John McCain things so. Matthew DeLong says no, that "according to to the American Psychological Assn., research shows "that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents," and there may even be some positive effects. Also, the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on that of their children." But the facts are a small price to pay for the sake of discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.
« The Lost Opportunity | Main | Obama and Zakaria »
Do Gay Adoptions Hurt Children?
15 Jul 2008 11:41 am
Comments (20)
"according to to the American Psychological Assn., research shows "that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents," and there may even be some positive effects. Also, the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on that of their children."
Why not just title the blog post "Gay Adoptions Don't Hurt Children," Matt? Ahem.
Is John McCain some kind of expert on raising children?
Anyway, isn't this a state-law (not a federal) issue? Where is he going to find the power to tell the states they can't allow adoptions by gay people?
Judges, maybe? (Is there a right of children not to be adopted by gay people I've never heard of somewhere in the constitution? Are they going to go back on the rationale of the Violence Against Women Act case and put it in the Commerce clause?)
If he can't find the power, then his opinion on the issue is largely moot. Why are you advertising this demagoguic bullshit issue that scares ignorant people but is not practically an issue in the election, Matt?
Well, maybe our supposedly scrupulous Supreme Court will decide that there is a right of parents who have legally relinquished responsibility for, and all rights over, their childern to not have their children raised by a gay person.
Anyone who has gone as far as passing a state bar exam will know that in our country, whis is like legal witchcraft. But who knows what these Republicans will try tomorrow (throwing out your claimed principles is only a day away for most people, anyway), so long as it's mostly only the gays who are going to get hurt by it or complain about it?
Two Swans enter. One Swan leaves.
It's the battle of the century!!1!
Does it make it better or worse that he arrives at these vicious positions more through laziness and disinterest than any actual malice?
Judith Stacey has some thorough sociological research showing that children of gay couples are more tolerant than other children. Go figure.
I don't think that children should be adopted by anybody who espouses "intelligent design". It's obvious that they are insane and thus are not fit parents.
Does it make it better or worse that he arrives at these vicious positions more through laziness and disinterest than any actual malice?
Do you really believe that?
Never did me any harm.
I suppose the feminist-dominated family courts would be most interested in knowing in gay adoptions who is the "mother" and who is the "father" so the "father" can be screwed if the gay relationship breaks up.
I also believe that the biological mother, and sometimes fathers who are part of the give up for adoption decision do have a right to condition their relinquishment of parental rights on certain criteria. And if the state is unwilling to contracturally agree, then they should be free to go to private adoption agencies that will honor their demand that surrender of parental rights is conditional.
Conditional?
1. Such as the baby must be adopted by a US citizen, not sold abroad to a wealthy couple.
2. That a white couple cannot adopt their black child.
3. No gay adoption.
4. In a Christian adoption agency, adoption by Muslims, Jews, cults like scientology unacceptable. Similar restrictions by a Muslim adoption agency...
Ford goes for the rarely-acheived hat trick: sexist, racist and homophobic in one comment. With an added touch of religious bigotry, he's outdone himelf this time.
The McCain campaign has since retracted McCain's opposition to gay adoption. It is a funny statement. It begins with an endorsement of states rights which is sensible enough. But it then goes on to admit something that would seem to be that children are better off being adopted by gay couples than remaining in foster care, but clearly does it in a way that does not use those words. Apparently they did not want something that could be given in the size of a bumpersticker to scare the religious right with the message that McCain doesn't sufficiently hate gay people.
rea -
You can call parental wishes any evil "ism" in the book if you want to. You still can't PC-bully or guilt trip parents out of their free will and parental rights in demanding certain things be done in the best interests of the child as part of a voluntary, contractural act they sign onto.
What are you, a gay Jewish Leftist?
Or someone that thinks potential adoptees should go to the highest bidder in a foreign land? Or be forced into an adoption that the biological parent(s) determined to do what is best for the child by giving the kid up for adoption find objectionable based on their belief that a Muslim-born child raised as christian or in a gay household will be damaged by that upbringing?
Matt went through a period in the last couple of months where he seemed to clean up his grammar and spelling problems. But looking at posts over the last two weeks or so, I'm beginning to thing the old Matt is back. Am I write?
What happened to the McCain who didn't have enough information to answer questions about social policy, like whether women should be able to get birth control through their insurers?
That McCain looked the fool, but at least he didn't remove ALL doubt.
I suppose the feminist-dominated family courts would be most interested in knowing in gay adoptions who is the "mother" and who is the "father" so the "father" can be screwed if the gay relationship breaks up.
Well, I can tell you that that attitude is changing and Family Courts are becoming more conscious of the rights and feelings of fathers.
However, it's just a fact that if you have to pick between one or the other, it's more likely that its the mother and not the father that (especially small) children are closer to (maybe to some extent this is not just biology, but also because in our culture many men are still too comfortable acting like obnoxious assholes in their familial disputes and relations?). In the vast majority of divorces (where neither party is a person who is actually unfit to be a parent) it just doesn't make sense to deal a 3 or 4 year old kid the nasty blow of ripping him or her away from his or her mother.
I also believe that the biological mother, and sometimes fathers who are part of the give up for adoption decision do have a right to condition their relinquishment of parental rights on certain criteria.
While laws and procedures of course vary state by state, no, they generally don't. You relinquish or you don't.
Matt,
A number of years ago it was demonstrated that the studies you are taking on faith were severely bias by pro-gay researchers. Nobody really knows the answers at this point.
Nice bit of work by Sailer, there. He uses the passive voice ("it was demonstrated") in hopes that no one stops to think, demonstrated by whom? Which, naturally, is something he forgets to tell us.
Comments closed July 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I thing I agree with you.
Posted by Tom | July 15, 2008 12:03 PM