Why is gay adoption better than foster care?

Advocates of gay adoption often say it will allow childen who are stuck in foster care to have more potential adoptees. However children adopted by gay couples are more likely to be bullied or stigmatized in school than those of straight couples, so why is gay adoption a better option than allowing them to be raised in foster care? Why is foster care "that bad" anyway - especially if the alternative is being bullied and made to feel like dirt as a young kid just because of your adopted parents lifestyle, and growing up to hate yourself and your parents?

 

Children of gay parents may well be more likely to be bullied but then so are adopted children in general. Kids in foster care can suffer a lot of bullying too. To be honest, I think serious bullying is a matter of bad luck as anything - bullies will find an excuse regardless.

That is just one relatively small aspect of the whole of a child's upbringing though. I think it is well recognised that the disruption and lack of consistent points of support in foster care can be a major difficulty, especially since kids in foster care are more likely to have issues that require that support.

In general terms, the establishment of a permanent family by way of adoption is a massive improvement. There are all sorts of potential issues with any prospective adoptive couple (nobody is perfect) and those need consideration but I agree with the view that any negatives of adoption by a gay couple will be generally outweighed by the benefits of getting out of the system.

 

It is just better for children to remain in a single home for the remainder of their youth because bouncing around in foster care can give them emotional attachment issues and a whole other slew of mental and emotional problems.

If they are adopted into a loving, nurturing and stable home environment they would be much better off.

There are some children who are lucky enough to end up remaining in the same foster home for the entirety of their youth, but most of the time being separated from their families to begin with will start their emotional development problems early on and they tend to bounce from foster home to foster home.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145.full

I truly believe it is better for children to have a stable home life, whether it be with straight, gay, or single parents, than to be bouncing around the system and never forming any long lasting bonds with parental figures. HonestJoe certainly said it better than I could though. lol

 

Im guising you and those like you are behind most of this stigma

 

Because being bullied and having parents to come home and comfort you is typically better than living in foster care, which is typically better than being out on the streets. The next logical argument is to say that ugly parents, poor parents, or socially awkward parents should not be able to adopt because they too might embarrass their child. Better yet, for the sake of argument, any good potential parent should be barred from adopting because every good parent embarrasses their child quite often.

 

this seems to be space crickets line of thought i don’t like homosexuality other people don’t like homosexuality were going to teach are kids to not like it so you homosexuals should shut up and do all you can do avoid are notice

Then the answer to his question is
the only way to fight him and his kind is to not give in on the fight for fair and = treatment until such treatment is the norm and stigma born of intolerance subsides thus reducing the problem of being bullied for having parent of the same gender and for being homosexual
fairness is why it’s better
The benefit to kids who have a homosexual or bi sexual biological parent in a same sex relationship is why it’s better.
the benefit of all people in are society by living in one that doesn’t have as much senseless contempt is why it’s better to let gay couples adopt like any other couple
Rather than giving in and hiding form the scum who look down on others for no good reason

Dealing with and correcting bully’s rather than hiding form them and encouraging them is why it’s better to have gay adoption

 

Acceptance of social issues like that takes decades. Around 90% of people in some clinical trials I read about physiologically reacted in a more heightened, scared sense when a picture of a black person was shown as compared to a white person. Some outwardly still do not like people of other races.

Homosexuality will be the same. It's been about a century and most still do not believe women to be as capable of men in a variety of professions ranging from fire fighting to management.

 

Could be but giving up and conceding to the homophobes, the racist, and sexists is not the better answer

 

It's not about conceding, it's about facing reality and recognizing that society is pretty hard to change. Sometimes that change isn't worth it to the individual... sometimes it is and the acceptance society can offer isn't worth it. Everyone has their balance.

 

Why is it then that in non-Christian, or Muslim countries, people who are openly gay have still been ridiculed? Gays think if you got rid of religion that they'd face no more 'intolerance' but that's just a dream.

 

Impasse then what’s better is subjective and no conscious can be reached

 

People like you who don’t like homosexuality exist and are not all religious I imagine again no reason to not fight you for a better world

 

As a dad and having worked with a lot of youth as well I've seen the behavior difference of single parent homes on kids. I am no "expert" but my eyes do not lie to me, my wife and friends.

We've had kids where the mother or father died while the child is young. You notice the want for the mother/father and not simply their own. They see friends with their moms/dads and want a male/female relationship in their lives. Grandparents try and fill the void but it's not just the same. Uncles/aunts also try and it's better than nothing

the worst are the kids from divorce where the parents fight and use the kids as pawns. Both "parents" (and I use the term loosely) should be sent to their rooms.

Those in foster care are a different breed as they are cast aside whether because there is no family, grandparents are too old, aunts/uncles don't want them etc.

In other words, no matter how you paint it, the situation is not ideal for a child. So, they need a loving home whether it's with a husband/wife, brother/sister or even a single person. They want and need to feel loved.

There are of course cases of foster care where the adults do it simply for the money. Those cases must be weeded from the system. There are cases as we saw from the gay cop in NY who adopted boys just to be his sex toys. We really need to scrutinize the people who want to adopt and understand their motivation. If after the male/female homes are exhausted and there are still kids then absolutely put them in single parent homes and even homes where the parent has gay sex. Love from one is better than wondering why nobody wants you.

 

If what you say is true sec, that most children want an opposite gendered parent to form a bond with, or that children want a mother and a father then they should certainly have a say in whether they want to be adopted by a gay couple or not. If it's an older child I believe they generally try to match the child up with prospective parents who would have similar interests as them and parents who are also able to attend to their specific needs as well, since older children that have been in the system for a long time usually have a lot of emotional issues as well.

If they are older they definitely should get a say in the matter whether they believe it is a good fit or if they like the idea of having gay parents.

But with the way things go now, most people, even straight couples, refuse to adopt older children out of the system and most gay couples have been turning to surrogates and sperm banks to produce their own biological offspring. Even if we did open up adoption completely to prospective gay couples I have a strong feeling that they too would be waiting in line like many of the straight couples for an infant and the older children would still go unnoticed and unwanted. It's very sad but the vast majority of new parents want babies.

 

yup because it takes a very very very very (did i say very) special person to take a "broken child" and be able to cope with the emotions and difficulties which go with it.

My own brother and his wife took in a foster child they heard about through church. She was 11. She was sweet as pie but tried to drive a wedge between the biological kids and my brother/sister in law. She was with them for 2 years and was accepted by the family until at 13 she decided that running around naked and pleasuring herself in front of everyone was a good thing. She even did it at our house and one of my kids came running up from the basement to tell us what she was doing in front of them.

needless to say, even after counseling she was a huge handful and thus, moved on.

What happens to kids which makes them so broken that even love can't fix????

foster parents rarely are told the true lineage of the child or history. I understand the desire for babies or infants/toddlers but a loving home should always be given a shot vs bouncing the child.

I don't care if you are married, single whatever. If you are next in line to adopt then God Bless you and let's focus on the child and not make it a high five moment for singles or gays or a sky-is-falling moment for those who disagree

 

I agree. Anyone who is willing and devoted to caring for and attending to the particular needs of an older child up for adoption is a very good person indeed and they are also very few and far between...

 

Being bullied and stigmatized builds character and makes you stronger. Most of the time it will also teach those doing the bullying of their wrong ways later in life. I think bad heterosexual parents are better than no parents. To many kids these days are being taken out of homes by social services. I only know of two gay couples with kids and (*)(*)(*)(*) they are lucky kids....

 

It's unfortunate that most "studies" that try and estimate the effectiveness of a gay couple as parents, are done so based on facts studied on children who went through divorce or loss. Frankly, it's not surprising that they would yearn for the parent lost to them, or be stressed by the fighting between their two parents. But those stresses have nothing to do with the question being asked.

 

there are foster parents who treat the child like their own but never adopt for whatever reason. It's uncomfortable for the child because they have a different last name than the family with whom they live but as the child ages the stigma wears off. In a perfect world people would be good parents, provide for their own children or the immediate family raises the children and the topic would not need to be discussed.

But, we are an imperfect people

 

Indeed, and the fact that we are all imperfect, are all different, have different social and economic backgrounds, have different needs and interests, all of that togeather means it's rediculous to make a statement like "give foster kids to straight couple first, and anyone left over will have to settle with a willing single or gay couple". It's as though you're saying that one factor outweighs all other considerations, and you do so on the basis of anecdotal evidence provided by children of divorced individuals or those who lost a parent, as though that has something to do with the wellbeing of children raised by gay couples.

Yes, children should go to the best home available to them, regardless of the wants or needs of interested gay or straight couples. But it's rediculous to claim automatic preference to straight couples without considering the multitude of other relevant factors.

 

you were doing so well until you tried to go against the natural order of things where a child is best with a loving man and loving woman.

Try as you may, a male/male or female/female is not as good as mom and dad. Dad alone or mom alone is not as good as mom/dad.

That does not mean a widow or widower can't raise their own kids or even become a foster/adoptive parent. It's about the child, not your agenda and you were doing well but your agenda slipped past for one moment

 

Any study on said subject says children do best with their biological parents, buy of course this is not an option for kids in foster care. Anything beyond that is an unfounded claim on your part, especially when you claim the presence of a man an woman outweighs almost any other consideration. Even I you believe, all else being equal, that an opposite sex couple is superior to a same sex couple, the reality is we are rarely dealing with "all else being equal".

I have no agenda here other than to suggest the male/female criteria is the wine criteria that trumps all others. It can be a criteria, of course, but there is no basis or the trump card given it.

 

So in your viewpoint- children should be adopted by parents in the following order:
Loving Father/Mother- in poverty, using drugs
Loving Dad/Dad- wealthy, living in safe neighborhood.
Loving Mom or Dad- wealthy, living in safe neighborhood.

Because the first consideration is always getting that Father and Mom arrangement- regardless of anything else?

Because its about the kid- not your agenda- right?

Do I get that right?

 

I think that in cases of couples of equal parenting skills, the straight couple should get first pick, because a kid growing up in a gay household will have a harder time simply because the parents are gay. It's no longer about what two consenting adults do, now that the kid is involved.

 

Most gay couples have turned to surrogates and sperm banks to create their own biological children though so you can't stop them from having the kids they want anymore than you can stop straight couples from having the kids they want. And all you are doing by disallowing gay couples to adopt is keeping other needy children who have already been born from potential loving homes and families.