Conservatives Demand Kids of Gays be Expelled

[Island_Oak]

Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children
,

How about considering a move out of your comfort zone and the theoretical world and slipping into reality. Consider for just a moment whether a child who spends 16 years in 12 different foster care placements, some laden with physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect might feel he had suffered “violence” to his person and his spirit and would gladly give it all up for a loving, consistent, peaceful home EVEN IF it is run by two imperfect and homosexual partners. The choices for kids in foster care aren’t between ‘Father Knows Best’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’-type families. Some of these these kids are in dire straights and are literally rescued by people willing to take on the many challenges to raising them. Would it be preferable on any number of levels to have a mommy and daddy raise them? Hands down, yes!!! But those aren’t always one of the options they have.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

How about considering a move out of your comfort zone and the theoretical world and slipping into reality. Consider for just a moment whether a child who spends 16 years in 12 different foster care placements, some laden with physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect might feel he had suffered “violence” to his person and his spirit and would gladly give it all up for a loving, consistent, peaceful home EVEN IF it is run by two imperfect and homosexual partners. The choices for kids in foster care aren’t between ‘Father Knows Best’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’-type families. Some of these these kids are in dire straights and are literally rescued by people willing to take on the many challenges to raising them. Would it be preferable on any number of levels to have a mommy and daddy raise them? Hands down, yes!!! But those aren’t always one of the options they have.

I disagree. Morality is not theory. You present a Hobson’s choice. We need not choose bewteen a cruel system and two same sex people living a disordered life.

The trauma that a child would go through being raised by those in the “gay” lifestyle is cruel and abusivve. In no way could I condone it.

 

[Lisa_N]

I don’t think a parent making a decision that his or her children should not visit at a home where there are different standards is “ostracizing” the child. I certainly hope that the child will not be treated differently while at school but beyond those borders, it’s up to the parents to check their child’s playmates’ situation. Heck I remember as a kid that DIVORCED parents were quite suspect. My sister’s best friend was a child of divorce and she was not allowed to visit the home with the non-custodial father. Further another friend whose mother had a series of ‘shack up honeys’ was also put on the banned list. The child could come to OUR house but my mother didn’t want my sister seeing a new guy at the breakfast table on Saturday morning. So my sister didn’t visit their home.

As to using the most EXTREME cases to justify gay adoptions (the child would have been aborted, the child is medically needy and no one wanted him) that’s not a very credible argument for making gay adoptions mainstream. Quite honestly the “trophy child” was the subject of a well known gay who wrote that he’d done all the other gay things so it was time to do the ‘gay daddy’ thing. It happens. Further, a wealthy, influential person can push an adoption through even though a homosexual while a heterosexual couple without all of the traction gets the run around.

Lisa N

 

[Island_Oak]

StJeanneDArc:

I have to object to your characterization of the foster system. The foster parents I know are loving, generous, married couples who open their lives to total scrutiny by state agencies and their homes to these special needs children. Let’s not forget that the reason many children languish so long in the foster care system is because the bio-parent(s) refuse to release the children for adoption.

There are all sorts of things that will disqualify a person from eligibility to adopt. It’s just a terrible tragedy that a sexual disorder is not one of them.

As a formerly practicing attorney who has logged a modest amount of time doing pro bono guardian ad litem work I could trump every good story you could dig up with a dozen nighmares. The foster care system is broken in so many ways it is terribly discouraging.

I KNOW there are many wonderful people who do get involved and make a positive difference in the lives of children. However, they are outnumbered. It is also not uncommon for a stable family to return foster children when they disrupt the home or in some way negatively impact natural born children of the foster parents. And yes…some of the problems stem from a system which fails to sever parental rights and protect children when there clearly is disfunction/addiction/abuse.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

We need not choose bewteen a cruel system and two same sex people living a disordered life…

Please list for me the many other options available to the types of children I described in my earlier post.

 

[Island_Oak]

Lisa N:

As to using the most EXTREME cases to justify gay adoptions (the child would have been aborted, the child is medically needy and no one wanted him) that’s not a very credible argument for making gay adoptions mainstream. Quite honestly the “trophy child” was the subject of a well known gay who wrote that he’d done all the other gay things so it was time to do the ‘gay daddy’ thing. It happens. Further, a wealthy, influential person can push an adoption through even though a homosexual while a heterosexual couple without all of the traction gets the run around.

Lisa N

As far as my posts…I would never argue that gay adoption should be promoted or go mainstream. I do have a strong reaction when a couple takes on a particularly difficult case in complete charity and then is lambasted for it. The practice among the wealthy-trendy-celebrity types to get inseminated or use a surrogate to become parents while in the midst of the gay lifestyle is abhorent to me. However, with respect to kids already here and discarded by society, I think the compassion they receive from a segment of society that is also marginalized can be affirming, not violent, to both sides of the equasion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[katherine2]

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children…

as does poverty.

besides,if you are aborted, you have no rights once you’re dead.

 

[Lisa_N]

Island Oak:

Please list for me the many other options available to the types of children I described in my earlier post.

Not Fix but a collegue and I were discussing the MANY horrible cases of abused children, both in their own homes and through the foster care situation. We have a terrible case where a foster child was apparently starved and beaten, three girls sodomized by a ‘temporary’ foster father (not carefully screened apparently), a little boy beaten to death by bio-dad who was not married to the mother. Do I think a stable, sane, kind homosexual pair is better than a drug addicted pedophile? Well sure. OTOH the more normalized homosexual pairings become, the more likely that homosexual parents will not be treated as the “better than nothing” option but will be treated like any other couple with respect to adoptions. That is why I think they should be held to a different standard simply because of their abnormal lifestyle.

As to an alternative, frankly I wonder if a professionally operated group home is a better alternative, particularly for temporary care of an abused child. Clearly neither natural or foster parents are screened, educated and trained to deal with children in all cases. However group homes could be more carefully monitored than say many individual foster homes. Apparently the starved child had a social worker who claimed to have visited the required number of times.

Ironic you must pass a test to drive a car but not to have a child.

Lisa N

 

[TarAshly]

Lisa N:

Not Fix but a collegue and I were discussing the MANY horrible cases of abused children, both in their own homes and through the foster care situation. We have a terrible case where a foster child was apparently starved and beaten, three girls sodomized by a ‘temporary’ foster father (not carefully screened apparently), a little boy beaten to death by bio-dad who was not married to the mother. Do I think a stable, sane, kind homosexual pair is better than a drug addicted pedophile? Well sure. OTOH the more normalized homosexual pairings become, the more likely that homosexual parents will not be treated as the “better than nothing” option but will be treated like any other couple with respect to adoptions. That is why I think they should be held to a different standard simply because of their abnormal lifestyle.

As to an alternative, frankly I wonder if a professionally operated group home is a better alternative, particularly for temporary care of an abused child. Clearly neither natural or foster parents are screened, educated and trained to deal with children in all cases. However group homes could be more carefully monitored than say many individual foster homes. Apparently the starved child had a social worker who claimed to have visited the required number of times.

Ironic you must pass a test to drive a car but not to have a child.

Lisa N

check out the movie white oleander, read the series a child called it. then tell me whats the better alternative. loving homes or foster/group care. the sad thing is that group homes CANNOT be monitored like this. due to lack of funding lack of training lack of experiance and education. the fact is adoption from thouroughly screened parents is better than the children being left in a group home. why do they have to be held at a better than nothing standard anyway. why cant they be held as normal loving parents. im not sure i agree with homosexuality being a sexual disorder, rather than a chemical imbalance, a hormonal switch a chromosome misplaced who knows, but just because they are gay does not make them perverted and undeserving.

 

[Jay74]

Lisa N:

Ironic you must pass a test to drive a car but not to have a child.

I once argued that they should make one have a license to have kids, and the requiremnts to get a license are age, marriage, suitable home, adequate income, etc. If they would do this, then in about 20 years they could stop building prisons.

Of course, people would scream a violation of the “rights.” Everyone seems to want rights, no one seems to want responsibility.

Blessings to all.

 

[Island_Oak]

Jay74:

Everyone seems to want rights, no one seems to want responsibility.

Blessings to all.

The root cause of every last one of the problems listed in this thread. And of course, to tip my hat to fix, (who I don’t really disagree with as much as it might seem) the failure to be responsible comes in no small part from disordered thinking caused by moral recklessness and relativism.

 

[Lance]

Why were the radicals who want to throw the kids out identified as conservatives while the gay parents were not called liberals? The parents who want to toss the kids are radicals not consevatives, just as gay couples who adopt are radicals not liberals. When you go over the edge on either side you cease to be liberal or conservative and become a radical.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

TarAshly:

check out the movie white oleander, read the series a child called it. then tell me whats the better alternative. loving homes or foster/group care. the sad thing is that group homes CANNOT be monitored like this. due to lack of funding lack of training lack of experiance and education. the fact is adoption from thouroughly screened parents is better than the children being left in a group home. why do they have to be held at a better than nothing standard anyway. why cant they be held as normal loving parents. im not sure i agree with homosexuality being a sexual disorder, rather than a chemical imbalance, a hormonal switch a chromosome misplaced who knows, but just because they are gay does not make them perverted and undeserving.

I think the highlighted comments illustrate the flaw in your argument. You don’t adopt children out to parents because the parent(s) are deserving. You do it because it’s the best environment for the children. What’s the whole point of the screening process, anyway, if not for this? It doesn’t matter what causes SSAD, it is a disorder. You wouldn’t say the same thing about placing a child in the home of drug addicts, would you? Oh, it’s just a chemical imbalance that causes that man to shoot up heroin. Not his fault…he deserves a child.

 

[Jay74]

I’d like to offer a “thank you” to katherine2 for starting this thread. It has been a very interesting discussion.

As I said before, though we all can disagree, and often do passionately, I’m confident that we all have noble motives. None of us wish harm, and all of us want to better society. Therefore, it is good that we have intelletual and passionate dialogue about important issues such as this.

Thanks again, everyone.

 

[Pug]

Nicole:

PS: I am on a huge adoption list where people with illnesses and disabilities adopt all the time, so I fear you have been misinformed. As for the money, ime, people of all income ranges can adopt. Again, that is just my experience and apparently irrelevant to anyone else.

Since we are talking about the case of not allowing homosexual parents to adopt, could someone please supply a real list of reasons parents are currently excluded from adopting? Nicole mentions that some people with illnesses can adopt, but I’m sure some illnesses will disqualify.

I mean, what do they ask the hopeful parent candidates? Their income, obviously, but what else??? Is someone who has committed a felony excluded, even if it was 20 years ago, for example?

 

[katherine2]

Jay74:

I’d like to offer a “thank you” to katherine2 for starting this thread. It has been a very interesting discussion.

As I said before, though we all can disagree, and often do passionately, I’m confident that we all have noble motives. None of us wish harm, and all of us want to better society. Therefore, it is good that we have intelletual and passionate dialogue about important issues such as this.

Thanks again, everyone.

God bless you Jay. And I am pleased to find a number of my conservative friends disagreeing with the group of parents at this school. It is a reminder to me to be careful when using terms like conservative and liberal.

 

[Lisa_N]

TarAshly:

check out the movie white oleander, read the series a child called it. then tell me whats the better alternative. loving homes or foster/group care. .

a) Read White Oleander and it is fiction although a good read

b) Read a Child Called It. Interesting as well. And your point would be?

c) OF COURSE A LOVING PERMANENT HOME IS THE BEST CHOICE! Good grief did I suggest otherwise? No. However the reality is that there are not enough adoptive parents for the hard to place cases. Nor are there enough foster homes for such children. While many foster parents are wonderful, dedicated folks there are also people who are in it for the money. The recent case had eight children living in a doublewide trailer and being “home schooled” so they were not out in public much and thus the starved and abused child was not noticed.

TarAshly:

the sad thing is that group homes CANNOT be monitored like this. due to lack of funding lack of training lack of experiance and education…

You are dead wrong. It is much easier to monitor a group of children in a professional operated residential facility than for an overworked social worker to monitor the same number of children scattered in a variety of foster homes.

There are many group homes for different issues. My sister is a nurse in a group home for folks who are totally incapacitated. It is VERY closely monitored by the state and she is one of the monitors. A friend has an adopted child with a severe mental illness. He also lives in a group home. Again totally monitored and well run.

The point is that the professionals ARE professionally trained and monitored, unlike sadly some bio parents and some foster parents. It is frankly a safer alternative than the poorly screened foster homes that regularly make our front pages.

Also as I said this was not the first choice, which is always a loving permanent home with two parents of opposite sex. Unfortunately the ideal isn’t always available.

TarAshly:

the fact is adoption from thouroughly screened parents is better than the children being left in a group home. why do they have to be held at a better than nothing standard anyway. why cant they be held as normal loving parents. im not sure i agree with homosexuality being a sexual disorder, rather than a chemical imbalance, a hormonal switch a chromosome misplaced who knows, but just because they are gay does not make them perverted and undeserving.

Until there is sufficient proof that homosexuality is a “chemical” imbalance and until homosexuals attempt to obtain treatment for this “chemical” imbalance, I still maintain that their lifestyle and their sexual activity is abnormal and not a good model for children. There are numerous studies that indicate not only are homosexual relationships much less stable, even “stable” relationships are often subject to promiscuity. Homosexuals also have a higher incidence of substance abuse, depression, and suicide. Doesn’t sound like the ideal parent to me.

Further there are many many many studies that indicate the lack of one parent makes a HUGE difference in a child’s development. Fatherless children are far more likely to be part of the juvenile justice system (something like 80%!) A child who grows up without a mother is also at risk.

Are there wonderful single parents? Yes. But why set up the situation if it’s not necessary?

Lisa N

 

[TarAshly]

StJeanneDArc:

I think the highlighted comments illustrate the flaw in your argument. You don’t adopt children out to parents because the parent(s) are deserving. You do it because it’s the best environment for the children. What’s the whole point of the screening process, anyway, if not for this? It doesn’t matter what causes SSAD, it is a disorder. You wouldn’t say the same thing about placing a child in the home of drug addicts, would you? Oh, it’s just a chemical imbalance that causes that man to shoot up heroin. Not his fault…he deserves a child.

How can you compare homosexuality to drug addiction???!!! the two are seperate issues. this is what im saying when i refer to the churches extreme point of view on homosexuality. like i said i think even God would be disappointed with the way the church views and treats homosexuals.

 

[Lisa_N]

TarAshly:

How can you compare homosexuality to drug addiction???!!! the two are seperate issues. this is what im saying when i refer to the churches extreme point of view on homosexuality. like i said i think even God would be disappointed with the way the church views and treats homosexuals.

Well now you are speaking for God?

Sorry but I totally agree with StJeanne on the homosexual/drug addict analogy. There are very strong similarities. Both are abnormalities that manifest themselves in very self destructive, unhealthy behavior. Both are hard to cure. Both are thought to have both a genetic and environmental basis.

Why are you disappointed with the way the church treats homosexuals? From everything I’ve seen, they are treated very kindly and compassionately–without having their abnormal behavior being affirmed as anything but what it is, abnormal behavior. Some dare call it a sin but in the interest of a dispassionate conversation, I’ll stick to the secular point of view.

Lisa N

 

[TarAshly]

you wanna know why there is a higher rate of depression and suicide and substance abuse amoung the gay community??? because they are ostricized, beaten, murdered, victimized and outcast by an unwanting unwelcoming and unfriendly society. i thank God every day that i belong to a beautiful church like the one here where openmindedness, love and acceptance are the goal rather than cold hearted calousness by people that berate and abuse people of different lifestyles. are not a minority of priests homosexuals? and becoming a priest is their way of dealing with it? to love and serve God and remain celebate? most people adore their priests,but once its made public that that priest is gay they are out cast and hated. i think its time for Catholics in general to open their eyes otherwise we will have a salem witch trial all over again. i am a proud strong faithful Catholic and a CCE teacher. i dont teach my children to hate i teach them that our mission is to love as God has loved. i dont think God would punish berate and abuse homosexuals as some do, in the public, in the media and on the internet! also the series a child called it is a perfect point of how foster system can go HORRIBLY wrong. thats my point!