Gays should not be allowed to adopt >>>MOD ALERT<<<

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage and child rearing will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda.

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow&#8230;.the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan&#8217;s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies &#8212; the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars &#8212; to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan&#8217;s ban.
The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, &#8220;clearly reveals&#8221; that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up &#8220;with their married mother and father.&#8221;

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus&#8217;s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of &#8220;lesbian mothers&#8221; and &#8220;gay fathers&#8221; were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.&#8220;If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus&#8217;s study,&#8221; the association said, &#8220;it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.&#8221;

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: &#8220;Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.&#8221;

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Subsequently:
The case went to trial and presiding U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman heard testimony from state defense witness sociologist Mark Regnerus, whose controversial study on the welfare of children in same-sex marriages has been repeatedly debunked&#8212;even by his own employer:

The Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. &#8220;Dr. Regnerus&#8217; opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology&#8230; Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus&#8217; work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.&#8221; &#8211;

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontier...-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

You need a new signature line: "Undisputed 2012/13/14 Debating Champion!" Really. Surrender now . I will not let you get away with the lies and distortions

 

Political corruption, organized crime, crime in general, the social and economic disaster which is NJ cities, all reflect the morally bankrupt social fabric of that state. Using NJ as a model for handling children is ridiculous.

 

It's apparent that you have no desire or ability to discuss the issue in a rational and intelligent manner. Nor do you even have a clue about the issue. Don't waist our time with your inane clap trap that only seeks to obfuscate the real issue

 

And you were obviously denied an education. Which is more important ?

 

Yup, panicked and desperate opponents of same sex marriage and adoption keep tapping these lunatic to promote their failed cause, but they are only digging their own grave....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/...stifies-expert-in-mi-same-sex-marriage-trial/

Unrepentant homosexuals would be eternally damned to hell, testified the state’s final witness in a federal trial challenging the Michigan ban on marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

Douglas Allen, of the anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage, has authored critical examinations of studies on gay parenting that other researchers say were based on shoddy methodology.

 

I think one in three people are religious, what say you?

 

One in 3 people also don't believe in evolution either. And regardless of what one in three people think, it does not make it true. Care to supply a source for your statistics? That 90% # is also bull. You have no idea what your talking about, and where do you get off assuming what may motive a gay couple to adopt.? Let me tell you a story

I have new neighbors. They are a married Caucasian couple-both professional men in their early 30s. One is a school social worker, and the other is a financial advisor for a well-known investment house. They introduced me to their 3 year old African American, special needs child and said that he is their son, who they adopted through the state. His parents were killed in an auto accident a year ago and the child had been in 3 foster homes since then. There was no extended family able and willing to care for him. Special needs children, especially minorities are very hard to place and to find a stable home for, but these two men stepped up to take that responsibility.

I now know that in what little spare time they have, they do volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity, and occasionally deliver meals on wheels. They plan on having two more children by a surrogate mother with each of them donating sperm for that purpose. Each will then adopt the child of the other as the second parent.
Now for the question. Can anyone honestly tell me that these two men, who are contributing to society and the community in many ways, do not deserve the benefits, protection and status of being married? Can anyone explain to me why it is more important to prohibit same sex marriage and adoption by gays than to allow this child to have the stability and security of having married parents? Can anyone say that this is not a family in every sense of the word? Please be honest and give your reasons

 

personal lifelong observation one in three people are actively religious, all statistics are gonna tell you is how many people put down some religion as the one they officially practice, gay rights are human rights in my opinion therefor despite what certain groups choose to tell themselves gay people are people too and deserve the ability to live as citizens of the world.

 

May I ask what that opinion is based on?

 

Most people thought the Earth was flat ever so long ago, doesn't mean they were right.

 

Commonsense, history of mankind and seeing the tragedy of kids without fathers. Men and women are distinctly different---and most definately both genders are needed to produce a child. Its a certain arrogance that says both genders aren't important when raising a child.

 

God forbid widows or divorces never marry again and raise their children alone.

Time to let go of the 'traditional' family is the best family because it is not always the best. Every family is different. My family was considered traditional but my dad abused my mom. How is that healthy for any child?

Being in a functional household with at least 1 parent who has their (*)(*)(*)(*) together is all kids really need.

 

Yet we allow single people to adopt children.

We allow single parents to raise children.

I think that there is a certain arrogance is saying that a child is better off languishing in an orphanage or foster care, rather than being adopted by a couple of financially secure lesbians or gay men who want to raise that child as their own.

What children need most- and this is my personal opinion as a father- is a stable, financially secure, loving home. I am impressed by anyone who feels willing and able to reach out to adopt those children that have mostly been abandoned by their parents and make them part of their family.

 

Oh please. You're presenting an opinion as fact. There's a rule about that. Commonsense? History? How about science and social research? Even it were true that kids were better off with two opposite sex parents- and I'm not conceding that-not allowing gays to adopt will not ensure that more kids will have a "mom and a dad" -some kids will just be left to languish in the foster care system without either a mom or a dad or a permanent home. Others, who are living with a gay parent-and there are millions of them- will not have the opportunity to be adopted by that person' partner as a second parent adoption and having the security of having two legal parents. Please don't try to tell me that opposition to gay adoption is out of concern for the kids. It rings hollow.Be honest....why are you against adoption by gays? It's not about the kids if you really think about it

 

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. Its always about the child's best interest...it it might be in their best interest to go with a non-traditional family.

But I am saying....that all things considered, a child is in a better situation if that child has a mother and father. Both genders serve a purpose...and by this point---we certainly can't be dismissive of that--- with so many children at risk who lack a father.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. It is about the kids. And with gay activists---its often just about them.

 

I'm sorry, but I see a lot of one parent families. Its terribly sad. What those children need are two parents. Little boys need a father. Don't tell me little boys don't need a father in the home---because that shows ignorance on your part.

 

Thank you for that thoughtful, comprehensive and well documented response. I'm convinced now. Gays should only be the last resort when considering people as adoptive parents. GMAFB!

 

The only one being ignorant here is you.

And you're begging the question. You say that "Little boys need a father." that begs the question, why?

 

In general I have nothing against that conceptually. And i am not dismissive of that concern- what I am saying is that for most children 'at risk'- any stable family with two parents would be better than none- or a family with only one parent.

And for many of those who are against equal rights for homosexuals- it is often just about them.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are pointing out that heterosexuals who divorce are the real problem- not homosexual adoption.

Please read my signature.

 

What purpose is that, if I may ask? And must that purpose necessarily be tied to having a penis or a vagina? I tend to be a little skeptical of such arguments... man-kind has survived extraordinary changes in revolutions in technology, governance and culture, with the development and advancements in fire, medicine, farming, civilization, democracy, cars, computers, woman's suffrage, among a variety of other chances that have completely changed the way that we live. The "natural" order for man-kind is that of polygamy, where men often died facing the elements and a single male was capable of reproducing with many more females. The idea of a 1-man, 1 woman paradigm is not inherent, rather it is predicated on modern technological and cultural circumstances.

Given all these technological and social changes man-kind has gone through, completely turning hour our societies function upside down, I tend to think of having a mom and a mom vs having a mom and a dad as sort of being comically insignificant. What is significant for child-rearing, in our modern cultural and technological circumstances, has more to do with the financial resources, love (esteem) and culture/ethics that we can transfer to our children. That's not to say that gender is completely irrelevant (although it is becoming less and less so as time goes on). But we don't have absolute needs based on strict gender roles that man-kind used to have, and where gender is important in society, those roles don't necessarily have to be filled by one, the other, or both parents... there are many roles that extend beyond parents, and children are not raised in isolation.

 

A child at "risk"...is often at risk because they are in a family with one parent. There is a risk---especially with a child who needs a huge amount of support and patience---in placing a child in a family type that has been shown to create obstacles and risks for children. Single parenthood is not equal to a family that includes a mother and father.

That said...an adoption agency should have the ability to be flexible --there are risks from being shuffled around from foster family to foster family and they should have the flexibility to place a child in a situation best for him or her.

Yes, I do think that heterosexuals who divorce leaving children in broken homes and people having children out of wedlock are much more of a problem then the question of homosexual adoption.

 

Here we are just going to have to disagree. Years ago...I was in total agreement with you...thinking gender didn't matter. Now I think it does and I think it very important. Men and Women are not just different in their sexual body parts---they are different in the brain and how they think, in their emotional make-up. Each gender offers something the other can't. And I don't think the Human race is advanced beyond that. We may THINK we are------but we aren't. That should be obvious by looking at our family "experiments" going on now. A child deserves a mother and father. Anything else is second best.

 

You are still begging the question here of why they deserve a mother and a father. All you have done so far is explain that men and women think differently...but continue to fail to explain why that is relevant or important to child rearing.

I could argue that a lot of people think differently. I think it would be ignorant to assume any two fathers or mothers are the same or raise their kids the same. Do kids deserve parents who are religious too? Do they deserve parents who think conservatively or liberally? Do they deserve parents who can afford to pay for all their needs? Etc. so on and so forth.

There is a LOT different between families, not just gender but each parent's personal beliefs, their finances, and especially their dedication to nurturing and raising their kids.

So please tell us, what exactly is the perfect example of a perfect family and what kids deserve and which ones do you think are really second best?

 

A child deserves a mother and father.? Lets say for a moment that is true. First, there are a lot of thing that people "deserve" that for various reasons they don't get. Secondly, let's say that kids are best off with a "mom and dad"- to be clear I vehemently disagree with that, there are many more important variables-but for now I will give you that too. So how is that justification for denying gay people the ability to adopt? In order to use that as justification, you have to assume that for every child in need of adoption, there is a straight couple ready willing and able to adopt them. As someone who worked in the foster care and adoption business, I am here to tell you that is not the case. Those who use this "A child deserves/needs a mother and father" line either have not done the research, or know its bunk and are using the kids as pawns to justify discrimination. Or, perhaps, deep down inside you believe that children are better off growing up in foster care or a group home rather that be adopted by gays. In either case this opposition to gay adoption is disingenuous and asinine. In my estimation, people who take that position, for the most part, don't give a hoot about what the kids need. They just can't accept or deal with the idea of a same sex couple and child as a family.

 

Children need love and attention. They need someone they can depend on, a role model (positive, that is. . .negative is worse than none!). They need to watch love and ways those people they depend on deal with "problems," "conflicts," "budget", in their home. . .and whether it is between a man and a woman, or two women, or two men is not that important.

Yes, the ideal is two loving parents who are (mostly) in agreement on most issues, INCLUDING how to raise their kid. but "heterosexuality " doesn't guarantee that. . .NOTHING can guarantee that!

But a good clue to a "functional, nourishing" family unit is based on the strong desire, commitment, and love the parents have for their children AND for each other. This can happen in ANY couples, but not in all!

There is NO GUARANTEE that an heterosexual couple will provide more nourishing elements in a child's life than homosexual couples who have gone through difficult, long, and often costly adoption process (or artificial insemination). There is no guarantee that a heterosexual couple will stay together. . .and it is the same for homosexual couples!

What is CERTAIN is that, parents (of any sex) who love each other and are committed to their children will provide a much better environment for any children than parents who no longer love each other and fight, and argue all the time. A single parent (being a mother or a father) who loves the child and is committed to the child's wellbeing is BETTER for a child than two parents who hate each other or belittle the other in front of the child.