Gay foster/adoptive parents, or abusive home?

[kedera]

As a foster/adoptive parents (me and my husband) of 2 children who sent many years in foster care. This is a real difficult choice. I can understand that a position is that you a placing a child in continued or more chaos by placing them with a gay couple. But I don’t know if you are placing them in a worse place. Children who are going to be adopted through foster care are not in foster care because their parents committed venial sins. I know the trauma my kids have suffered. For example, I know they would have been better off with homosexual foster parents than the non-deniminational minister’s family whose son raped my daughter but it was ok because the son “was a Prophet.” I know that it would have been better than the mom who would send her children to barter with different guys a trade of sex for drugs. I know it would have been better than the parent who starved her diabetic 4 yr oldson because if his blood sugar was high he wasn’t sick he was just bad. It has to be better to have one continious enviroment than 14 placements in 6 yrs or 12 placements in 5 yrs. But I know a traditional 2 parent family would be the best there are simply not enough families. if everyone who read this would adopt or foster one child than we might be closer to that reality.

Dawn gets it. People really don’t know how much of this goes on until you get all up in it and see first hand, just how bad it’s been for these kids in their biological home and in “the system”. Girls and Boys Town is the only organization of it’s kind that I am aware of that emphasizes, one mom, one dad, family settings in it’s program. But when you just don’t have options…

Dawn, I commend you for being a foster parent. I know how hard it is to see how your kids have been hurt in the past and all that goes with that pain. The healing process can be a very long and difficult one sometimes. There have been so many times I just wanted to breakdown after meeting with children. Then having to deal with so much of the…uncooperation…for lack of a better word, from “the system.” You are right, we need more Christian fosterparents, desperately, and the kids need them too.

 

[Imagine23]

I agree with you that gays should not be discriminated against – but discrimination implies a right. This is not about gay rights, as they have no right to be foster parents or adoptive parents. This IS about what’s best for children. Gay couples will never give a child a parent of each sex. Despite the many efforts to convince society otherwise, the truth is that children need both a female mom and a male dad. That’s the issue, and cries of discrimination and attempts to align this to racial prejudice don’t address this.

You could also argue that it’s best for children to have parents that aren’t idiots. So we should give standardized tests to married couples and if they fail to meet a certain minimum score proceed to steralize them.

 

[gardenswithkids]

You could also argue that it’s best for children to have parents that aren’t idiots. So we should give standardized tests to married couples and if they fail to meet a certain minimum score proceed to steralize them.

This is both rude and off topic. The state has the authority to step in and stop abuse, but the state should not abuse its authority by mutilating the reproductive organs of its citizens.

Also, I note a great deal of religious prejudice from a number of the posters who defend homosexual foster parents. Anti-Catholicism and anti-conservative Christians is another form of intolerance and ignorance. Don’t complain about ignorance and intolerance if you can’t tolerate another point of view besides your own.

 

[East_and_West]

You are loving one another as God loves you. This decision should come from your gut and not a list of rules from someone.

That’s right. All ethical decisions should come from our “Gut” because that is the seat of all human reason. I don’t know why we even waste time thinking things through with our brains. The only problem is that there are alot of other things that come from our gut . Very unpleasant things, if you know what I mean. Interesting that your idea that gay foster parenting and the other thing both come from your gut. Perhaps that’s why I could classify such a silly idea about parenting as a load of …, well you know.

 

[fix]

Great post. I know gay parents and they are some of the best loving parents around.

Let’s end all this irrational prejudice already. Prejudice against gays today is very similar to the prejudice against blacks in the past. Same arguments, different target.

How does one love children when one is living in a way that contradicts the natural law? Does not love mean willing the best for another? Why expose children, intentionally, to such relationships?

There is nothing unjust about discriminating against people who act in a way that harms children.

 

[dwc]

You could also argue that it’s best for children to have parents that aren’t idiots. So we should give standardized tests to married couples and if they fail to meet a certain minimum score proceed to steralize them.

Um … maybe you could try to address the issue? If you can, that is. Or do you just want to concede the point?

 

[Urf]

How does one love children when one is living in a way that contradicts the natural law? Does not love mean willing the best for another? Why expose children, intentionally, to such relationships?

There is nothing unjust about discriminating against people who act in a way that harms children.

Yeah it doesnt harm children though.

 

[emily47017]

How does one love children when one is living in a way that contradicts the natural law? Does not love mean willing the best for another? Why expose children, intentionally, to such relationships?

this confuses me. love is not just the privilege of people walking a perfect christian walk. all of us have love, feel love, and receive love. when i dated women, i loved them and i loved my family. now that i’m chaste, i still love women, but in a different way. i also still love my family – in exactly the same way that i did before. if i had children, i see no reason why my love for them would be any different if my partner was male or female.

gay men and lesbians are simply doing the best they can to live their lives with love. as are we all.

 

[Imagine23]

This is both rude and off topic. The state has the authority to step in and stop abuse, but the state should not abuse its authority by mutilating the reproductive organs of its citizens.

Also, I note a great deal of religious prejudice from a number of the posters who defend homosexual foster parents. Anti-Catholicism and anti-conservative Christians is another form of intolerance and ignorance. Don’t complain about ignorance and intolerance if you can’t tolerate another point of view besides your own.

Right, the state has the authority to step in and stop abuse. What I object to is the desire on the part of some Christians to stereotype and demonize gays and create the myth of abusive homosexuals where there is no basis for doing so.

If being bigoted and prejudiced is a requirement of being a Christian then I would say I am prejudiced against Christians.

 

[kim3260]

While I understand the foster care system is mess to say the least. But ask yourself this, would you place them in a home with a woman who is a known prosituite? (No drugs involved) just men coming by, leaving their money, the children never see the sex act yet they know what goes on in there?
The prositute otherwise is a kind loving woman with the children.
Neither situation is good and healthly for the children. But both are unhealthly situations, as is the abusive home.

 

[AndyF]

kedera:

Sometimes we need to put common sense aside and blindly trust God. This is difficult because we see perceived imminent threats and we act out on dangerous situations. Unknown to us in some cases, the short term situation a child may be in now may be less of a threat than a long term alternative situation.

Here we need to give God the benefit of the doubt, and accept they are a risk. People who are determined to scratch their name off the list of God’s Elect, are unlikely to give any other human that advantage, even children under their care. This factor alone creates a potential hostile situation for the child. They have already proven to be set in their ways by posting notice to God that they will do what they please. How are they to teach children on obeying Supreme Authority when they don’t do it themselves? The food will be on the table, the medicine payed for, the computer available, the key for the car on the table but by placing him in their care will he be taught about sin and it’s consequences? Will they teach the child that while in the state of mortal sin the good they do** is not accredited to them until they repent?** And if the child does learn, will the information that he gives his parents that they will never see heaven be well received by the them? It should be, as it is the truth. Here we come full circle as now we have the kindling for violent confrontation once again.

I would recommed the social worker keep looking, there IS something better and who better to give that assurance than the Father. He gave the restriction so we can trust Him for an alternate arrangement, all we need to do is ask.

I have also heard there are many technical reasons they can’t connect children with the correct parent. Someone mentioned that parents need thousands of dollars to adopt. I’m sure that many homes of average income would be ideal. It would seem that putting a heavy price tag for adoption selects the upper well-to-do families. Not that that is wrong, but it does limit who can adopt and it changes the diversity of family settings the children would normally experience. Having mom take a job because they need to pay off the thousands of dollars defeats the purpose also.

What is the criteria for an ideal family?. I know of one family where difficulties are the norm and could hardly make ends meet. The wife took on another member before the days of red tape adoption. That person was raised by that family and the difficulties were a lesson of life’s experiences and the chances were accepted. I know because it was my family. That person was a cousin who was raised as a brother. No formality. My mother simply told him “Supper in 10 minutes, lights go out at 10 and you better get your homework done before then. You’ll be sleeping in Robert’s room.” He was loved just like my brother and her son and no special treatment was given to us. He stayed with us right through college and got married. Money was found to help with the wedding too.

Your instruction to ignore personal views tells me right away that the system is ready to take chances with prospects at the children’s expense just to unload them. Conscience of the workers being the barrier. It is all about personal views. If a tempered conscience delivers the message that such a thing is wrong, it could have only come from a solid Faith. The conclusion would be a “personal view”. Our Faith is our guide to making good choices. We can conclude that he who made this statement cannot practice a religion and apply it’s benefit to his job. The question then is what good does it do him to practice his faith?

AndyF

 

[kim3260]

You could also argue that it’s best for children to have parents that aren’t idiots. So we should give standardized tests to married couples and if they fail to meet a certain minimum score proceed to steralize them.

I agree that is rude. Sterization is never the answer. In a perfect world every boy and girl would be born to normal loving caring married mom and dad. How about this instead of teaching how to put on a condom or teaching alternative lifestyles in high school teach something about future married life, such as home management, bill paying, childcare and more. Maybe then there wouldn’t be so many unfortunate children, possibly stop it with the next generation. But of course this isn’t policially correct

 

[DAWNCUROLE]

kedera:

I have also heard there are many technical reasons they can’t connect children with the correct parent. Someone mentioned that parents need thousands of dollars to adopt. I’m sure that many homes of average income would be ideal. It would seem that putting a heavy price tag for adoption selects the upper well-to-do families. Not that that is wrong, but it does limit who can adopt and it changes the diversity of family settings the children would normally experience. Having mom take a job because they need to pay off the thousands of dollars defeats the purpose also.

AndyF

Actually, there is no cost to adoptive parents when adopting through the state. But there are not many families out there who are willing to take a less than perfect children, who are in fact already damaged - through no fault of their own. Children who need a lot of unconditonal love and support and who in the end still long to go back to their out of control, abusive birth families. And while in an ideal world a social worker can keep on looking-- in the real world she (or he) only has so long, too few resources and another child right behind them needing to be placed in another perfect home that doesnot exist.

 

[AndyF]

Actually, there is no cost to adoptive parents when adopting through the state. But there are not many families out there who are willing to take a less than perfect children, who are in fact already damaged - through no fault of their own. Children who need a lot of unconditonal love and support and who in the end still long to go back to their out of control, abusive birth families. And while in an ideal world a social worker can keep on looking-- in the real world she (or he) only has so long, too few resources and another child right behind them needing to be placed in another perfect home that doesnot exist.

Yes, that is difficult.

AndyF

 

[gardenswithkids]

Right, the state has the authority to step in and stop abuse. What I object to is the desire on the part of some Christians to stereotype and demonize gays and create the myth of abusive homosexuals where there is no basis for doing so.

Okay, I will explain again the basis for my objection. Quite simply, it takes a man and a woman to make a child because a child needs both a male parent and a female parent–in other words both a mom and a dad.

Many in our society want to say that there is no difference between men and women. If homosexuals really believed that, they would be bi-sexual, not homosexual. Obviously, homosexuals must believe that there *is *a difference between men and women; and they prefer members of their same sex. I agree very much with the idea that there is a difference between men and women. I believe that children need both a father and mother.

So you can see I’m not just picking on homosexuals, I also think heterosexual single foster parents are less than ideal too. This thread didn’t ask about single foster parents, but I’ll share my thoughts. In those cases, the single heterosexual generally relates to members of their same sex as normal friends, rather than having sexual tension invade their same-sex friendship. (Emily wrote earlier that since being chaste, she loves women in a different way–perhaps that’s what I’m writing about.) Single heterosexuals also usually relate to members of the opposite sex in the normal way. The single heterosexual foster parent is not ideal, but there aren’t as many problems if the person otherwise passes a reasonable screening to become a foster parent.​

The need for both father and mother is the primary basis for my objection. I have other reasons as well, which you probably won’t agree with either. I believe sodomy is an abusive sexual act. Morality aside, the sexual practices of active homosexuals are often physically harmful to themselves and their partners. Sodomy frequently harms the gastro-intestinal tract of those who practice it. Setting aside the issue of homosexuality per se, people who engage in risky behaviors don’t make good candidates for foster parents.

 

[Polaris]

Okay, I will explain again the basis for my objection. Quite simply, it takes a man and a woman to make a child because a child needs both a male parent and a female parent–in other words both a mom and a dad.

Many in our society want to say that there is no difference between men and women. If homosexuals really believed that, they would be bi-sexual, not homosexual. Obviously, homosexuals must believe that there *is *a difference between men and women; and they prefer members of their same sex. I agree very much with the idea that there is a difference between men and women. I believe that children need both a father and mother.

So you can see I’m not just picking on homosexuals, I also think heterosexual single foster parents are less than ideal too. This thread didn’t ask about single foster parents, but I’ll share my thoughts. In those cases, the single heterosexual generally relates to members of their same sex as normal friends, rather than having sexual tension invade their same-sex friendship. (Emily wrote earlier that since being chaste, she loves women in a different way–perhaps that’s what I’m writing about.) Single heterosexuals also usually relate to members of the opposite sex in the normal way. The single heterosexual foster parent is not ideal, but there aren’t as many problems if the person otherwise passes a reasonable screening to become a foster parent.​

The need for both father and mother is the primary basis for my objection. I have other reasons as well, which you probably won’t agree with either. I believe sodomy is an abusive sexual act. Morality aside, the sexual practices of active homosexuals are often physically harmful to themselves and their partners. Sodomy frequently harms the gastro-intestinal tract of those who practice it. Setting aside the issue of homosexuality per se, people who engage in risky behaviors don’t make good candidates for foster parents.

I have no problem with your objections. I just want to say that the last objection I would stay away from, Heterosexual sex can be argued to be damaging and abusive to to woman there is tearing, bruising, and incresed chance of infections (yet there are benefits to but that usually only comes with pregnancy.) Many woman still find it uncomfortable and even painful and only do it out of love for there husband and much more of the time just to have children. The system is not exact designed well err or should I say it has a lot of errors since the fall. Sex anyway you look at it can be considered abusive. Stick to the family idea that works better.

 

[dwc]

Heterosexual sex can be argued to be damaging and abusive to to woman there is tearing, bruising, and incresed chance of infections (yet there are benefits to but that usually only comes with pregnancy.) Many woman still find it uncomfortable and even painful and only do it out of love for there husband and much more of the time just to have children.

This extremely negative view of sex is not the norm. If a woman is experiencing tearing and bruising from sex, she either has a medical problem, her husband is waaay too rough., or maybe she needs supplemental lubrication. Heterosexual sex is designed to be pleasurable for women (ie, the clitoris, whose only function is to give extreme pleasure). To be blunt, the parts are meant to fit together without damaging either partner.

A woman shouldn’t endure painful sex – it’s not normal. She should see her doctor or insist her husband be more gentle and her husband would want to give her pleasure, not pain. Intercourse should not cause increased chance of infections --not with proper hygiene and post coital urination, in a healthy woman.

 

[Urf]

Care to explain how prostitution relates in any way to 2 people in a long term relationship?

 

[kim3260]

Care to explain how prostitution relates in any way to 2 people in a long term relationship?

I guess you mean my post, I was using the example of a loving person(s) may truly care for the child but their deviant sexual behaviors are not healthly for a child. I really don’t care to be politically correct here, Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior just like the prositute.
It does not matter if it’s a long term relationship or not. IMHO it has gotten to the point of ridiculous that we have to allow these people the space to do whatever they want to do and keep our mouths shut. In the long run we do more harm to the child.

 

[mlchance]

Once again the best defense people can come up for allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is that doing so is better than leaving the children in an abusive home. Set the bar low enough and anyone can step over it.

– Mark L. Chance.