Children adopted by same-sex couples - More prone to suicide

Children adopted by same-sex couples suffer “diverse trauma and behavioral disorders,” psychologist’s study reveals

Full article...

“According to various studies containing testimonies from children of homosexual parents, most them of admit to suffering strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension, shame and anger in trying to hide from their friends and relatives the homosexuality of their father or mother.”

This isn’t some inherent thing about homosexuality - it is societal acceptance or lack of, that makes these children depressed/suicidal. However, despite not being anti-gay, I don’t know how I feel about gay couples adopting. I don’t think society is ready for it, at any rate.

[quote="Lethe, post:2, topic:188243"]
“According to various studies containing testimonies from children of homosexual parents, most them of admit to suffering strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension, shame and anger in trying to hide from their friends and relatives the homosexuality of their father or mother.”

This isn't some inherent thing about homosexuality - it is societal acceptance or lack of, that makes these children depressed/suicidal. However, despite not being anti-gay, I don't know how I feel about gay couples adopting. I don't think society is ready for it, at any rate.

[/quote]

Nonsense...

how many Gay parents do you know personally? And please don't cite some obscure study...how many gay parents have you had direct contact with?

I know several and they are all outstanding parents. And who were the original "parents" of these children?

Irresponsible HETEREOSEXUAL parents who couldn't take the challenge of parenting their own children.

The pre- requisite for a couple to be "parents" is not sexual orientation but the ability to provide unconditional love for a child.

Both have good point, but I know plenty of normal SSCs who have normal kids. I even dated a girl who had 2 moms, my son is friends with someone from a SSM.

I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. I have nothing against gay people, and probably not about them being parents. But I do understand there’s going to be more of a chance of bullying etc if the parents are homosexual. Does this mean they shouldn’t adopt? Probably not.

[quote="Boddhissatva, post:3, topic:188243"]
Nonsense...

how many Gay parents do you know personally? And please don't cite some obscure study...how many gay parents have you had direct contact with?

I know several and they are all outstanding parents. And who were the original "parents" of these children?

[/quote]

Umm, that doesn't debunk the study in the least. (What is the old saying? The plural of anecdote is not data?)

Some obscure study is going to give a broader picture than one person's subjective view of their own experiences.

[quote="CDNowak, post:6, topic:188243"]
Umm, that doesn't debunk the study in the least. (What is the old saying? The plural of anecdote is not data?)

Some obscure study is going to give a broader picture than one person's subjective view of their own experiences.

[/quote]

LOL! Okay...I can play this game...

WOuld you like me to dig up some obscure studies that implicate overbearing religious parents and how it correlates to teenage drug use, suicide rates, and promiscuous sex?

That would be actual evidence, so that would be better.

However, as tu quoque is a logical fallacy, it would be ultimately unrelated to the original article, and the study stands unchallenged.

Find me a study that says that being raised by homosexuals has no significant impact or is beneficial, and we would have a starting point.

[quote="CDNowak, post:8, topic:188243"]
That would be actual evidence, so that would be better.

However, as tu quoque is a logical fallacy, it would be ultimately unrelated to the original article, and the study stands unchallenged.

Find me a study that says that being raised by homosexuals has no significant impact or is beneficial, and we would have a starting point.

[/quote]

The fact is that obese parents have a direct impact on their children being obese. So should we use that to bar adoption?
The author is certainly biased, objectivity is the only way to Truth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Alan_Rekers

[quote="Jermosh, post:9, topic:188243"]
The fact is that obese parents have a direct impact on their children being obese. So should we use that to bar adoption?

[/quote]

It is arguable.

However, that same logic may give the reason why Reker's results are correct: individuals who identify as homosexual have more mental disorders, particularly depressive disorders.
If depressed parents have an effect on the development of mood orders in their children, then perhaps that is why there is a higher rate of mental issues among children raised by homosexual couples.

1st as again Rekers is certainly bias, the man is on anti-Gay groups and commitees. Anything he produces must be looked at objectivly.
2nd, yes Gay Men do tend to have depression, and if you looked at the history and typlical modern day life of Gay men, it would make sense. This of course does not mean that a broad stroke should be applied, should not each individual be looked at on a case by case basis.

[quote="CDNowak, post:8, topic:188243"]
That would be actual evidence, so that would be better.

However, as tu quoque is a logical fallacy, it would be ultimately unrelated to the original article, and the study stands unchallenged.

Find me a study that says that being raised by homosexuals has no significant impact or is beneficial, and we would have a starting point.

[/quote]

I like the way you think.
Isn't it ironic, that in this age of universal education, so few here possess the same tools of coherent argument that you have just demonstrated.

[quote="Darryl1958, post:12, topic:188243"]
I like the way you think.
Isn't it ironic, that in this age of universal education, so few here possess the same tools of coherent argument that you have just demonstrated.

[/quote]

I have an unfair advantage..... I was homeschooled!:thumbsup:

The study was performed by a obvious anti-Gay biased person. This would be akin to a PP executive putting together a study on child adoption or the grave dangers of abstinence. A coherent argument always sides on objectivity, there is reason why Rogerian method is most popular in scholarly arguments or debates.

The natural law written in the heart of a child desires chastity, a father and mother as husband and wife, and many other fundamental moral goods.

To have these all removed and replaced with an abomination to the Lord is naturally going to cause the child to feel great shame and become mentally ill as the child grows to realize the nature of the 'parents' as 'guardians' over that child.

Such common things as divorce cause children problems, and to desire to have a father and mother.. but this?

What a terrible curse upon any child to grow up in. It's child abuse.

[quote="Jermosh, post:11, topic:188243"]
1st as again Rekers is certainly bias, the man is on anti-Gay groups and commitees. Anything he produces must be looked at objectivly....

[/quote]

This is *hugely *problematic.

First of all, we know that homosexual attraction is disordered. And we know that homosexual activity is a heinous sin.

And we know that there are practicing homosexuals out there with the goal of getting society to see homosexual activity as "normal."

So to say that a man who works with and/or belongs to groups which are fighting against the attempts of homosexuals to get society to see homosexual activity as anything other than a cross to be borne is somehow "biased" is absurd, unless you would also say that people who work against domestic violence are biased against domestic abusers and should therefore not be listened to.

[quote="Jermosh, post:14, topic:188243"]
The study was performed by a obvious anti-Gay biased person. This would be akin to a PP executive putting together a study on child adoption or the grave dangers of abstinence. A coherent argument always sides on objectivity, there is reason why Rogerian method is most popular in scholarly arguments or debates.

[/quote]

1) The personal views of the man are not necessarily reflected in the research, it depends on how rigorous his methodology was. (This is an example of argumentum ad hominem)

2) If someone wants to disprove Reker's study, I laid the basic groundwork: find a similar study with a different conclusion. Then you can argue for yours on account of bias (or not depending on whether that study came from a biased source).

3) The purpose of a study, such as the one we are discussing is to see whether generalizations hold true, or to discover previously unnoticed trends.


Apart from the study and the world of empirical research, we can look into natural law and the proper ends of the differentiation of the sexes.

Even from a stripped down, godless perspective, homosexuality becomes an aberration because it is infertile, it is incapable of aiding the survival of the species or of the genetic code of the individual. It is an evolutionary dead end.

From looking at the link in the OP and examining the publications at Rekers website, it is not at all clear to me whether he studied children adopted by same-sex couples at all. So far as I can tell, his work amounts to a couple of syllogisms:
First,
1. Homosexual couples split up more frequently than heterosexual couples,
2. Splitting up makes children more likely to develop psychological problems,
3. Therefore, children placed in the care of homosexual couples are more likely to develop psychological problems.
Second,
4. Men who sleep with men are bad parents,
5. Children with bad parents are more likely to develop psychological problems,
6. Therefore, children of men who sleep with men are more likely etc.

To the first argument, Rekers is able to substantiate 1 and 2, but the hitch is that it's not obvious that homosexual couples who adopt children break up as much as those who don't.

To the second, the evidence Rekers presents for 4 (again, so far as I can tell) amounts to a string of anecdotes about children who were born from and grew up in mixed-orientation marriages (e.g., the father was a closet case who married a women to "prove" that he was straight). Obviously, such anecdotes do not amount to science, and have nothing whatever to tell us about gay adoption.

There is frankly no substitute for studying the children who were adopted into same-sex households, and it's really too early for there to be any such studies. If someone can actually find one, I would be very much interested.

[quote="Lethe, post:2, topic:188243"]
However, despite not being anti-gay, I don't know how I feel about gay couples adopting. I don't think society is ready for it, at any rate.

[/quote]

Lethe, two couples with daughters in my son's eighth grade class adopted the girls from the same orphanage in China. One is a same-sex couple; the other is a different-sex couple. Both couples make superb parents, and their daughters are delightfully well-balanced young ladies.

Here is one of his studies, or rather a review of studies (so any bias in the numbers is not his).

I’m still working through it but the arguments I see are:

General Premises

  1. Children entering adoption process are more vulnerable to psychological problems.
  2. Children raised by one or more persons with a psychological problem are more vulnerable to psychological problems.
  3. The effects of 1) and 2) do compound.
  4. Children raised by homosexuals are more likely to homosexual.

Arguments
A) Homosexuals are more likely to have psychological problems
Adoptive children (already prone to psychological issues) raised in the presence of psychological issues are more likely to have psychological issues.
Therefore: Adoptive children raised by homosexuals are more likely to have psychological problems.

B) Children adopted by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals.
Homosexuals are more likely to have psychological problems.
Therefore: Children adopted by homosexuals are more likely to have psychological problems.

Besides those arguments he raises the issue of health of the parents (MSM is considered a high risk group for sexually transmitted diseases, particularly AIDS, WSW is also considered a higher risk for such diseases, though to a lesser extent), the stress of societal disapproval, and hebephilia (ephebophillia).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.