“I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad.
‘They can’t be telling me that, within a 60-mile radius, the only people they could find to look after my children were two men.
‘I’ve got nothing against gay people. I’ve got gay friends, but children need a mum and a dad, not a dad and another dad.”
We have no clue the extent of the damage that awaits these two innocent little children, aged 4 and 5. This is absolutely, absolutely mind-blowing. I pray we never become de-sensitized to the horror of stories like this.
The mom is a heroin addict…who either gave her kids up for adoption or they were taken away from her (does the article say?)
Looks like the court would have given the kids to the grandparents had they not had health problems–angina and diabetes, which I assume are considered very serious.
The kids would probably be more “damaged” staying with a heroin addict.
Actually, we have a lot of clues that same sex parents raise children just as well as opposite sex parents.
The tragedy here is the heroine-addict mother. I am admittedly not impressed by the alleged reasons for not leaving the child with the grandparents - diabetes is surely not a huge impediment to parenting these days? - but that is a separate issue from whether or not a same sex couple are adequate foster parents.
Gay adoption advocates really need to stop being proponents and get serious. Men are by nature and statistical fact far more likely to abuse a child than a woman. It is for that very reason that if a single man walked into an adoption agency, they will not let him adopt etc, not mainly because he is single but mainly because he is a man and all the extra satistical risks that go with that.
Now we allow 2 gay men who we know from statistics are many multiples of times more likley to abuse a child than a heterosexual man go together and adopt a child.
The child abuse is in those who allow and promote such things. These things are not predicated on religeous ideas but on simple science and statistical evidence which show the true nature of risk when it comes to homosexuals
I am all for supposed freedoms, but within the confines of those freedoms we must still admit that some different types of groups and peoples have different and much greater risk parameters.
Gay men - meaning men attracted to other adult men - are at worst no more likely to abuse children than straight men. A lot of attacks by a man against a boy come from a ‘straight’ man, or a man only attracted to children.
Arguably men abuse children more than women do, but this does raise the question of whether boys are just far far less likely to report sex with an adult woman as ‘abuse.’
I have a few concerns, the sexuality of couple ranking low on the list.
The first is the denial of grandparents’ rights and utter disruption of the family structure. Yes, the mom is a heroin addict and unfit to care for the children. Does that justify closing the door entirely upon an available, willing and extended family that a 5-year-old knew? In the U.S. it is not uncommon for adopted children to have access to their extended birth families, though it does depend on circumstances, and I have to think that if the gay couple were willing to visit with the grandparents on a frequent basis this wouldn’t be an issue. That said, given the statements by the grandparents, I don’t see the gay couple being comfortable with such visits; still, a 5-year-old knows who is and who is not family, and is keen enough to perceive “Dad and Daddy took me away from my Mum, my Gram, my Gramps and everyone else.”
The second is whether the preference of the child enters into it. What if the child doesn’t “get” a gay couple, or is uncomfortable around them? An older boy, say an adolescent, who has not been around gay men or who grew up in a conservative community where homosexuality really isn’t noted even where it exists, may be extremely uncomfortable living with two gay men for the simple reason that he has no experience around them, and is still figuring out his own burgeoning sexuality. Similar to a child who is raised in an all-black community being adopted by a white family, may be very uncomfortable. That should be taken into account, and even a family member in poor health may be easier for the child than a stranger.
This is as far as I’ll consider the connection between gay adoption and pedophilia. Men are more likely than women to commit abuse of any stripe, and the most common abuser of children is a father, uncle or older brother. So two men are more likely to commit abuse than one man and one woman because of the number of men in the household. I’m not aware of statistics, though, linking homosexuality to pedophilia though I thought I read some studies of homosexuals being more likely to engage in hebephilia (which is preference for adolescents, not necessarily above or below the age of consent) than heterosexuals.
I think there are statistics bearing out that single women are more likely to be successful at adoption than single men are, and that more single women are interested in adoption than single men.
Bridget Fitzergald in ‘Children of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature, Marriage and Family Review, volume 29’ has written about the problems about such studies:
Many of these studies suffer from similar limitations and weaknesses, with the main obstacle being the difficulty in acquiring representative, random samples on a virtually invisible population. Many lesbian and gay parents are not open about their sexual orientation due to real fears of discrimination, homophobia, and threats of losing custody of their children. Those who do participate in this type of research are usually relatively open about their homosexuality and, therefore, may bias the research towards a particular group of gay and lesbian parents.
Because of the inevitable use of convenience samples, sample sizes are usually very small and the majority of the research participants end up looking quite homogeneous—e.g. white, middle-class, urban, and well-educated. Another pattern is the wide discrepancy between the number of studies conducted with children of gay fathers and those with lesbian mothers. The few studies of children with gay fathers are most likely due to maternal custody patterns, which reflect that fathers, gay or nongay, are less likely to be custodial parents. (Bozet, 1987).
Another potential factor of importance is the possibility of social desirability bias when research subjects respond in ways that present themselves and their families in the most desirable light possible. Such a phenomenon does seem possible due to the desire of this population to offset and reverse negative images and discrimination. Consequently, the findings of these studies may be patterned by self-presentation bias. (Gartrell, Hamilton, Banks, Mosbacher, Reed, Sparks, & Bishop, 1996,- Lott-Whitehead, & Tully, 1992; Tasker & Golombok, 1995; Turner, Scadden, & Harris, 1990).
In summary, faced with these frequent methodological difficulties, the generalizability of these studies is limited and overall, they can best be described as descriptive and suggestive, rather than conclusive. As Patterson and Redding (1996) indicate, since the problem of obtaining representative, random samples on this population will likely remain an issue, ”it is not_the results obtained from any one specific sample but the accumulation of findings from many different samples that will be most meaningful” (p. 44).
I’ll agree to that—insofar as that they are not abused and are loved-----but they ARE indoctrinated nevertheless into the idea that a man and a woman are not necessary for the development of a child and that anything goes in regards for sexual preferences and lifestyles.
Plus, it is against God’s will and Natural Law. Remember, we as Catholics/Christians are for the TRUTH, not what “researchers” and “experts” say.
This research that you speak of is either incomplete, manipulated or missing other key factors.
Why do I say this?
Our Catholic faith says that children should not be raised by a gay couple. At a certain point as Catholics we have to submit our will and even what think we know to what God knows. God knows best and the teachings of our faith are clear on this.
I think it fair to say that there things that are good but not preferable, and we should say it is better for a child to be raised in a loving home with gay parents than to be raised by a single, neglectful, drug-addicted parent, but it is best for a child to be raised by a father and a mother. One of the most important differences between the Church’s teaching and any sort of social policy is that the Magisterium calls people to the Highest, to live as God desires us to live, while social policy makes all sorts of allowances. Local laws, for the most part in the US, do not consider pornography to be an evil but rather an item of consumption, and so long as it is consumed discretely, it remains legal. But the Church teaches it to be evil - evil for the people who make it and sell it, evil for those who consume it, evil for those whose lives are impacted by a more permissive and promiscuous society. How often do you read - on here, on self-help sites, on chat-rooms or see on self-help shows - about the problems that a husband’s use of pornography causes? It strikes me as both dreadful and ironic that men’s use of porn is excused as “natural” by the same people who would support a woman leaving her husband because he uses it too much.
You can live as the world wishes and be lawful and thought of as a nice person, or you can live as God calls you and experience His freedom. Only one path gives you the hope of eternal life.
According to Loren Marks regarding a 2005 brief of 59 studies cited by the American Psychological Association:
[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.
Marks found that 26 of these 59 studies included no heterosexual comparison groups, that single mothers were often used as the heterosexual comparison group, and that the studies frequently focused on “privileged, homogeneous, and non-representative samples of lesbian mothers”. Based on the currently available data, he concluded that “strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted”.