Which is better: kids growing up in a foster home or kids growing up with gay parents?

[commoncents]

The title says it all. Many people on these boards want gay adoption to be banned. If gay adoption is banned the kids that were going to be adopted by gay couples would just stay in foster care instead. This is a fact. So what is better for a kid? A gay couple raising them or for them to grow up in a group home with no real loving parents?

The question is quite simple and since there are a surplus of foster kids there is no way to argue against this: banning gay adoption means more kids growing up group homes.

 

[Corki]

This is first of all an apples to organges comparison. Most kids who are in long-term foster care aren’t eligible for adoption by homosexual **or **traditional families.

But given the two choices, one foster home or one household headed by partners fo the same sex in an openly homosexual relationship, most children would be better off in the foster home. Most foster parents are loving people who sacrifice much for the children in their care. Most do so while modeling a strong family with a mother and a father to the children they care for.

 

[Hastrman]

The question is quite simple and since there are a surplus of foster kids there is no way to argue against this: banning gay adoption means more kids growing up group homes.

Or, y’ know, we could have more straight couples be willing to adopt kids, rather than insisting on what Psycho Mantis called “the selfish, atavistic desire to pass on one’s genes.”

Way to go, modern world: prove the cartoonish Metal Gear Solid villain right.

 

[Holly3278]

A child would be better growing up in a foster home than in a home with gay “parents”. Foster parents are capable of showing and teaching the child good morals, gay “parents” aren’t simply because they are living in a state of grave sin.

 

[Rascalking]

As a former foster child, I strongly belive that a child is better off with two stable parents than being bounced around. Thankfully, I was never bounced around from home to home-but I know of many children who were.

Having said that the list to adopt is very long. Can’t you put the child in a male/female home isntead? If you can’t do that, then by all means put them in one with a homosexual couple.

 

[Corki]

As a former foster child, I strongly belive that a child is better off with two stable parents than being bounced around. Thankfully, I was never bounced around from home to home-but I know of many children who were.

Thus my apples to oranges point. The OP didn’t say a string of foster homes but rather one foster home vs. one adoptive home headed by a homosexual couple.

I know the statistics will differ from place to place but most of the children who are bounced around in my area are those that aren’t adoptable, usually because the birth parents have not fully religuished (or been ordered to relinguish) their parental rights or because the child needs social services that would be cut off if he/she was adopted.

 

[smichhertz]

The problem with this kind of question is that it gives a very blanket assumption that it is the same for every situation.

Based on what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us so far, I think this is all you can honestly say: Because homosexual “sex” is a GRAVE evil and because there is nothing inherently sinful in a foster home, it is better for a child to be raised in a foster home, holding everything else constant.

Those last four words of that statement say a lot. That means that if you were to take any one child, and ALL factors would be EXACTLY the same between the two houses EXCEPT that one is a foster home and the other a gay couple, I would say that the foster home would be better.

But that’s completely theoretical and there are so many “what if” scenarios that it’s impossible to say that in any given situation which one is better than the other without knowing specific details. If you came across this situation in real life, get all the details and make the best judgment you can. Hopefully, you can find a better alternative for the child than either of those scenarios.

 

[vz71]

Well, the foster parents have an opportunity to show how one should be living.

The openly homosexual ‘parents’ immedietaly start off with the worst possible example.

So they are better off with the foster home.

 

[commoncents]

Thus my apples to oranges point. The OP didn’t say a string of foster homes but rather one foster home vs. one adoptive home headed by a homosexual couple.

I know the statistics will differ from place to place but most of the children who are bounced around in my area are those that aren’t adoptable, usually because the birth parents have not fully religuished (or been ordered to relinguish) their parental rights or because the child needs social services that would be cut off if he/she was adopted.

This was an error on my part. The thread should read group home instead of foster home.

 

[Rascalking]

This was an error on my part. The thread should read group home instead of foster home.

Or change it this way, “Heterosexual parents who beat the stuffing out of them on a daily basis never feed them, constantally extinguish cigarettes out on them and insult them all the time…or two gay parents.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ I see. So, by definition (by category) heterosexual parents are more likely, simply by virtue of being heterosexual to

beat the stuffing out of them on a daily basis never feed them, constantally extinguish cigarettes out on them and insult them all the time.

Whereas, gay “parents” are universally virtuous, never lose their tempers, and perhaps all of them, en masse, should be canonized while still alive.

Do some of you actually listen to the way you “debate” others?

And thank you for the character defamation of heterosexual parents.

 

[Rascalking]

^ I see. So, by definition (by category) heterosexual parents are more likely, simply by virtue of being heterosexual to

Whereas, gay “parents” are universally virtuous, never lose their tempers, and perhaps all of them, en masse, should be canonized while still alive.

Do some of you actually listen to the way you “debate” others?

And thank you for the character defamation of heterosexual parents.

How in the world did you get that from my post? Did you even read it? Did you notice the smiley face? I was tying to be sarcastic/proove a point. Wow! That was over the top.

I think everything possible should be done to put the child in a heterosexual family. But, if that doesn’t work, then do so in a homosexual couple home.

I don’t think homosexual parents are better at all, but it shows alot about you for thinking I do. Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions so much.

I’m sorry, your post was way out of line.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The supposed sarcasm in your previous post was not at all evident to me, and I’m hardly impaired in the area of reading. There was a winky face. A winky icon does not necessarily translate to sarcasm. In fact, as it’s been used on CAF over & over, it’s most often been used to say (especially on the homosexuality threads) to connote that straights are impared parents whereas gays have superior parenting abilities. Which is of course, sheer nonsense but a very public and popular myth propagated on and off CAF.

So no, my response was not over the top because it was very unclear to me that you did not mean what you said literally.

 

[Rascalking]

The supposed sarcasm in your previous post was not at all evident to me, and I’m hardly impaired in the area of reading. There was a winky face. A winky icon does not necessarily translate to sarcasm. In fact, as it’s been used on CAF over & over, it’s most often been used to say (especially on the homosexuality threads) to connote that straights are impared parents whereas gays have superior parenting abilities. Which is of course, sheer nonsense but a very public and popular myth propagated on and off CAF.

So no, my response was not over the top because it was very unclear to me that you did not mean what you said literally.

It actually was over the top. You comment on how I “debate” while you jump to the conclusion on how I think. Again, shows alot of class.

A simple apology would have been sufficient, but thanks just the same. Good day.

 

[kozlosap]

Loving parents whether they are straight, gay, Klingons or Romulans are better for children than being bounced from foster home to foster home to group home to the next institution. As a high school teacher, I see (with much sadness) what happens to kids who are treated like a bouncing ball. Let me see, would I rather see a child in the “system” or raised by my nephew and his partner who are both well respected physicians…Yep, that’s a hard one.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t think gay people should be parents since they have already declared themselves non-breeders. Why do they want to have their cake and eat it too?

Children need to have thier own parents, and I think it’s much better to work with the real parents to learn how to parent, than to throw these kids into foster homes or adopted by gay people. Actually, I think a well-run orphanage would be better than the foster care system, because the children do get shuttled around a lot, and even in the best of care, they are not really part of the family, just part of a system.

But gay parenting is an oxymoron in my opinion.

 

[estesbob]

The title says it all. Many people on these boards want gay adoption to be banned. If gay adoption is banned the kids that were going to be adopted by gay couples would just stay in foster care instead. This is a fact. So what is better for a kid? A gay couple raising them or for them to grow up in a group home with no real loving parents?

The question is quite simple and since there are a surplus of foster kids there is no way to argue against this: banning gay adoption means more kids growing up group homes.

Neither is desirable but children should not be placed into a charade where people living in grevious sin play house together.

 

[estesbob]

^ I see. So, by definition (by category) heterosexual parents are more likely, simply by virtue of being heterosexual to

Whereas, gay “parents” are universally virtuous, never lose their tempers, and perhaps all of them, en masse, should be canonized while still alive.

Do some of you actually listen to the way you “debate” others?

And thank you for the character defamation of heterosexual parents.

This appears to be standard in threads on homosexuality. All homosexuals were born and raised in Lake Woebegon and are paragons of virtue and exceptional parents.

 

[Apollos]

…a child is better off with two stable parents … a homosexual couple.

Isn’t that a contradiction?

 

[gtrenewed]

The supposed sarcasm in your previous post was not at all evident to me, and I’m hardly impaired in the area of reading. There was a winky face. A winky icon does not necessarily translate to sarcasm. In fact, as it’s been used on CAF over & over, it’s most often been used to say (especially on the homosexuality threads) to connote that straights are impared parents whereas gays have superior parenting abilities. Which is of course, sheer nonsense but a very public and popular myth propagated on and off CAF.

So no, my response was not over the top because it was very unclear to me that you did not mean what you said literally.

Yeah, IMO when I first read your post my thought was that you were over the top and personally attacking the poster. Charitable debate is better.

Now to the thread question: There have been plenty of examples of good people coming out of bad homes, no homes, or foster care; as well as, bad people coming out of good homes.

The debate has been does nature or nurture affect a child more. It has been answered both ways depending on who you read.

Everyone seems to agree that a child should not be in a bad environment. But to assume that a gay couple is automatically a bad environment should be careful of their glass house. How many gay people have come out of religious male-female parent homes with multiple children who are not gay?

However, a group setting like an orphanage, or foster care can never replace being wanted by somone. These kids have already been abandoned and will have to deal with that; now throw them in to the pecking order of a group situation and there is more to deal with. Yet, with God all things are possible.

We should not love sin yet love the sinner. Just because a gay couple could provide for and raise a child does not legitimize homosexuality. Yet, if they have the means they should not be disqualified.