Why is gay adoption better than foster care?

feel free to show me where I dismiss the vetting process. Or, is your agenda showing trying to discount the law of nature?

 

My position is that I'm open to considering a multitude of factors. All else being equal, I believe it has been fairly well established that biological parents are best for their children, although there are limits even to this depending on the amount of drug use.

I am also not qualified to say what other factors are most important and to what degree, but I'm not willing to say that a gay couple should be automatically bumped down to the very bottom without much consideration of other factors.

As for the particular order you gave, again I'm not qualified myself to say and I think there are many more factors to consider than what you gave, but my intuition is that if the mother/father who use drugs and are in poverty are also the biological parents, they should be on top. Non- biological, then the gay couple would move on top over impoverished drug users.

If you have two couples, one gay and one straight, and bother are fairly equal in most regards, the straight couple is probably better for the child, in large part because they will face less stigma for their parents. But I question the significance of that factor when there are other factors to consider, and when what studies i've seen generally see the children of gay couples fair off just as well ad their straight counterparts of comparable status.

 

let's review 2 different people who appeared in the news. I can't recall names but there are threads here (unless the great DB error ate them) for both

A: NYNY male cop who adopted boys and engaged in gay sex with them

B: female teacher who had gang bangs with her male students

in A, clearly the vetting process failed. My hunch is that they saw "cop" and assumed all was good

in B, here we have a teacher and should her past-performances be held against her? Wouldn't you think a teacher to be uniquely qualified to handle foster or adoptive children?

in both cases if I had A, B or C with C being a single person be they gay or straight then I would choose C to be at the head of the line

the problem is the vetting process

 

Well at least you put us on top of known child molesters... I'm not sure how you think I'm supposed to take that.

 

Children adopted by gays are no different than any other child with parents and are as well-adjusted as any other child with hetero parents.

Not only that, but they normally do not face judgement of other children, most of whom haven't absorbed the homophobia and hatred of their parents yet. Many probably are envied by those children in one-parent families. They aren't bullied anymore than anyone else. Those that are are being bullied because of the aforesaid ignorance and homophobia of their parents.

 

Okay so following that line of reasoning- if one of the factors is whether the child will have a harder time because of the parents then clearly the following would need to be considered:

Fat parents- fat people are the one group it is still okay to humiliate in America. Children of fat people will have a harder time- therefore thin parents must have a priority over thin parents.

Ugly parents- face it ugly people get the short end of the stick- Children of short people have a harder time- therefore good looking people must have priority over ugly parents.

Inter-racial parents- this is a biggy- lots of issues if parents are bi-racial- therefore we should give non-mixed couples priority over mixed couples.

black parents- racism is still alive. Clearly white parents should be given priority over black parents- because a kid growing up in a black household will have a harder time simply because the parents are black. Its no longer what two consenting adults do, now that the kid is involved.

Clearly the last thing that we should consider is whether or not the prospective parents are financially sound, committed to raising children, and are in a stable relationship.

 

I think most kids would be best off with a family period. Gay, Straight, or single parent- kids are better off with a parent who wants a child to raise. I know about foster homes- they are.....a mixed bag. Many foster parents do the best that they can. Some are in it for the money. But a family who adopts a child is usually in it for the long haul- not just to 18. Foster families....they usually can't afford to do much with kids past 18.

One of the strongest indicators of whether a child will be financially secure in life is his or her parents income. Assuming we are talking about kids who can't be with their biological families, I think it would be terribly irrresponsible- and indeed irrational- to even consider foster care before financially secure and committed gay fathers or mothers. In my opinion, you are putting your own agenda's ahead of the child's well being.

 

This is a pretty easy question to answer.

Foster care is temporary. Children aren't usually kept in a single foster home for long periods of time. They are bounced around from family to family. That's a serious upheaval for kids having to change homes, schools, not being able to lead a stable life.

Being adopted by a gay couple allows them stability and a loving family. Easily distinguishable as better.

As for you point about kids picking on them...yeah that could happen. But it also happens when they're in foster care. Kids, contrary to many peoples thoughts, can be very cruel. They will pick on one another for any reason.

 

To a degree I agree with some of those sentiments... for example the fat people. It's fine if their fat, and I don't think there's any problem for the child facing problems because their adoptive parents are fat. But, it is a perfectly relevant consideration for the adoption process to consider if the parents are able to provide a healthy environment for the child... specifically, that the adoptive parents in question are able to provide healthy meals and not promote obesity in the child as well. Just because the parents are fat does not mean they are incapable of doing so, but proper nutrition for the child is something that should be reviewed.

It might also make a degree of sense to match race when possible, as the simple reality of it is (as you've pointed out) that racism is alive and well, and it may be easier for the child to feel integrated into families that are of similar race.

But I'll also agree that issues like these can easily be trumped by considerations of the adoptive parent's financial resources and general commitment to the cause... those are more issues of finding the best fit for a given child given a multitude of factors, rather than prioritizing who's on top of the list as a "best parent" in any and all cases.

 

So, by your logic, kids should stay in foster care because other people will make fun of them for their parents being gay?

Kids need to be loved, and foster care is no place to grow up in. It's the people who are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bullies that have the problem, not the kids that need a loving family, or the couple who happens to be gay and are willing to adopt a kid.

Your logic is stupid, and deserves to be mocked.

 

It is apparent that the OP has never spent time in a foster home. There's nothing wrong with gay couples adopting children in need of a home.

 

Really its just that he wanted an irritating thread about Gays. I don't think he ever actually believed any of what he wrote.

 

Interesting, because in the Huffpost article, it says, "some of those agencies don’t treat prospective LGBTQ parents the same as other prospective parents, arguing that doing so would violate their moral and religious beliefs." This implies that the only thing stopping them is their "moral and religious beliefs", but you're saying that even if they wanted to they couldn't because "numerous states or federal agencies have placed limitations or specific denials that the agencies can place on same sex couples."

 

Take a look at the adoption statistics by race, and a very different picture emerges from the one most Americans think.

The reality is that healthy normal White babies have no trouble being adopted. In fact there are long waiting lists of prospective parents, and many parents have to turn to importing a baby from Russia or Guatemala.

The other reality is that many of the parents who do adopt a Black baby (while commendable) find that baby too rambunctious to handle. It's not for everyone...
(Please don't dismiss the facts just because they are racist. That's sticking your head in the sand and you'll never understand issues)

Claiming that gay parent adoptions are going to solve the adoption problems that exist in the country is a vast oversimplification of the real issues.

I read that in the old days they did let gay couples adopt, but they would hand them a crack baby.
Obviously that didn't help the statistics to see whether the outcomes were different between regular adoptive families and gay adoptive families.

 

Ended no, greatly reduced you bet.