Same sex adoption is not a game

[Teelynn]

Below is some substantiation in regards to the harm to children adopted to same sex couples. It coincides with another thread on Illinois Catholic Charities and others that must eliminate their adoption services, but I thought it deserved it's own thread. I have not until now seen anything in print that substantiates the unhealthy environment of the child adopted to same sex couples.

http://mercatornet.com/articles/view..._is_not_a_game

[creationlover]

Originally Posted by Teelynn

Below is some substantiation in regards to the harm to children adopted to same sex couples. It coincides with another thread on Illinois Catholic Charities and others that must eliminate their adoption services, but I thought it deserved it's own thread. I have not until now seen anything in print that substantiates the unhealthy environment of the child adopted to same sex couples.

http://mercatornet.com/articles/view..._is_not_a_game

Thanks Teelyn. It's a great article and an answer to prayer. Just yesterday I was on the web searching for an article like what you have presented. The children of same sex unions will suffer greatly in the end.

[St Francis]

Thanks very much for posting this--great information.

[Teelynn]

I hadn't yet seen any concrete info on the subject. This area of moral decline is so new that I thought of it as a "social experiment." Evidently, they do already have some proof that this will be very detrimental to our children.

[incense]

It wasn't in this article, but I read a few years ago that homosexual men, discounting AIDS, can expect to live no longer than their early 50s. (That's average, obviously some homosexual men live longer)

[Tigg]

A very good article, but the problem is getting people to believe it. For every "study" done, there will be another to counter it, and even with the very obvious, those intent on selfish designs will disregard the potential for harm to others.

Too bad this issue is becoming one of gay rights, and not about the children who matter the most.

[Teelynn]

Originally Posted by Tigg

A very good article, but the problem is getting people to believe it. For every "study" done, there will be another to counter it, and even with the very obvious, those intent on selfish designs will disregard the potential for harm to others.

Too bad this issue is becoming one of gay rights, and not about the children who matter the most.

It's reflective of the culture........it's "all about me". As I was posting this I was thinking the same thing......that there would be plenty of data eventually refuting these claims.....but we still need to be the bullhorn anyway.

[EmperorNapoleon]

There are several problems with this article which I will address point-by-point below:

First, same sex couples tend to be promiscuous. One of the largest studies of same sex couples revealed that only seven of 156 couples had a sexual relationship which was totally monogamous.

The study group consisted of the personal friends and acquaintances of the authors and that presents a serious methodological flaw and 156 couples is hardly a sufficient sample size to come to any conclusion about the sexual habits of the entire gay population of San Diego. What it is representative of is the sexual habits of the authors friends in 1984; nothing more. I also think that attempting to apply the behavior of a relatively small social group 27 years ago to the entire gay population today is unreasonable.

Second, the unions are very fragile. The probability of breakup is high for lesbian couples. In a 2010 report, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, 40 percent of the couples who had conceived a child by artificial insemination had broken up.

And 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. If we're going to base adoption eligibility on the statistical fragility of relationships then no one would be able to adopt. Its also interesting that the study cited completely contradicts his assertion that having same sex parents is psychologically harmful. I guess he didn't read the study.

However, all data in the Gartell and Bos article are self-reports by the mother and the child. The mothers were aware of the political agenda of the research and this must have skewed the results. This defect in methodology severely weakens the report.

I don't have a problem with pointing out methodological flaws but I find the fact that he basically accuses the study group of lying just because he disagrees with the results to be distasteful at best.

It is often argued that there is no evidence that children are harmed if they are raised by homosexual men. This is true, but the absence of evidence does not prove the case. It means that there is no evidence.

Ok, so he readily admits that there is no evidence that same-sex households are harmful to children. Emphasis mine. The truth of the matter is that there have been a number of studies which demonstrate that having same-sex parents is not psychologically harmful. He cited one of them in a misguided attempt to make his case.

Deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother harms the child.

Didn't he just say that there is no evidence of this?

Its amazing to me that some people want to shove the gay community under a microscope and magnify every wart. Not-a-one of which isn't shared by heterosexuals. Its a shame that that this woman was able to adopt eleven children and keep them locked in cages while people argue that a loving same-sex couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt because some random person in San Diego was promiscuous in 1984.

[JoeMike]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

And 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

There are twice as many marriages as divorces each year, so it looks like 50%.

But If you include all marriages in that statistic (ongoing marriages from previous years), it's closer to 11% that will end in divorce.

[Teelynn]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

There are several problems with this article which I will address point-by-point below:



The study group consisted of the personal friends and acquaintances of the authors and that presents a serious methodological flaw and 156 couples is hardly a sufficient sample size to come to any conclusion about the sexual habits of the entire gay population of San Diego. What it is representative of is the sexual habits of the authors friends in 1984; nothing more. I also think that attempting to apply the behavior of a relatively small social group 27 years ago to the entire gay population today is unreasonable.



And 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. If we're going to base adoption eligibility on the statistical fragility of relationships then no one would be able to adopt. Its also interesting that the study cited completely contradicts his assertion that having same sex parents is psychologically harmful. I guess he didn't read the study.



I don't have a problem with pointing out methodological flaws but I find the fact that he basically accuses the study group of lying just because he disagrees with the results to be distasteful at best.



Ok, so he readily admits that there is no evidence that same-sex households are harmful to children. Emphasis mine. The truth of the matter is that there have been a number of studies which demonstrate that having same-sex parents is not psychologically harmful. He cited one of them in a misguided attempt to make his case.



Didn't he just say that there is no evidence of this?

Its amazing to me that some people want to shove the gay community under a microscope and magnify every wart. Not-a-one of which isn't shared by heterosexuals. Its a shame that that this woman was able to adopt eleven children and keep them locked in cages while people argue that a loving same-sex couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt because some random person in San Diego was promiscuous in 1984.

I referred to the fact that we still don't really know what this will do to children, it's all a "social experiment". I would think logically speaking, it would be confusing to a child to say the least. Secondly it would, I believe put the child in an awkward position socially......ie......"I don't have a Mom and a Dad.....I have a Mom and a Mom.....or a Dad and a Dad." What are the roles of these two people? They say they change at least once during a "union." And last but not least it goes against the law of God. God gave us these laws for a reason.....not for Him....He doesn't need them.....we do!
But I guess I'm talking to the wind with God's law as I see you are an agnostic, truly meaning no disrespect, I'm "whistling Dixie".

[incense]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

Its amazing to me that some people want to shove the gay community under a microscope and magnify every wart.

Actually, the problem is just the opposite. No one is allowed to look at the gay community, and certainly not allowed to mention any of their warts, no matter how glaring.

"Homophobic" is turning into a new meaning, afraid to criticize homosexuality. No one can say the obvious without being lambasted with a personal attack. Dr. Laura lost many sponsors and carriers, because of an active campaign against her because of her words against homosexuality. Rush Limbaugh said he was afraid to talk about the elephant in the room and the Penn State scandal.

And the priest abuse situation. It's now considered a pedophilia problem when it's a homosexual problem. The Church was lambasted for simply trying to determine the right word used, pederasty instead of pedophilia. They were called insensitive to the suffering of the children.

Can anyone mention that public parks have to close because of the homosexual orgies that happen at night. Or the restrooms that have to fix the waist high holes in the men's room stalls? Our park finally closed all the restrooms.

[EmperorNapoleon]

Originally Posted by Teelynn

I referred to the fact that we still don't really know what this will do to children, it's all a "social experiment".

We know that there is no negative impact based on the studies which have been conducted.

Originally Posted by incense

Actually, the problem is just the opposite. No one is allowed to look at the gay community, and certainly not allowed to mention any of their warts, no matter how glaring.

People have the right to express their opinions and frequently do. The problem lies in the fact that they try to paint the entire gay community with a broad brush based on the behavior of a few individuals. We don't see these people lambasting the heterosexual community with the same zealousness even though the same behavior is present. I haven't read the author of this article applying the same standards to heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by Teelynn

No one can say the obvious without being lambasted with a personal attack.

And, to your mind, what is "the obvious?"

Originally Posted by Teelynn

And the priest abuse situation. It's now considered a pedophilia problem when it's a homosexual problem. The Church was lambasted for simply trying to determine the right word used, pederasty instead of pedophilia. They were called insensitive to the suffering of the children.

Actually it was a problem of hebephilia not homosexuality but this is another subject entirely.

Originally Posted by Teelynn

Can anyone mention that public parks have to close because of the homosexual orgies that happen at night.

I find it hard to believe that "homosexual orgies" would be the cause of public park closures.

[incense]

Originally Posted by hich EmperorNapoleon

I find it hard to believe that "homosexual orgies" would be the cause of public park closures.

Exactly my point. People don't talk about it, so it makes the truth hard for you to believe. Every once in a while, the news will mention a police raid on the parks at night, but you have to listen carefully that they're aimed at the homosexual orgies going on.

The parks are closed at night, not forever. (The restrooms were removed from one.) It's been going on for at least 40 years, when I was young and my friend's mother said we couldn't go to the park because the homosexuals hang out there.

This is not the behavior of heterosexuals, so there can be no similar criticism.