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

[Elizabeth502]

While I would agree that a certain amount of scrutiny should be applied to prospective homes for a child, one need look no further then the homosexual simulated marriage to determine the couple should not have a child.

Of course, one could readily expect the more glaring the issue the less time needed to make a determination.

I especially agree with this second sentence. The point is, with adoption, not everything is equal when it comes to environment. (And the Catholic Church especially agrees with this.) There is such a thing as proportionality. That’s not “prejudice;” that’s the reality of the micro + macro environment. (Just as, if 4-5 straight households were all interested in the next available child from a particular agency, they might be compared on a variety of factors, but certain factors would tend to determine the decision, even within only heterosexual couples.) For example:

• a straight household with exceptional medical issues (child, grandparent), requiring significant time/attention away from the newcomer, despite every other feature of adoption being positive, including previous successful adoptions
• a straight household with one alcoholic parent, in recovery, but newly so (thus, not much of a history to factor in)
• a straight household with new financial challenges not yet remedied, despite previously raising children without financial compromise.
• a straight houehold with one parent in stage 4 cancer, despite excellent health at the first time of application,
• a straight household with one heavy smoker, and the child needing adoption has asthma.

Adoption is not single issue, and that’s another reason for the lack of validity of all these false “choices” that keep coming up on this forum, and in the media. Some things are more important than other things – such as the existence of two complementary genders in the household. There is rarely such a thing as “all conditions being equal.” They’re not equal, even among heterosexual families. There are outstanding choices, good choices, and risky choices which an agency has to consider among the factors presented to them, and the personal testimony (referrals) of those who know this couple (or individual) well.

I live in one of the most educated and well-qualifed areas for job-seekers. An employer could look at 15-20 ‘equally excellent’ candidates, but often only one will be viewed as having all the qualities that are optimum for that job, proportionally speaking, even though technically all the candidates meet the job prerequisites. It doesn’t mean that the competitors are losers; it means that they lost the competition for this job, given a whole combination of factors, for this position, at this time…

@gtrenewed:
The example I gave was not a gay “couple.” It was a gay man with an extended period of dormancy in any relationships whatsoever, with very little interest expressed in seeking new relationships of any kind. And I was comparing him with three compromised straight households/environments, not three ideal straight households. So your statement that “you’ve been saying that all along” does not apply in my example. Not at all.

 

[sweetpealover]

Obviously this whole subject (homosexuality) is a topic that will not be easily settled and is very contentious. Last night you cited several studies completed to support your point of view. Those supporting my point of view could probably do the same but that won’t settle anything. It is important above all else that is the welfare of a child(ren) and only that. Not every foster child will be adopted ( I certainly wasn’t ) by anyone and most will age-out of the system when they turn 18. We all agree that the only concern is the welfare of the child and hoping our goal can be reached with the least pain to the child. Let me say that if a gay couple adopted a child and that said child would absolutely become a homosexual – that is not true and you know it, whether you want to admit it or not. This whole homosexuality subject will not be settled ever to everyone’s desire. You can’t please everyone all the time, Regardless of who the child lives with in this tumultuous time the only true constant is the welfare of the child.

 

[vz71]

You can’t please everyone all the time, Regardless of who the child lives with in this tumultuous time the only true constant is the welfare of the child.

So how is the child to learn proper morality from a couple provideing the worst possible example on a constant basis?
Isn’t their spiritual well being a concern?

 

[Sister_Angel]

Who’s “afraid”? Not I. It’s just that “sin” is not the argument, because if it were, all adults would be denied parenting rights based on all of us being sinners. Again, it is not the Church’s position that “sin” disqualifies homosexuals from being parents. It is that their relationship is invalid by its nature (in addition to its sinfulness, which is a separate subject). The Church maintains that the male-female relationship is what mirrors God’s creation, and is the procreative & unitive aspect of a valid marriage. It further states that parenting is to evolve from that natural relationship, not through invalid relationships which oppose natural law.

It’s also important to maintain the focus on the inappropriateness for the health of the child, because the secular world, and its courts, are not interested in ‘sin’ being the disqualifier for a homosexual “marriage,” and will not figure that into their rulings. Nor will adoption agencies decide based on that kind of reliigous terminiology By their nature, such arguments have little credibility in U.S. courts of law. The subject of the thread is the benefit, or lack of it, to a child growing up in a foster home vs. with supposedly idealized gay “parents,” which several of us have pointed out is a fantasy dichotomy.

I can see the point you are trying to make Elizebeth, But i am not talking legality here. I am talking about the laws of God, not man. I am only interested in what the Lord would think of this horror that the world has allowed. And yes the laws make it very hard to stop this because of people that have lost their belief and respect for God and humanity.But the more we except these kinds of things and laws the more we neglect our duties as children of God not allow this kind of cancer into our churches and lives.It is our duty as children of God to see that people know we are following Gods laws and not mans even i it comes to our own lives. To live is to loose, to die is to gain. As for me and my house i will serve the Lord!

People, do not be swollowed up by the system, but remember where you come from and where you are going. Blessings and Peace!

 

[LemonAndLime]

I have absolutely no idea whom you are addressing, but if you’re addressing me, you’re mistaken in the very question. I never mentioned anything about sin. (For about the 3rd time on this thread now, I have to assert that.) Are you questioning someone else, who is asserting that “sin” keeps people from permission to parent? God hasn’t stated that through any of His representatives, the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t stated that, the Catechism of the Catholic Church hasn’t stated that “sin” per se should keep people from parenting. The human race would have become extinct with our first parents if sanctity is a requirement for parenthood.

Okay, lets say you’re going to argue that homosexual parents who say have a legal civil partnership cannot adopt children because they are living in a state of mortal sin and are in a sinful relationship therefore cannot be in a good position to raise children.

Well, by that logic, a heterosexual couple who got married without getting a previous married annulled is also living in a state of mortal sin and therefore also shouldn’t adopt (I mean, if homosexuals in a relationship can’t adopt - who is to say there sin is worse?) Or what about a heterosexual couple in which one of them is committing adultery? Or a heterosexual couple who are living together but are not in a marriage recognised by the Catholic Church?

The whole basis of homosexuals being bad role models for parents seems to be based on the assertion that homosexual relationships are a sin because of intercourse outside of marriage/going against natural law, etc. So - why is that sin “worse” than those that heterosexual couples can commit, but could still adopt?

 

[vz71]

Okay, lets say you’re going to argue that homosexual parents who say have a legal civil partnership cannot adopt children because they are living in a state of mortal sin and are in a sinful relationship therefore cannot be in a good position to raise children.

Well, by that logic, a heterosexual couple who got married without getting a previous married annulled is also living in a state of mortal sin and therefore also shouldn’t adopt (I mean, if homosexuals in a relationship can’t adopt - who is to say there sin is worse?) Or what about a heterosexual couple in which one of them is committing adultery? Or a heterosexual couple who are living together but are not in a marriage recognised by the Catholic Church?

The whole basis of homosexuals being bad role models for parents seems to be based on the assertion that homosexual relationships are a sin because of intercourse outside of marriage/going against natural law, etc. So - why is that sin “worse” than those that heterosexual couples can commit, but could still adopt?

The sin of these homosexuals is not any worse then any other mortal sin.
The difference is the tolerance and the unrepentedness of the sin.

The homosexual couple would be actively engaged in an ongoing mortal sin in front of the children.

I would feel the same of any couple engaging in an ongoing public mortal sin.
It is the example provided to the child that is the real problem here.

The child’s spiritual well being needs to be considered. And I find endangering it just as repugnent an any other physical or emotional abuse.

 

[gtrenewed]

@gtrenewed:
The example I gave was not a gay “couple.” It was a gay man with an extended period of dormancy in any relationships whatsoever, with very little interest expressed in seeking new relationships of any kind. And I was comparing him with three compromised straight households/environments, not three ideal straight households. So your statement that “you’ve been saying that all along” does not apply in my example. Not at all.

Apparantly in your rush to judgement you overlooked what I wrote so I’ll repeat:

“This has been my point all along - learn about the prospective parents before dismissing them. Prejudice dismiss entire groups of people with preconceived biases and without examination. While this may be easier on the system, it may not yield the best results for all concerned.”

I applied it to your post because you wrote “Adoption agencies – at least the better ones - seek exhaustive research, of a personal nature, about prospective parents”

I’ll repeat my point, “-** learn about the prospective parents before dismissing them.” **There could be mitigating factors, like your friend, that are not obvious. Learning does not mean automatic approval, it just means learning.

 

[vz71]

I’ll repeat my point, “-** learn about the prospective parents before dismissing them.” **There could be mitigating factors, like your friend, that are not obvious. Learning does not mean automatic approval, it just means learning.

I do not believe anyone here has argued that research into a prospective parent should not be done.

I would more argue that there is no point in researching further once someone has been disqualified.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not believe anyone here has argued that research into a prospective parent should not be done.

Indeed. Before, and since, homosexual couples have been considered possible candidates for adopting, heterosexual couples have been exhaustively researched. I give examples in my previous posts, of only a few of the many factors that can be considered important to a child’s upbringing, and the child’s well-being in this environment. It is comprehensive.

I would more argue that there is no point in researching further once someone has been disqualified.

Or, to me (more accurately), once proportional reasons are considered. And they are proportional not for moral reasons but for practical reasons. Having two “Mommies” and no Daddies is a radical and unalterable factor, whereas a person’s somewhat shaky-but-potentially-correctable financial situation, or medical situation, may change. And the probability of change in particular negative factors is considered in the overall picture, when it comes to placement.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

the problem is fixing the system. The system is not interested in terminating parental rights of unsuitable parents in order to allow children to be adopted. Social services makes their money based on how many children are in the system. Courts need to step up and terminate parental rights in situations where it is obvious the parents will never be parents.

The majority of kids in the foster system are not available for adoption.

Anyone who has a child’s best interest in mind would support a child being adopted to a mom and dad home, or placed in a long term foster mom and dad home.

Having a brother and his wife who have been loving foster parents for 20 years has been an eye opener.

 

[beafedor]

Has anybody heard the story of Dawn Stefanowicz? She was raised in a household with a homosexual father and his boyfriend(s). It’s always interesting to hear and read testimonies. dawnstefanowicz.com/

 

[paxbwu]

The criteria include the entire home enviornment, and what that environment entails: who the child will interact with on a daily basis, what are the priorities and lifestyle of the adopting parents (without even regard to sexuality).

Thank you for your response. My question was directed to “commoncents”, but I’ll be happy to converse with you in his stead. My question still hasn’t been answered! Or maybe it has. You mentioned lifestyles in you response as part of the criteria. If homosexuality is not considered a lifestyle why is it referred to as an “alternitive” lifestyle everyday? Back to my question. Could you, in good conscience, place a child in a home where you knew the parents practiced beastiality?

 

[zachnp]

I would think that a child would be better off in a same-sex household than being bounced around in foster homes. While I may not agree with their personal choices, I believe they are fit parents.

From the APA:

Can lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not indicate their children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or bisexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals.

 

[beafedor]

I would think that a child would be better off in a same-sex household than being bounced around in foster homes. While I may not agree with their personal choices, I believe they are fit parents.

From the APA:

Can lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not indicate their children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or bisexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals.

The APA also says that there is no such a thing as post-abortion trauma. According to them, having an abortion is harmless mentally. I’ve had depression, guilt and anxiety for years after I had mine.I wrote a letter asking them to take into consideration all the post abortion studies (there are many) that contradict what they say. Please allow me to question any statement that they make.

 

[genevievelives]

The APA also says that there is no such a thing as post-abortion trauma. According to them, having an abortion is harmless mentally. I’ve had depression, guilt and anxiety for years after I had mine.I wrote a letter asking them to take into consideration all the post abortion studies (there are many) that contradict what they say. Please allow me to question any statement that they make.

I could not find anything online from the APA directly which stated their case “against” post-abortion trauma, but I did find this in Wikipedia:

"American Psychological Association

"The American Psychological Association prepared a literature summary and recommendations for Koop’s report. After Koop [thirteenth Surgeon General of the United States under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1989] refused to issue their findings, the APA panel published them in the journal Science, concluding that 'Although there may be sensations of regret, sadness, or guilt, the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.' The panel also noted that '…women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences.'

"The APA task force also concluded that ‘research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress.’ Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, has testified on behalf of the APA that ‘severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses.’

“In 2007, APA established a new task force to review studies on abortion published since 1989. The APA task force issued an updated summary of medical evidence in August 2008, again concluding that a single first-trimester abortion carried no more mental health risk than carrying a pregnancy to term. The panel noted a lack of quality data on the effect of multiple abortions. Additionally, the same factors which predispose a woman to multiple unwanted pregnancies may also predipose her to mental health difficulties; therefore, they declined to draw a firm conclusion on multiple abortions.”

Yes, I realize this is off-topic, but I believe an investigation of the allegation against the APA was in order. I do not believe they propose that the abortion experience is “harmless mentally.”

gen

 

[beafedor]

I could not find anything online from the APA directly which stated their case “against” post-abortion trauma, but I did find this in Wikipedia:

"American Psychological Association

Sorry I answered quickly and did not provide a source. I was referring to the APA Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health report released in August 2009. As you have found, the APA says “a single first-trimester abortion carried no more mental health risk than carrying a pregnancy to term.” This is evidence that this report is biased and that they ignore other studies lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4131/

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I would think that a child would be better off in a same-sex household than being bounced around in foster homes. While I may not agree with their personal choices, I believe they are fit parents.

From the APA:

Can lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not indicate their children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or bisexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals.

^Your very first post at CAF. Sorry not to be more welcoming, but is this reflective of what issue is near and dear to you, homosexual rights, specifically gay adoption rights, as being discussed in this thread?

The post by beafedor right after yours about the APA should tell you a bit about the organization, notwithstanding the information it submitted to wikipedia. The people behind it are not impartial. They clearly work towards an agenda, greatly aided by the media.

Consider the developments in the recent years.

In early 2006, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute came out with a report
[EXPANDING RESOURCES FOR CHILDREN:
Is Adoption By Gays and Lesbians Part of the Answer for Boys and Girls Who Need Homes?
Author: Jeanne Howard (77Lucks: Situs Agen Slot Online | 8 Daftar Provider Slot Pasti Jackpot)which Associated Press carried here, Major adoption institute supports gay parents.

But read AP Hides Gay Agenda behind Report Written by ‘Pro-gay Advocate’.

The analysis is also in this news link Homosexual adoption report written by ‘pro-gay advocate’ and elsewhere.

You should read the analysis closely, where there is no way but to conclude that there is ongoing orchestration taking place between APA, the Adoption Institute, and the media (AP).

Although AP reported that the study was funded by the Gill Foundation and the Human Rights Campaign," both actively involved in promoting the “gay rights” agenda, the report, did not inform readers that Jeanne Howard is passionately involved in promoting acceptance of homosexuals in her work with P-FLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

As for APA,

The “working group” of psychologists, appointed by the APA Council of Representatives in February 2004 included: Armand Cerbone, Ph.D., Chicago; Beverly Greene, Ph.D., St. John’s University; Kristin Hancock, Ph.D., Graduate School of Professional Psychology at John F. Kennedy University; Lawrence A. Kurdek, Ph.D., Wright State University; Candace A. McCullough, Ph.D., Bethesda, Md.; and Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., University of California, L.A.

The APA’s published qualifications for the working group members were “a combination of both scientific expertise in family and couple relations and professional expertise with lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.”

What sort of “expertise”? The psychologist association’s “Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships” is made up of “gay activists.”

For instance:

• Dr. Armand Cerbone, who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 and was awarded an award for distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues, which is Division 44 of the APA.
• Dr. Beverly Green, who served as editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, published by Sage Publications in 2000.
• Dr. Kristin Hancock, who developed the APA’s ‘Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients,’ and is a founding member of APA’s Division 44, a group focusing on gay issues.
• Dr. Lawrence A. Kurdek, who serves on the editorial board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology.
  APA embraces same-sex marriage, mirroring the stance of the American Psychiatric Association. It is well known that in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, under heavy pressure from homosexual activists, removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

According to Dr. J. Nicolosi from NARTH, the psychologist organization has “let political activists take over the APA in this particular area, and these activists are giving us their own, values-laden ‘take’ on the issues.”

APA starts out "with the foundational belief that there’s no real difference between the genders, then mothers and fathers start to look interchangeable. With such a worldview, gay and straight relationships look the same; then gay marriage starts to look as if it were no different from the natural, biological family. And, when the research comes in - as indeed it has - showing gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights, then the APA simply dismisses it, saying that the psychological problems are due solely to society’s homophobia.”

zach, you are welcome to share your opinions and debate in this forum, of course, within forum rules. But just a friendly caveat: CAF Catholic members are not naive.

As for my response to the OP, respectfully submitting here: There are other options for kids in foster homes, brought up nicely by Elizabeth, which should be explored, investigated and taken, other than placing them with gay couples.
.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth502;7469499:

The criteria include the entire home enviornment, and what that environment entails: who the child will interact with on a daily basis, what are the priorities and lifestyle of the adopting parents (without even regard to sexuality).

Thank you for your response. My question was directed to “commoncents”, but I’ll be happy to converse with you in his stead. My question still hasn’t been answered! Or maybe it has. You mentioned lifestyles in you response as part of the criteria. If homosexuality is not considered a lifestyle why is it referred to as an “alternitive” lifestyle everyday? Back to my question. Could you, in good conscience, place a child in a home where you knew the parents practiced beastiality?

I do not know why homosexuality is referred to as an alternative lifestyle. I do consider it a lifestyle, and since it alternates from the norm, I guess it could be called ‘alternative.’

No. I, in good conscience, could not place a child in a home where I knew the parent practiced beastiality. (Sorry, but, did you think I implied that bestiality is more acceptable than homosexuality?) Bestiality would be as repugnant as torturing animals in or out of the home, cockfighting, and so on. I suppose all those activities could be hidden activities, practiced by a straight couple, but again understand that it could require a ‘secret life’ for it not to become transparent. Families which are so secretive that little info gets out about them are not good candidates for adoption, whether such couples are gay or straight. Transparency is an important aspect, not only for the reasons discussed earlier, but also because it tends to provide verification for personal referrals/testimony.

Nevertheless, again what is in an additional special category about homosexuality is the exclusion of a mother or a father in the household. All other things “being equal” (and they’re never “equal,” as I explained earlier), a gay household uniquely excludes one gender as a primary role model.

I would think that it would not be often that a foster child would prefer a home with bestiality in it to being “bounced around” to other homes, unless all those other homes had even worse conditions.

 

[sweetpealover]

Hi all, Just because a couple is heterosexual where do you get off saying that that couple/foster home is going to provide a more loving and stable a home than any other? Currently children are placed in foster homes every day and are constantly moved around to one home and group home after another. Let me say this: the vast majority of couples do not agree to accept a foster child out of love…The only reason is for the $$$$ they get from the state. As far as the home goes any child can be abused in any way on both sides of the road and have been. That has been documented many times. I say that since children are placed with primarily heterosexual families that there needs to be a lot more and more thorough checking on the families/homes to make sure the foster homes are kept suitable for all for as long as needed. Having lived in group homes and many foster homes I know how they can effect a child’s life. And this discussion has helped me change my original opinion, I really feel for the better . God Bless to everyone.

 

[paxbwu]

paxbwu;7471812:

Nevertheless, again what is in an additional special category about homosexuality is the exclusion of a mother or a father in the household. All other things “being equal” (and they’re never “equal,” as I explained earlier), a gay household uniquely excludes one gender as a primary role model.

My intent was never to imply you would place a child in a house that did practice beastiality. I asked that question to evoke the repsonse that I anticipated from you. It seems, from reviewing the posts relative to this subject, some (not you necessarily) have fallen victim to “relativism”. Let’s face it, as you said, all things being equal, open homosexual activity is considered by the Catholic Church to be gravely sinful. Can we agree on that?