That is pretty easy for you to say if you have never been an orphan with no home. Some of these foster homes are wretched places filled with real abuse. Which is worse, having loving gay parents or abusive foster parents? Not to mention the fact that in the foster system these kids get passed from home to home like a relay baton. This analysis also ignores the fact that many foster parents have more foster kids than their house can reasonably hold because their monthly check is based on head count. A child who grows up in those conditions will grow up damaged. There is a larger, and very real, societal cost that will only be realized years later. I am glad for you that you can just cavalierly declare that these kids don't deserve a loving home. THAT is the source of my conflict on this issue. I can certainly understand the sentiment of not wanting children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. This question becomes a lot closer once you know the realities of the foster care system. Again...we are talking about perceived abuse vs. real abuse. People feel that placing a child in a home where the parents are gay is abusive. Meanwhile, foster homes are filled with real physical and sexual abuse. Forget for a moment about neglect.
Jesus, there are some scary, ignorant twits in this thread. Anyone who thinks that it is preferable for a child to be raised in an institution or in non-permanent homes, than it is to be raised by two loving parents of the same gender has no concept of the reality of orphanages, group homes, and foster care. I know personally a number of gay couples who have adopted children and my experience is that they tend to be on average more engaged, conscientious parents than the average heterosexual parents. Probably because they don't take the ability to be a parent for granted.
What if it certain qualifiers were in place - such as: two women could raise a child as a couple, but they couldn't play soft ball.
Do you believe kids should be taken away from single parents, divorced parents, and irresponsible parents?
yes, an inartful muddle, and a bit of a dodge, but i think he's wrong on the merits, and as an adoptive parent himself, and one who stepped outside his immediate cultural background when he and his wife adopted (one of his daughters was adopted from Bangladesh), you'd think he'd get that.
If you asked the orphans if they'd rather be adopted by a traditional heterosexual couple or a gay couple, the overwhelming majority would probably go with the straight couple. But if you asked them if they'd rather be adopted by a gay couple or not at all, a majority would probably choose to be adopted. People who have never been in a foster home shouldn't be telling these kids they're better off not having parents at all. Why don't they let the kids decide? If they don't want to be adopted by a gay couple then they don't have to be. But if they've been in foster care for years and years and never had anyone to love them as parents and they just want a family regardless of sexual orientation, who's place is it to deny them that? Why don't we make it illegal for lesbians to be artificially inseminated while we're at it.
Divorce is a sin. If a husband and wife get a divorce, any children produced by that marriage should go into state care. I think the right should campaign on that. I mean, if they want to stay consistent with their beliefs.
Having worked for CPS, and in several group homes, and as a child and family counselor let me give my opinion. First of all foster homes and group homes both get good and bad press. We used to call it a pendulum. If a story came out about abuse in a group home suddenly foster care is the answer. If a foster parent gets caught in the headlines abusing a child group homes are better. Group homes are good for children who need a restrictive environment because of sexually acting out, violent, and extreme needs behavior. I was a case manager for a 7 year old girl who was a sexual predator, keeping her in foster care was extremely difficult because she would prey on her siblings and many parents would give her up. Someone like that may need the type of restrictive environment where she would get 24 hour care and supervision. That being said group homes can be bad because the staff tend to be underpaid, overworked, they have a high liability, there is little room for career advancement. Getting hit, bitten, attacked, etc, is part of the job. Therefore you are not going to get the best workers because few want to work in these conditions. So yes there are cases of abuse. Some malicious and terrible and some, to play devils advocate, are often the response of a tired inpatient caregiver using excessive force to defend themselves. Group homes also constantly have new children and workers coming in and out. That kind of inconsistency is not good for a developing child. Foster care is seen as the better choice because it allows the child to have a home environment where they are most likely to succeed. One that is not restrictive so that they may have friends, normal school and activities. Obviously the same risks of abuse exist. There are nowhere near enough foster parents available. Group homes will always exist however because of the need of "shelters." Shelters are where an AHIT, (after hours investigation team), worker will need to drop a child off if he has to remove a child late at night. Any type of foster care is better then a group home. I don't care if it's lesbians, gays, a single parent, aunt and uncle, grandma and grandpa, whatever. Any child who has been in a group home for awhile would kill for a chance to live in a home with his own room, toys, and most importantly consistentcy. The ignorance spouted by TJ sickens and saddens me.
What some of you call ignorance is what others call standing up for what they believe in. The pro-gay parents faction has presented a totally false choice: "An endless cycle of foster care versus Gay Adoption". That is not the choice. Sending an unsuspecting child with no choice to grow up and learn from members of society who have willfully chosen to live a deviant lifestyle is repugnant. This is not the only alternative to foster care. You could improve foster care facilities and methods. You could promote adoption among two-parent, heterosexual couples. You could promote birth control, sex-ed, etc. There are so many better choices than gays adopting children. Again, when you choose to live an openly gay lifestyle, you must understand that you forego things best left to heterosexuals. Marriage and raising kids is part of that equation. You can't have it both ways -- it's just not fair to the children, AND it's morally reprehensible. Christians who favor gay adoption -- I challenge you to go to church and explain to your fellow paritioners why you feel the way you do. You can not justify this without sacrificing your beliefs, and there is no disputing that.
It's hard to imagine more intellectually dishonest blather, than than this. If taxes were actually raised to make these changes, no one would squeal louder than him. The only things that matter to tater_j are low taxes and government subsidized torture p*rn.
I notice he ran away when Leviticus was brought up. Is that typical with him? If not, can he sell me his daughter so that she can work on my yard? Crabgrass is going nuts outside, and I just don't have the time.
There are plenty of older foster children. And typically, the older they are the less likely they'll be adopted because people prefer to adopt infants. Not all foster kids are babies.
So you believe in denying a child a loving home. Okie dokie. And we can end hunger...and cure cancer...and the world will be full of cute and fuzzy bunnies all at the wave of a magic wand. In short, it isn't that simple. Because it is sooo fair to the kids to deny them a permanent home and shuttle them like luggage from foster home to foster home. Please...stop acting as though you give a damn about what is fair. I promise you that there are a number of clergymen who would agree with me, if they were allowed to speak frankly and off the record.
How about we make this rule up: If a black man chooses to marry a white woman, then that couple can not adopt white kids. I mean the black man had the audacity to marry a white woman.
Truth be told i don't think all gay couples are trying to adopt an orphan. Now if the population of the United States had a good percentage of gay couples then my view might be different. I am just against gay couples raising a child. I am not saying that gay couples would not take care of the child. Its just that I dont think its ok for a kid to grow up thinking homosexuality is a valid choice. When it comes to dealing with homosexuals on a day to day basis its all business and nothing hostile on my part. I am not a bigot though many of you may accuse me so because of my stance against homosexual couples adopting kids. I bet there are other members on the board who think the same way but just may not have commented. Although I will admit that I have no clue to as what an orphan or foster child experiences.
So what kind of choice to want kids thinking it is? This is an awesome way to put it. I know I have a hell of a time dealing with minorities, but I keep it strictly business, too!
