Do you object to gay couples adopting?

independent_thinker2002 said:

Throw in fish and we have a deal. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

hmmm......well....ok

1069 said:

No, that's a "nuclear family", and there's actually nothing traditional about it at all.
That didn't even become a standard family model until the post-WWII era, which wasn't very long ago.

Click to expand...

Traditional... Nuclear... they are the same thing.
A Nuclear Family has been the Traditional Family for thousands of years.

Look up marriage in Ancient Greece or Rome.
read up on the Native Americans and other cultures.

The Traditional Family, for thousands of years, consists primarily of a man and woman... husband and wife.
These two, generally, have children.

There are cousins and aunts and uncles too... Extended Family.

They use different terms, in many cases, but they are what they are.

Bodhisattva said:

Traditional... Nuclear... they are the same thing.
A Nuclear Family has been the Traditional Family for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

Thousands of years? Try decades. Thousands of years ago, young couples were expected to move into either the husband's parents' house, or the wife's parents', depending on culture. Children were raised not by their parents, but by their extended family.

The "nuclear family" is a product of the Industrial Revolution, in which young men and women moved into cities, away from their relatives, to find work.

Bonnie1988 said:

I'll accept the story of the link, but one story doesn't make a point. There are examples of a very young sibling raising young children, certainly examples of polygamists successfully raising children etc. Do you support 13 year-old and polygamists adopting if I can point to examples of those doing good foster or adoptive parenting?

Click to expand...

How about we narrow it down. Do you approve of the gay couple in the story legally adopting the two boys they are fostering?

Bonnie1988 said:

Your calling my post "angry, hateful, prejudiced, and paranoid" is exactly a prime example of why I don't want the selection of foster or adoptive parents to put children into the middle of the rabid, screaming gay rights movement. The only message on this thread that appears "angry and hateful" is your response to my message. It was impossible for you to make a disagreeing message without an intense personal attack against me for pointing out the obvious flaws in the story you had posted. While "angry" is arguable, there was nothing hateful, prejudiced or paranoid about my message.

Click to expand...

At least you agree with me on 'angry.'

Korimyr the Rat said:

Thousands of years? Try decades. Thousands of years ago, young couples were expected to move into either the husband's parents' house, or the wife's parents', depending on culture. Children were raised not by their parents, but by their extended family.

The "nuclear family" is a product of the Industrial Revolution, in which young men and women moved into cities, away from their relatives, to find work.

Click to expand...

The Nuclear family is the remaining core of what was once a usually extensive kinship grouping. Most of that however has been worn down until all that is left is the Nuclear family. In that sense it has long been around, it was just a lot better supported in centuries past and part of a complex kinship grouping.

tryreading said:

How about we narrow it down. Do you approve of the gay couple in the story legally adopting the two boys they are fostering?



At least you agree with me on 'angry.'

Click to expand...

I don't know how long the children have been with them. If it is long enough to establish bonding and IF THE STORY IS TRUE, yes - because the decision is about those 2 children and a situation already existing.

Bonnie1988 said:

I don't know how long the children have been with them. If it is long enough to establish bonding and IF THE STORY IS TRUE, yes - because the decision is about those 2 children and a situation already existing.

Click to expand...

That link I just posted in response to your concerns states in the very first sentence that the boys have been with the gay couple since 2004. Helps if you read the material.

mikhail said:

Yea im still not really happy with any of these studies i wanted something more like liklihood of children commiting suicide or bullying of children with same sex parents.

Click to expand...

The information is there. I'm not sure which studies but you have to read them. The incidence of children committing suicide is no different between the two. If I recall correctly, all studies except one indicate that there is no increased bullying with children of gay parents. Once study indicated that there was a slight increase for male children.

Jerry said:

...what...nothing on related couples or polygamists? :stooges

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me. Where do you want it, this thread or the other?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Thanks for reminding me. Where do you want it, this thread or the other?

Click to expand...

I think I deleted my subscription to the other thread...this one will do.


omg, after over 3 years on DP I think someone is going to finally, actually answer my question on polygamy...I can't wait to see.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Thousands of years? Try decades. Thousands of years ago, young couples were expected to move into either the husband's parents' house, or the wife's parents', depending on culture. Children were raised not by their parents, but by their extended family.

The "nuclear family" is a product of the Industrial Revolution, in which young men and women moved into cities, away from their relatives, to find work.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thousands of years. At the very least, hundreds of years. :2razz:

History
During 17th and 18th century, the nuclear family became a pronounced feature in Western Europe

Nuclear family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Let's just look at what a "Family" is:

Family
Family denotes a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity or co-residence.

Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



BUT... really now, a Nuclear Family is really just a FAMILY that we have tried to micro-define.
It is still the model of a Traditional Family... a Family that has been in existence for thousands of years.


nuclear family

noun
a family consisting of parents and their children and grandparents of a marital partner

- WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

I agree that the term "Nuclear Family" is best described as a modern post Industrial Revolution model, but the Nuclear Family as a model has been around for thousands of years. Today, though, we think that the Nuclear Family means that the kids move out after college and that they start their own family and that is that. This is not the case. Millions of kids, even after they are married, live with their parents. Happens all the time, upper middle class too, that is where I was raised.

Extended Family can be part of it, though most definitions separate the two.

extended family

noun
a family consisting of the nuclear family and their blood relatives

- WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

...though you can see that they are very close indeed, I am not going to argue semantics here... the fact is that a Mother, a Father, Children, and in many cases, Grandparents make up a "Traditional Family".


Conjugal family
A conjugal family consists of one or more mothers and their children, and/or one or more spouses, usually husbands. The most common form of this family is regularly referred to as a nuclear family.

Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


conjugal family

noun
a family consisting of parents and their children and grandparents of a marital partner [syn: nuclear family]

- WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University


ALL of these pertain to "Traditional"...

traditional   Show Spelled Pronunciation [truh-dish-uh-nl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition

traditional definition | Dictionary.com


Wessexman gets what I am saying easily enough:

Wessexman
The Nuclear family is the remaining core of what was once a usually extensive kinship grouping. Most of that however has been worn down until all that is left is the Nuclear family. In that sense it has long been around, it was just a lot better supported in centuries past and part of a complex kinship grouping.

Click to expand...

:2razz:

I know this is late to the debate but I don't care.

Personally I'm torn on the matter. On the one hand if they love each other and are good parents I have no problem with that, just like a straight couple should be to adopt.

But this is my problem, when the kid goes to school. Right now I'm in High School, and I can tell you that any kid who has gay parents will get ripped on horribly. They would constantly get made fun of and they could become a social outcast. Now putting a kid through that isn't good. But then again a kid can get made fun of for many reasons, not just that.

So as of now I'm torn on the issue, i can't say yes or no.

partier9 said:

I know this is late to the debate but I don't care.

Personally I'm torn on the matter. On the one hand if they love each other and are good parents I have no problem with that, just like a straight couple should be to adopt.

But this is my problem, when the kid goes to school. Right now I'm in High School, and I can tell you that any kid who has gay parents will get ripped on horribly. They would constantly get made fun of and they could become a social outcast. Now putting a kid through that isn't good. But then again a kid can get made fun of for many reasons, not just that.

So as of now I'm torn on the issue, i can't say yes or no.

Click to expand...

A fair enough post and one focused upon the children, not political correctness. These aren't easy issues because questions about what is best for a child often aren't. Decisions about children should never be stuck in the politics or platitudes of the moment.

PS... interesting avatar selection.

partier9 said:

I know this is late to the debate but I don't care.

Personally I'm torn on the matter. On the one hand if they love each other and are good parents I have no problem with that, just like a straight couple should be to adopt.

But this is my problem, when the kid goes to school. Right now I'm in High School, and I can tell you that any kid who has gay parents will get ripped on horribly. They would constantly get made fun of and they could become a social outcast. Now putting a kid through that isn't good. But then again a kid can get made fun of for many reasons, not just that.

So as of now I'm torn on the issue, i can't say yes or no.

Click to expand...

I'm curious. Are there any kids in your school that have gay parents and are they made fun of? I have worked with at least half a dozen kids, males and females, who had gay parents (and were open about it) and none of them were ever made fun of. The literature doesn't support that argument either. Just curious if your experience is different.

I always hate when poll questions are the exact opposite of the thread title. Sure I could read, but that takes time.

Anyway, I don't care if gay people adopt. A happy home is a happy home and we've plenty of orphans to go around. I guarantee that a gay family is much better for a child than the State.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm curious. Are there any kids in your school that have gay parents and are they made fun of? I have worked with at least half a dozen kids, males and females, who had gay parents (and were open about it) and none of them were ever made fun of. The literature doesn't support that argument either. Just curious if your experience is different.

Click to expand...

Yes I have known kids who have gay parents but in NH it is not as common as it is in other parts of the country, so that may have something to do with it but I don't know.

I have known two kids who's adopted parents were gay and a friend of mine knew another quite well. In my experience a kid or person in school is judged by how they act most of the time. Now one of the kids I knew wasn't really made fun of that much, but any jest or insult made toward her was about parents. But overall she wasn't really made fun of that much, she was made fun just as much as every one else was.

Now the other kid I knew was a few years younger than me and went to my old summer camp. He was a loner, and was made fun of many things including his two mothers. Now how much that effected him I don't know but still it was pretty common that he was made fun of for that.

But the boy my friend knew is probably the strongest impact of what I have seen or heard about being made fun of. Now my friend lives in Mass so I don't see him that often but every once and a while I do. Anyways when he was in 3rd or 4th grade a this boy moved to his school, from out of state. When the school found out that he had two parents they sent out a memo to all the parents about his family. Now of course at that age none or very few kids knew what lesbians were, many kids just thought he had a mom and a step mom and didn't see the difference. Now when the kids at my friends school started to realize that he only had two moms and no dads, they thought that was weird, and in turn he was weird. So he never really fit in with the kids, and he was sort of an outcast. And then a few years later he moved.

Ikari said:

I always hate when poll questions are the exact opposite of the thread title. Sure I could read, but that takes time.

Click to expand...

Yikes, I didn't even notice that. I just assumed it would be the same.

I am coming to the thread late but in my opinion, diversity is a good thing if it raises postive qualities of excellence, creativity, innovation, broadened horizons, better ideas, and/or enhancement of the culture. Othrwise it is highly overrated and should be discouraged when it lowers standards, reduces innovation, causes lowered expectations and results, and/or is destructive to the culture.

It makes no sense to discriminate when a person's age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin etc. is not a factor in quality or results. But there are times when it does make sense to discriminate.

You don't have the aptitude, intellect, interest, or preparation to be a rocket scientist? Cool. Then we'll probably discriminate and choose somebody who does for that role, but you probably are absolutely brilliant at other things. It makes no sense at all to lower the expectations and qualifications for excellence in rocket science in order to accommodate you. If there is no rocket scientist around when you have to have one, then and only then do you settle for the willing and don't worry so much about the able.

I believe that statistics support and nobody will be able to show any broad or comprehensive study that will dispute that the traditional family with a competent mom and dad in the home raising the kids is the very best circumstance for children. That is their best shot at completing their education, their best chance at not growing up in poverty, their best opportunity to not get into trouble with the law or get trapped by booze or other drugs or in general to have a good chance to succeed in life. Communities with a strong base of traditional families invariably have a stronger economic base, lower crime, better schools, and less poverty.

Does that mean single parents or gay parents can't do a great job of raising kids? Of course not. Many can and do. Sometimes that is absolutely the best option for a kid when a traditional family just isn't in the cards for him or her. Certainly a loving single or gay parent is preferable to kids being bounced around into foster home after foster home. I'm also not saying that all traditional families are good for kids either. Some aren't.

But for the reason that I believe, all other factors being even, all kids, whether straight or gay, benefit from having a loving mom and dad in the home--something same-sex couples cannot provide--I would always give a qualified married man and woman first option to adopt.

I checked "yes", gay people should be allowed to adopt on the poll. But I would have preferred an option that gay people (or single people) be allowed to adopt when there is no traditional family for that child.

I believe that statistics support and nobody will be able to show any broad or comprehensive study that will dispute that the traditional family with a competent mom and dad in the home raising the kids is the very best circumstance for children.

Click to expand...

Utter malarkey.

But for the reason that I believe, all other factors being even, all kids, whether straight or gay, benefit from having a loving mom and dad in the home--something same-sex couples cannot provide--I would always give a qualified married man and woman first option to adopt.

I checked "yes", gay people should be allowed to adopt on the poll. But I would have preferred an option that gay people (or single people) be allowed to adopt when there is no traditional family for that child.

Click to expand...

In other words, gays should get the rejects, the leftovers, the leavings, the dregs, the scum, the bottom of the barrel: the children that no straight couple is willing to accept.
You know, I'm sure they would, at that. And be happy to do so.
Most gays are pretty open-minded and generous people.

No. I do not object. I encourage it.

I don't put it up there on the list as the optimum situation, but neither do I condemn it.

Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. Any family is better than no family.

1069 said:

In other words, gays should get the rejects, the leftovers, the leavings, the dregs, the scum, the bottom of the barrel: the children that no straight couple is willing to accept.
You know, I'm sure they would, at that. And be happy to do so.
Most gays are pretty open-minded and generous people.

Click to expand...

You're right. Because these guys did take the rejects, the brothers who were being housed by addicts, shit probably caked up inside the younger ones pants for a week, the older one illiterate, unable to interact with anybody but his little brother...

When I read the intelligent opinions from some of the people on this thread, the ones who keep claiming that the gay couples who want to adopt seem to make the issue about themselves, I shake my head. Its very tiresome to deal with them.

The thing is, the people here on this thread are the ones making the story about the gay couple, along with the state of Florida. Because the story is about two kids who have been well fostered for 4 years by a couple that now wants to adopt them. But they can't adopt them. Why? Because the state of Florida won't allow it because the foster parents are gay. The state itself has made this a gay issue. This story wouldn't be in the newspaper otherwise.

Some people don't get it, because they are twisted by their own ignorance and prejudice.

I have no problem with gay couples adopting because I have yet to see any proof that it negatively affects the child.

Because the state of Florida won't allow it because the foster parents are gay.

Click to expand...

Look man. The state of Florida is FAMOUS for having a screwed up family court/child protective services/foster care program.

It affects just about everyone who has to deal with it from what I am told. Gays, straights, whatever. If it comes to making a decision regarding the betterment of a child, you can count on the decision to be a screwed up decision if said decision was made by Florida.

They are just now finding hidden bodies, in mass graves, from a Florida State School for Boys. Those accused attrocities were a couple of decades ago, but it gives you the idea of where Florida is evolving from. In fact, wasn't there another death in the news, in a florida boy's reformatory, caused by abusive authorities, not too long ago?

Florida people are wonderful people. But, why their state's departments concerning children, is soooooooo out of whack, I really can't say. It just is.

Captain America said:

Look man. The state of Florida is FAMOUS for having a screwed up family court/child protective services/foster care program.

It affects just about everyone who has to deal with it from what I am told. Gays, straights, whatever. If it comes to making a decision regarding the betterment of a child, you can count on the decision to be a screwed up decision if said decision was made by Florida.

They are just now finding hidden bodies, in mass graves, from a Florida State School for Boys. Those accused attrocities were a couple of decades ago, but it gives you the idea of where Florida is evolving from. In fact, wasn't there another death in the news, in a florida boy's reformatory, caused by abusive authorities, not too long ago?

Florida people are wonderful people. But, why their state's departments concerning children, is soooooooo out of whack, I really can't say. It just is.

Click to expand...

Well, in this case also it is a senseless thing. How can the state welcome gay people as foster parents, then at all costs prevent them from adopting the kids the state placed in their care? I understand its a religious thing, and it has to be overcome through the courts. So, I hope the guys fight and win this thing.

They should evolve to reproduce like the rest of us.