New Study: Children Adopted by Homosexuals Are 'More Prone to Suicide'

I grew up in a gay household, going back and forth between parents. There is credibilty on both sides of the argument, it is shocking to the system at first but you get use to it. I would say that homosexuality and society are equally bothersome to a growing child.

reply to post by Edrick


I made two points in my post. The first was that the OP seemed to be calling "foul" because the "science" was excluded by one of the attorneys. It was the attorney opposed to "gay adoption" that made that stipulation. My second point was to emphasize that the fault lay not with homosexuality, but society's attitude towards it. Sadly, all the parental love in the world cannot compensate for a hate-filled world. The adoption process must take all relevant factors into account on a case by case basis. A broad law handicaps this process by proscribing options that may, in certain circumstances, be entirely acceptable for all parties. The CHILD has a right NOT to be raised by the state. Should a gay couple that lives in a community that fully accepts their sexuality (eg; San Francisco) wish to adopt a child and are otherwise qualified, it would not be in the child's best interest to reject the possibility a priori. Granted, any state that could pass such a law in the first place is probably not going to have the most accepting populace, but once the law is in place and unchallenged it can linger on to create problems as public opinion changes. It is better to evaluate each case individually as it comes up.

I think it's safe to say that you can trust a study of homosexual families coming out of the University of South Carolina about as much as you can trust a study of anything to do with evolution coming out of anywhere in Texas

reply to post by DJW001


Case by case basis for adoption of children would be WONDERFUL... but unfortunately, the spending required to do this sort of "Investigation" would be so expensive, that it would actually be in the child's best interest TO BE taken care of by a *FINANCIALLY SOLVENT* state, as opposed to a loving, caring, family in an economically *SHATTERED* economy.

But I digress.

What is in the best interests of the child is not necessarily sending them to any parent(s) that are willing to receive them.

Like two loving, caring, heterosexual, Klan members.....

I am sure they would make EXCELLENT parents... but the pressure from society is MUCH TO HIGH to ever allow that sort of situation to arise.

(Yes, I realize that a comparison between gay couples and klansmen may seem harsh, but I was only using it as an example of "Socially Acceptable" parental groups... no offense intended)

If society *AT LARGE* has a problem with certain groups... it would not be in the child's best interest to be RAISED by those groups, because of the aforementioned backlash from society.


If you want to *FIX* this... it would be best to start at the *ROOT* of the problem.. and REMOVE the social pressures that "Don't Want" this, as opposed to just doing it anyway, and harming the child because of a sense of "I'm Right and You're Wrong"

Because that kind of thinking is selfish in nature, and shows a lack of compassion for the child.

You see my point?

-Edrick

Originally posted by KyoZero
reply to post by Violater1

 

Well hopefully you won't worry when I refute him...don't lose any sleep

-Kyo

No worries here sir.
Just sorrow for seeing you as another lost soul.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

No hypocrisy here sir, I won't make it easy for you. You will have to read the New Testament to discover it yourself.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
What a load BS

Typical catholic propaganda spreading bias opinionated evidence, simply to spread hate, as usual

You fundies really do suck

Oz, just stop being a hater. When that bad side of you rears it's ugly head, just say no to it. You really can stop your hatred.

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by DJW001

 

Case by case basis for adoption of children would be WONDERFUL... but unfortunately, the spending required to do this sort of "Investigation" would be so expensive, that it would actually be in the child's best interest TO BE taken care of by a *FINANCIALLY SOLVENT* state, as opposed to a loving, caring, family in an economically *SHATTERED* economy.

But I digress.

What is in the best interests of the child is not necessarily sending them to any parent(s) that are willing to receive them.

Like two loving, caring, heterosexual, Klan members.....

I am sure they would make EXCELLENT parents... but the pressure from society is MUCH TO HIGH to ever allow that sort of situation to arise.

(Yes, I realize that a comparison between gay couples and klansmen may seem harsh, but I was only using it as an example of "Socially Acceptable" parental groups... no offense intended)


-Edrick

I read your posts. Not sure where you stand, not sure if I agree with everything you say, but you say it all so well!! My question to you is this: Does this debate have any consequence at all when we live in a world where children have NO choice???? What I mean is, there are so many children who have NO parents, so shouldn't the debate really be whether or not kids should be raised by gay/lesbian parents or no parents? because that's the reality. Everything you say is so right on, so I ask YOU, because I want to know what you think...do you think children with no home should have the chance to live a more normal life with gay/lesbian parents or live being bounced between foster homes? That is the reality. That is the truth. None of this hetero parents/homo parents B.S.....no parents or any parents. I posted earlier, and through my sarcasm, I tried to explain that all parents are flawed. Chris Rock once said "If your kids don't need therapy after you get done raising them, then you didn't do a very good job as a parent." Always stuck with me, made me laugh then, but makes me think now.....Just my opinion....

reply to post by trippinon2012


Well, there are several ways to approach your post... so....

I read your posts. Not sure where you stand

I enjoy the anonymity of my perspectives

not sure if I agree with everything you say, but you say it all so well!!

Well, thank you very much.

Does this debate have any consequence at all when we live in a world where children have NO choice????

Ultimately, if the child has no choice (which they legally do not until 18, at least in the states) the burden of choice falls to the society.

So, a society debating about what choice is more beneficial for the child would be a good thing, I would think.

What I mean is, there are so many children who have NO parents, so shouldn't the debate really be whether or not kids should be raised by gay/lesbian parents or no parents? because that's the reality.

Well, the question is "Is something better than nothing", and that is precisely the topic of this thread....

Weather the benefit of being raised by an actual family, is worth the detriment of that family being... for lack of a better term... reviled, or not accepted.

Since the OP speaks of increased suicide risk... we should really ask ourselves these hard questions.

Because if that *IS* the case, then perhaps the life of the child is more important than *JUST* having any parents at all.

That being said... the overall credibility of the SOURCE of this research seems to be in question, and in relation, it's findings seem to be in question also.

However, it would stand to reason that a group of people that is "Not Welcome" by a large portion of the population, would not be the best choice of parents for that child.

So, if we determine the cost benefit analysis of these four choices (assuming no "Normal" parents available) that would be:

1. Adoption by gay parents

The benefits would be a stable family unit (insofar as relationships can be stable)

The drawbacks would be having to face ridicule and scorn for WHO those parents are.

2. Foster care

The benefit would be a socially acceptable "Family Unit"

The drawbacks would be a lack of stability.



So, we have to ask ourselves.... which is more important for a child's development?

A stable upbringing, or social acceptance?

Everything you say is so right on, so I ask YOU, because I want to know what you think...do you think children with no home should have the chance to live a more normal life with gay/lesbian parents or live being bounced between foster homes?

Yes... that is the question, isn't it?

but when you say "More normal" that isn't exactly what you mean, is it?

Homosexual couples raising offspring is not normal... (yes, we are going by the dictionary definition of the word "Normal")

So your real question is not of normal vs unstable... it is stable and not normal vs unstable.

(Just semantics, I can assure you)

We can't go around stating that being raised by homosexual parents is normal, especially since they do not compose a majority of the population.

Because that would not be true.


Here is the Rub... children learn what is "Normal" and "Socially acceptable" and "Good" from their parents. (or guardian, typically)


Would a child raised by parents with non working reproductive behaviors have a successful perspective on reproduction?

I would imagine that the knowledge that the child gains from observing their gay "Parents" would tend to form their worldview on how humans behave in social, and possibly intimate (pre-intimate if you are more comfortable with that) situations.

this, overall would be a detriment to a child that does not also have homosexual tendencies, and the same gender as their "Parents"


Since, during development of children into adults, much of their self esteem is derived through the ability to successful enact reproductive like behaviors.

(How they are viewed by potential mates)

This would necessarily mean that a child that is taught human relations by homosexual parents would be less able to seek out favor from potential mates, and thus, their self esteem would fail (unless the child is also homosexual)

A lack of self esteem is a GREAT detriment to the overall success of any individual.

And since the child has to interact successfully with SOCIETY to gain this measure of self esteem (unless they are enlightened monks or something) then it would be a disservice to place them into a family grouping that would negatively effect their early interactions WITH society.

As far as my Opinion on the matter... I do not really believe that is necessary, although I am sure that my PERSPECTIVE on the matter is clear enough.

I posted earlier, and through my sarcasm, I tried to explain that all parents are flawed.

Yes, all parents are flawed...

The question is, are those flaws going to impact the child's ability to HAVE THE CHANCE at leading a full and productive life?

Because if you are not teaching the child how to successfully interact with the opposite sex... you are limiting their chances.

-Edrick

..The fundies make me laugh. Apparently a gay person can tempt a straight person according to the freaks of God. I know gay people..yet I have never felt the urge to bed them...guess those urges only happen to people in the closet....I mean anti gay people. Don't look now violator...I think that gay men has a thing for you....ruuuuuun...he might tempt your gay urges The hell with your version of God I say...he can bend over for your version of jesus. My version if I had one is full of love and all that junk.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by kerazeesicko]

It is sad and sadly predictable. Everyone would have an argument. Some will say it's the societies lack of acceptance that's the problem, to others it's the underlying selfish and loveless nature of the homosexual that cares more for their indulgence in fantasy then the child's welfare in the real world. The word "Love" has dozens of distinct meanings there are many, many different kinds and degrees of "love".

I am pro-straight because, well, I'm straight. I would like to see well founded scientific evidence that same-sex couples mess with a kids head.

But I have to support the concerns about source in the pro-gay posts because using a Catholic source is biased. That's not a solid source of scientific info. That's about as trustworthy as global warming data.

Originally posted by Dock9

Sure, homosexuals may be 'born that way'

I've never quite understood the 'born that way' argument. Breeding preserves and spreads ones genetic material. A preference for the same sex and coitis with same sex by definition limits opportunities for procreation. The so called 'gay gene' would never be preserved through generations. Without extraordinary preservation measures, it would die out over time along with other characteristics that reduce reproductive fitness. Biology 101

reply to post by mandrake


The source of the study is actually a "Gay rehabilitation" outfit. They conducted their own research in a self-contained environment, and have a definite financial and legal interest in the research going "their way". The claim is, in other words, completely and totally bogus.

That people are stil larguing on the basis of this "study" shows a startling lack of reasoning ability.

Originally posted by slane69

Originally posted by Dock9

Sure, homosexuals may be 'born that way'

I've never quite understood the 'born that way' argument. Breeding preserves and spreads ones genetic material. A preference for the same sex and coitis with same sex by definition limits opportunities for procreation. The so called 'gay gene' would never be preserved through generations. Without extraordinary preservation measures, it would die out over time along with other characteristics that reduce reproductive fitness. Biology 101

Evidence points to it being hormonal in nature rather than outright genetic.

That said, even homosexual people are fully capable of producing offspring - there's no shortage of lesbian couples who have undergone insemination, and plenty of gay men donate to sperm banks, or even end up knocking a girl up while closeted.

Being gay doesn't remove you from the gene pool. Especially if you happen to be in a society where homosexuality is a taboo, forcing you to live a "normal life" - spouse, kids, etc.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by slane69

Originally posted by Dock9

Sure, homosexuals may be 'born that way'

I've never quite understood the 'born that way' argument. Breeding preserves and spreads ones genetic material. A preference for the same sex and coitis with same sex by definition limits opportunities for procreation. The so called 'gay gene' would never be preserved through generations. Without extraordinary preservation measures, it would die out over time along with other characteristics that reduce reproductive fitness. Biology 101

Evidence points to it being hormonal in nature rather than outright genetic.

And hormones don't have a genetic basis?

Being gay doesn't remove you from the gene pool.

Agreed, I was not suggesting this,..but on average over numerous generations the genetic coding for even a predisposition toward being gay would be removed from the gene pool. Over time the law of averages would takes it's toll.

Sperm banks and artificial insemination would be classified as 'extraordinary measures' and considering the length of time our species has been around procreating, these tools have only been around for a short time. Arguably if it was genetic, it would have been removed from the genetic code long ago before well before the advent of modern medicine.

WTF?!?



This has got to be one of the most retarded "scintific studies" i have ever read about in my life, and youre a moron if you feed into it, or believe it. This is the kind of filth that keeps the flames of hatred alive. Thanks for helping to further slander your fellow americans. A$$hole!!

(Yea, i made a personal stabe, but this kind of TRASH is a personal stab at me, my life, and the lives of other gay americans.)

reply to post by KevinHavoc


Honestly?

If you are trying to claim that homosexuals would make fit parents... you have to admit, having an emotionally charged knee jerk reaction to this post is *NOT* helping your case my friend.

When in debate, on a classy website such as this, it is important to remember the rules of Debate.

1. Insults are not arguments.

it may FEEL good, but it does not prove your opponent wrong, not one bit.


2. Argue with FACTS

Feelings are not truth, as they cannot be independently verified by an outside observer.


3. Maintain your cool.

Getting riled up makes you loose your rationality, and intellect... do not succumb to anger, or you will no longer be debating or discussing... you will just be yelling.

And people tend not to listen to people who yell at the top of their lungs.


4. Read the entire thread before you post, yelling at the OP... what you want to say may have been said before.

OR

You may have misunderstood the CONTEXT of the OP.


In this specific example, the study indicates that the proximity of the adopted parent being cared for by the homosexual parent has a negative effect on children BECAUSE OF OUTSIDE SOCIAL BIAS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.

So, in essence, the article is a slant against the attitudes of SOCIETY'S dislike of Gay people, and not gays in general.


5. You do not talk about fight club.


-Edrick

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by The Lizard King
I grew up in a gay household, going back and forth between parents. There is credibilty on both sides of the argument, it is shocking to the system at first but you get use to it. I would say that homosexuality and society are equally bothersome to a growing child.

So did I, gave me character and the power to relate to women on a whole other level

Served me fine...

reply to post by FortAnthem


People actually S&F'd this trash? I imagine the ones who conducted this "study" probably heard a few reports of suicides who's parents happened to be gay then ran with it. So what is your point of bringing this to our attention? Wait, I know it's to support your opinion of gays and them being parents. So a few suicides prove what? Doesn't prove gays are unfit as parents, not saying they are perfect because believe it or not, they are human too with human flaws. What about the children of normal parents who committed suicide? There are many who had great parents, good upbringing, but still killed themselves. So maybe all children should be raised by the government. Suicide is an inexcusable, individual choice. Blaming their upbringing is just one of those excuses. Life is hard, we all know that, some people just can't take it.