from these situations and many others liek them , like abusive homes of hetero sexual couples, or sexually abusive people of authority, like docotors,lawyers,police officers,bishops,priest’s,hockey coaches, teachers or anyone who would harm them just because they are in a position of authority over a child. I found it discusting when an 11 yearol (secrat fbi agent) went only and ivited people in her comuntity(she the 11 year old was fake andm ade up by the fbi agent)how many high profile people in her community who went to the house and were busted was amazing and terrifying at the same time . So it is not only gay’s i want to protect children from it is sick perverts as well .
@RAT
Sorry i dissagree with you , adopting a child into a christian home is a very good thing ,as yes the child will be saved through the grace and knowledge of our savior,how ever i have never in my entire life met an adopted person who resented there chirtians parent’s and i beleive you when you say you have ,but that bring’s up my next point when you adopt into a christian home savior is very important ,but iti s also motivated (or at least it should be) by the love of one another with out judgemnt and i bet the people youm et were probly militantly taught about htere savior and were probly not loved as you say so much and that is trajic becasue the adoption process is and or it should be all about LOVE and the abundance of love these adoptive parent’s have to give these unwanted unloved children , i think iti s good ,right and just to bring all children to know the love of jesus , and his salvation through grace . I am a christian ,and if and when i adopt a child it willl be motivatated by saving a child for sure but the love god has put in my heart for these children is certainly not a back seat passenger iti s all parto f christianity , to serve the lord and do his will ,and to bring people and children to know his love and his grace for us by his sons sacrifise on the cross for our sins. I think iti s sad that these people were not motivated by love as well to provide these children with kinship , and a sence of belonging , and a real emphasis on being loved for who they are (gods children) . I will absolutly love the children i adopt with out question or i will not adopt them i will treatthem as though they were my very own flesh and blood. I am sorry if you are offended by this knowledge but chirsitans were the origional adoptive parents way way back, same with the origional providers of health care ,as well as teaching children those are also commands by the lord as well ….
Yes, by all means adopt children into non-Christian, anti-Christian families where they can learn to be the next generation of Occupiers. Wholly ignorant of where our Laws came from, and their purpose. By all means give the children no foundation to stand on, condemned to be a reed bending in what direction the wind blows. Wholly ignorant of any standard by which to discern right from wrong…that’s real love…
Come to think of it, like many politicians…
God, Fags and same sex adoption – Alex don’t ever claim that SDA doesn’t throw you a bone every so often.
Keep both hands on the keyboard with this thread or you’ll go blind.
“Imagine how surprised I was to find out most people ‘saving’ a child actually meant saving for Jesus, saving the child from a non-Christian upbringing.”
No! Faith-heads adopting a child to brainwash him into their cult? I don’t believe it! That could never happen!
No! Homosexuals adopting a child to brainwash him into their cult?
Fixed that for ya.
Sexual orientation is a cult?
I’d like to fix ya, but there’s no fixing stupid.
Well, technically there is, but that kind of fixing would be illegal without your consent.
The truth is it is either christian or the others ….so i am all for adoption going to hertosexual couples only and the fact that some of those are probly christian is a good thing ….everytime the chistians in this country lose something the athist”s gain something there is no middle ground ..it is either christian or soemthing else plain and simple and i don’t think that is right.
Alex is afraid to engage me and uses my poor grammer, spelling and puncuation as an excuse.
To point out the obvious, yes, behavior can be cult-like.
Also stupid, as the above comment demonstrates.
“Alex is afraid to engage me and uses my poor grammer, spelling and puncuation as an excuse.”
Those just make it impossible to understand what you’re trying to say – your inability to think rationally, and your tendency to lie, are the real issues.
“To point out the obvious, yes, behavior can be cult-like. Also stupid, as the above comment demonstrates.”
Agree on all points!
Whether the folks wanting to adopt, are straight or whether they have a prediction to certain types of behavior is only important on how it may effect the child in question. If the agency is comforting an adoption based on how it aligns with a goal other than the welfare of the child, that action is not only negligent, but is a corruption of their true mission to find a home where the child will be in good hands. Once an agency starts designing policies to ensure some political interest is satisfied, they are openly admitting they are no longer going to fufill their obligatory mandate.
Though it may stray from the topic at hand, there is a similarity to a recurring SDA thread about how the Humain Societies across NA spend most of their budget on political activities instead of on animal welfare.
I do not believe that an adoption agency has any business promoting any agenda other than the child s welfare. If a child is in a fundamental christian family, and the parents through unfortunate events, pass away, it is legitimate that they be placed in a similar family. It is just as legitimate that a child born of a s/s union would be given the same consideration….should that be possible, however to date no man has ever been able to give birth, and no woman has ever produced semen, so it’s unlikely to ever happen….
But I digress, in a previous post I alluded to a question of what potential adoptive parents would be willing to sacrifice if it came to a choice between their behavior or their child confronting their peers. I pointed out two possible outcomes, one being that the prospective parents sacrifice for the child, the other that the parents launch a legal action. Judging from recent history there is a growth industry occurring in the legal profession over hurt feelings, just as offensive are the documented cases of bullying that end in tragedy. Being a parent is no picnic, and just like marriage, should not be entered into for fashionable or transient reasons. The point is that the adoption can not be granted on a quota basis, each child is unique. The correct answer would be, whats best for the child.
Having waded through the comments and idiotic trolling, I think it can be taken as read that adults who wish to adopt a child for reasons other than the child’s welfare… such people are to be avoided. The rat’s discussion of “saving” children for Jesus is just another facet of “accessorizing”, its disgusting and I’m quite sure Christian adoption agencies watch like hawks for @$$holes like that.
The difficulty of course comes in sorting them out from the good people. This process is not improved by political activists pressuring the agencies to accept applications they would otherwise reject.
On another topic: having -your own- child is most certainly a fundamental, God given right, to be infringed upon only under the gravest circumstance. Adopting a child is most certainly -not- a right. Rather a privilege and a responsibility, for which one must prove his worth to the child’s guardians.
And may I say again, at the risk of repeating myself, DUH.