Gay Marriage hurts the most vulnerable

[MillCreek]

https://religionnews.com/2018/03/23/when-adoption-agencies-can-turn-away-gay-prospective-parents-what-happens-to-the-kids/

Apparently the number of actual adoptions is not changing as a result of the religious agencies adopting policies against gay adoptive parents.

[Hawkmoon]

I wonder what they have to say about international adoptions. When my late wife and I adopted her granddaughter from her native country, as an international adoption it was subject to a Hague convention on international adoptions. One of the requirements if the child is other than an infant (my daughter was fifteen when we adopted her) was that the adoptive parents must agree to raise the child in his/her religion. The parents don't have to be of that religion, but they're not allowed to adopt a child and then wean/brainwash the kid away from their existing religion. Since arguably 95 percent or more of kids from South America are Roman Catholic, and the RC church doesn't endorse homosexuality, that means that irrespective of whether or not the adoption services agency is church-affiliated (we used Catholic Charities), adoption of a Roman Catholic child by a same sex couple shouldn't be allowed under the Hague convention anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

https://religionnews.com/2018/03/23/when-adoption-agencies-can-turn-away-gay-prospective-parents-what-happens-to-the-kids/

Apparently the number of actual adoptions is not changing as a result of the religious agencies adopting policies against gay adoptive parents.

Are you suggesting these agencies used to place kids with homosexual couples, but no longer do? Or do you mean they put a formal policy in place, when they previously didn't need to?

[Hawkmoon]

https://religionnews.com/2018/03/23/when-adoption-agencies-can-turn-away-gay-prospective-parents-what-happens-to-the-kids/

Apparently the number of actual adoptions is not changing as a result of the religious agencies adopting policies against gay adoptive parents.

From the article:

“In general, any barriers to adoption are likely to decrease numbers of homes for kids in need,” Bartholet added in an email. “But, of course, it’s possible that religious agencies would shut down rather than put their religious principles aside.”

Yes, Ms. Bartholet, it is very possible.

When my wife and I adopted, there were no U.S. adoption services agencies accredited in the child's native country, and no adoption services agencies in her country that were accredited in the U.S. That meant that a majority of the things an adoption services agency would normally handle ... we had to do ourselves. The U.S. has an office of some agency (I don't remember what department they fall under) that handles just international adoptions under the Hague convention. I got to be on a first name basis with Meredith, the person assigned to our case, and my wife and I both got to be on a first name basis with the person in the U.S. consulate in the native country, because we were doing all the heavy lifting. They duly processed the documents, but I was the one who had to read all the regulations and be sure we did everything ... and in the proper sequence.

The process took so long that our original home study report actually expired, and shortly before the adoption was to be finalized we had to get it renewed. So I called up the adoption social worker at Catholic Charities and asked to have the home study renewed. And she told us that she couldn't do it. Her branch of Catholic Charities had stopped handling adoptions! Too many rules, and they couldn't keep up with the changes so they dropped out. In the end, since her license as a social worker was still valid, we were able to have her update the report, and then I had to schlep it to an office of Catholic Charities in another diocese a couple of hours away that hadn't quit handling adoptions yet, and have their head of adoption social workers countersign it so that it came from an accredited agency.

It's definitely hurting adoptions, and that has to be hurting kids. I don't know where someone in my area would go today to adopt.

[KD5NRH]

Every effort to find a child an adoptive mother and father ought to be exhausted before moving to less than optimal choices.

This; it's long been proven that the ideal environment for a child includes both male and female role models, in a healthy relationship with each other.  Honestly, I'd expect a single heterosexual parent to be a better choice than a homosexual couple, because (assuming said parent is relatively normal psychologically) that is more likely to evolve into the ideal situation when said parent enters into a new long-term relationship.

[Firethorn]

This; it's long been proven that the ideal environment for a child includes both male and female role models, in a healthy relationship with each other.  Honestly, I'd expect a single heterosexual parent to be a better choice than a homosexual couple, because (assuming said parent is relatively normal psychologically) that is more likely to evolve into the ideal situation when said parent enters into a new long-term relationship.

Statistics and actual studies don't support your premise though.  

Single parenting is highly prevalent in some areas, and many have never had a long-term relationship to begin with.  A new long-term relationship isn't really in the cards for them.

Meanwhile, in studies that have looked at it, same-sex couples are able to raise kids with equal success(educational attainment, staying out of jail/prison, etc...) for their economic cohort as mixed-sex couples, at least within error margins.  Single parents are very much outside those error margins.

Having a home with at least two adults in it is the primary indicator of success for kids.

Though yes, from what I have read, lesbian couples will often shop around quite carefully for a male role model for their kids, especially if they have a boy.  Remember, most kids raised by homosexual couples are still going to be straight, and the gay couples are usually far more understanding of this than straight couples are of a gay child.

[MillCreek]

https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I am sure that many people here will challenge the authenticity of this data, being from the ACLU and academia, but if you have any cites to the peer-reviewed literature showing adverse effects to children solely from being raised or adopted by gay parents, I would like to see the citations to educate myself better on the matter. Or is that based on your religious, secular or parenting experience or beliefs, you simply feel that gay people should be barred from having children?

[Perd Hapley]

https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I am sure that many people here will challenge the authenticity of this data, being from the ACLU and academia, but if you have any cites to the peer-reviewed literature showing adverse effects to children solely from being raised or adopted by gay parents, I would like to see the citations to educate myself better on the matter.

Do you believe peer-reviewed journals, or the social sciences generally, are the sort of level playing field that would publish such peer-reviewed studies?

Or is that based on your religious, secular or parenting experience or beliefs, you simply feel that gay people should be barred from having children?

I don't see how adoption agencies have the power to forbid anyone from having children, adopting them elsewhere, etc.

Keep in mind, you're misunderstanding the issue in much the same way that most people misunderstand the same-sex marriage controversy. That is, you're saying that people are shutting out homosexuals from having children, when in reality, they have chosen to avoid the very thing that would give them a child of their own. In the same way, of course, it was claimed that our laws withheld marriage from people that in reality chose to avoid the very thing [a heterosexual relationship] on which marriage is based.

[MillCreek]

Keep in mind, you're misunderstanding the issue in much the same way that most people misunderstand the same-sex marriage controversy. That is, you're saying that people are shutting out homosexuals from having children, when in reality, they have chosen to avoid the very thing that would give them a child of their own. In the same way, of course, it was claimed that our laws withheld marriage from people that in reality chose to avoid the very thing [a heterosexual relationship] on which marriage is based.

And that goes to the heart of the issue, upon which we will have to agree to disagree: your belief is that homosexuality is a choice and as such, you believe gay people can choose to change their orientation. Their refusal to do so is a sin in the eyes of most conservative Christians.  Based upon my review of the peer-reviewed literature, my belief is the growing scientific consensus in recent decades is that for most, orientation is primarily driven by biology and genetics and is not a choice under their control.

And yes, I think the biological and social sciences are quite capable of producing reputable peer-reviewed literature.  It will be interesting to see where the literature goes in future years. 

[Fitz]

Never mind

[De Selby]

Do you believe peer-reviewed journals, or the social sciences generally, are the sort of level playing field that would publish such peer-reviewed studies?

I don't see how adoption agencies have the power to forbid anyone from having children, adopting them elsewhere, etc.

Keep in mind, you're misunderstanding the issue in much the same way that most people misunderstand the same-sex marriage controversy. That is, you're saying that people are shutting out homosexuals from having children, when in reality, they have chosen to avoid the very thing that would give them a child of their own. In the same way, of course, it was claimed that our laws withheld marriage from people that in reality chose to avoid the very thing [a heterosexual relationship] on which marriage is based.

You’re making this out to be a law of nature when it’s a choice by the adoption agency that’s in issue here.

You are not required to discriminate against people because of who they have sex with. You’re choosing to discriminate because it fits your idea of a religious command.

It should be obvious beyond words why as a society we would expect our government not to make laws on the basis of your religious beliefs about whose sexual choices should be disfavoured.

[De Selby]

And that goes to the heart of the issue, upon which we will have to agree to disagree: your belief is that homosexuality is a choice and as such, you believe gay people can choose to change their orientation. Their refusal to do so is a sin in the eyes of most conservative Christians.  Based upon my review of the peer-reviewed literature, my belief is the growing scientific consensus in recent decades is that for most, orientation is primarily driven by biology and genetics and is not a choice under their control.

And yes, I think the biological and social sciences are quite capable of producing reputable peer-reviewed literature.  It will be interesting to see where the literature goes in future years. 

Noting of course that even if it is a choice, the idea that choosing to have a sex same relationship should open one up to discrimination is itself a religious concept that secular laws should not accept without reason.

 Being gay isn’t okay or not okay because it’s a choice or not a choice. It’s okay because we live in a free society where choices that do not harm others should never form the basis of sanctions.

[Scout26]

This much like the Colorado baker issue.

If you are a gay (or whatever other letter of the alphabet) couple, then you are perfectly welcome to go directly through the State Dept of Children and Family Services (or whatever their title is in your state), or one of the non-religious entities that work in foster care/adoption.  As I posted elsewhere, I worked with a secular agency and a religious agency when I was a foster parent looking to adopt.

Do you go into halal butcher shops and ask for a pound of bacon ?  And if not, then you have your answer as to why religious entities should not be forced to give up their 1A rights to be an adoption agency. 

[Perd Hapley]

And that goes to the heart of the issue, upon which we will have to agree to disagree: your belief is that homosexuality is a choice and as such, you believe gay people can choose to change their orientation. Their refusal to do so is a sin in the eyes of most conservative Christians.  Based upon my review of the peer-reviewed literature, my belief is the growing scientific consensus in recent decades is that for most, orientation is primarily driven by biology and genetics and is not a choice under their control.

And yes, I think the biological and social sciences are quite capable of producing reputable peer-reviewed literature.  It will be interesting to see where the literature goes in future years.  

Actually, no. I said nothing about them choosing to be attracted to the same sex. I was specifically talking about homosexuals who want children, but choose not to have children of their own. And those who claim they want marriage, but reject the heterosexual relationship that is necessary to marriage.

For millennia, there have been homosexuals that chose to (or were pressured to) marry, and beget children. Most homosexuals in the Western world today, it would seem, choose not to to marry (unless it is same-sex ersatz marriage). I have always believed that choosing to avoid heterosexual arrangements is their right. But then, many of them claim a right to the things they've chosen to do without. That's the point at which reasonable people should stop supporting them.

And yes, I think the biological and social sciences are quite capable of producing reputable peer-reviewed literature.  

You're answering a question I did not ask.

[Perd Hapley]

You’re making this out to be a law of nature when it’s a choice by the adoption agency that’s in issue here.

Actually, that's not true. I thought it would be clear that when I said "they have chosen to avoid the very thing that would give them a child of their own," I meant they refused to have children either by natural, sexual reproduction, or by surrogacy, a sperm donor, etc.
 

You are not required to discriminate against people because of who they have sex with. You’re choosing to discriminate because it fits your idea of a religious command.

You're using the word "discriminate" for shock value. In reality, you and I both believe adoption agencies must use their best judgment to screen out ("discriminate against") family situations that would not be good for the child. If you want to argue that homosexual households are not harmful for children, you are free to do so. That would be more productive than just insulting well-meaning people, who care for children in a way you disagree with.

It should be obvious beyond words why as a society we would expect our government not to make laws on the basis of your religious beliefs about whose sexual choices should be disfavoured.

I am capable of knowing for myself where to draw the line between religion vis-a-vis liberal government.

[Perd Hapley]

And that goes to the heart of the issue, upon which we will have to agree to disagree: your belief is that homosexuality is a choice and as such, you believe gay people can choose to change their orientation. Their refusal to do so is a sin in the eyes of most conservative Christians.  Based upon my review of the peer-reviewed literature, my belief is the growing scientific consensus in recent decades is that for most, orientation is primarily driven by biology and genetics and is not a choice under their control.

As a Christian, I believe that we are incapable of resisting sin, without God's help, which He freely gives to all who ask. So, no, I don't believe that a homosexual can necessarily choose not to be one. But, yes I believe that with God's help, a homosexual can be freed from the sin of homosexual lust, just as you or I can be freed from the sin of heterosexual lust.

[RoadKingLarry]

Try "deeply held religious beliefs" instead.  There are other agencies that gay couples could work with.l   But no, they insist that not only must we accept their lifestyle, but that we must approve it.   

Bake the damned cake orphans!

[Ron]

Ignore the data of thousands of years of history where children were raised in heterosexual family groups with a father and mother and instead cite “peer reviewed” literature that uses statistics.

Statistics aren’t reality.

Peer review is institutional peer pressure that is probably responsible for the replication crises in social science.

[makattak]

https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I am sure that many people here will challenge the authenticity of this data, being from the ACLU and academia, but if you have any cites to the peer-reviewed literature showing adverse effects to children solely from being raised or adopted by gay parents, I would like to see the citations to educate myself better on the matter. Or is that based on your religious, secular or parenting experience or beliefs, you simply feel that gay people should be barred from having children?

From your own link:

critics of the LGB parenting research object to the small, non-random sampling methods known as “convenience sampling” that researchers in the field often use to gather their data.

many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group

So, small, non-random samples of homosexual couples affirmed the studys' authors' priors.

How shocking.

Oh, and this one is great:

Another study drew on nationally representative, longitudinal data using a sampling pool of over 20,000 children, of which 158 lived in a same-sex parent household. Controlling for family disruptions, those children showed no significant differences from their peers in school outcomes.

It was a study of over 20,000 children!!!! (where 158 were in same-sex households.) And they were not different! (once we controlled for "family disruptions")

Wait... "family disruptions"? Are those things that are evenly distributed or might that be an important issue, as well? (This nebulous "family disruptions.")

Additionally, the actions of Brown concerning inconvenient facts to the narrative makes me seriously doubt academia is trustworthy in any "sensitive" matter like this.

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, no. I said nothing about them choosing to be attracted to the same sex. I was specifically talking about homosexuals who want children, but choose not to have children of their own. And those who claim they want marriage, but reject the heterosexual relationship that is necessary to marriage.

For millennia, there have been homosexuals that chose to (or were pressured to) marry, and beget children. Most homosexuals in the Western world today, it would seem, choose not to to marry (unless it is same-sex ersatz marriage). I have always believed that choosing to avoid heterosexual arrangements is their right. But then, many of them claim a right to the things they've chosen to do without. That's the point at which reasonable people should stop supporting them.

Well said. The only part you didn't state explicitly is that, rather than enter marriage for the purpose of having children, they have been attempting to redefine what "marriage" is. Which calls to mind the story about Abe Lincoln and the dog's tail ...

[MillCreek]

So Mak, where are your citations supporting your case?  With your commitment to overcoming facts inconvenient to the narrative, I would have thought you would have some. Surely the Family Research Council has something.

[makattak]

So Mak, where are your citations supporting your case?  With your commitment to overcoming facts inconvenient to the narrative, I would have thought you would have some. Surely the Family Research Council has something.

I could bring such things to the debate, but you would dismiss them as quickly as you just dismissed my objections.

And I'm not overcoming facts. I'm criticizing poor statistical analysis.

I don't think there is any data available and I very much doubt there ever will be, given that any data found to contradict the narrative will be attacked and suppressed.

Further, I'm fairly certain that only someone hostile to the idea of gays adopting could be trusted to find that data. Which, of course, would make his data suspect.

I am more than certain if researchers sympathetic to gay adoptions found data that indicates it may be harmful to the children, they would not publish it.

So, unless you can find me researchers hostile to gay adoptions that find it to be beneficial (or "not harmful"), I have no reason to believe your data. Unless I can find researchers sympathetic to gay adoptions who find it is harmful, you won't accept mine.

We live in times where even research is suspect.

[DittoHead]

unless you can find me researchers hostile to gay adoptions that find it to be beneficial (or "not harmful"), I have no reason to believe your data.

I don't think this was intended as a joke, but I sure got a laugh out of it. 
We've certainly entered the age of alternative facts and ‘Truth isn’t truth’.

[makattak]

I don't think this was intended as a joke, but I sure got a laugh out of it. 
We've certainly entered the age of alternative facts and ‘Truth isn’t truth’.

Actually, it was a matter of individuals finding data that goes against their pre-conceived notions.

If you get a glowing report from Ford about the new F-150, how much stock to you place in the information?

[Ron]

The science of human reproduction and which sex is best equipped for various roles in provisioning and child rearing isn’t really ambiguous.

Exceptions can be pointed out of course and it can be pointed out that they are in fact, exceptions.