Offering some good news to social conservatives, the “gay adoption” ban in the state of Arkansas passed easily on November 4th.
The final vote tally will be approximately 57-43%. Arkansas already has a ban on gay marriage.
Legitimate studies show that two-parent households result in more happy, healthy children than either gay households or single-parent households. That is the difficult reality that gay couples need to swallow. A nurturing mother and a decisive father are still nature’s way.
Do not use this thread to show incomparable studies that lump single-family and heterosexual couples together. Those are apples and oranges studies that are promoted by social engineers with an agenda. I wish gay couples were as successful at child-rearing than heterosexual couples because kids would be better off if it were only true and the adoption rules could be consistent.
For that reason alone, I oppose gay adoption even though I support gay “marriage” or civil unions. This is not a matter of “rights” for parents. Worrying about what parents want is a habit nurtured in egomania. All that really matters in the altruistic issue of adoption is the best interest of children. Moms and dads are best.
So “Arkansas Measure 1″ passes easily and gay adoption becomes prohibited in the state. It seems a strange result in a Democrat year, but it is the right result for children. And while economic conservatives lost in 2008, social conservatives are still on top in most areas of the country.
Gay Adoption Ban in Arkansas (Video)
November 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
So many of the socially and fiscally conservative values were identified as important to voters - and yet they still voted for Obama. How does that make any sense? They voted for a man who doesn’t share their values on any level.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Wrong, studies show children of gay parents are just as health if not more so than haterosexual parents. All of the studies were conducted by heterosexuals btw.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Something is very wrong when a measure that codifies unjust discrimination into law is hailed as “good news” . I suppose you’d be in favor of outlawing divorce as well then, since apparently children living with single parents are at least as unhappy as those living with gay parents?
November 5th, 2008 at 12:15 am
females have some different sensibilities and communication abilities from males, so its good for a child to be raised by a female and male, especially in role identification. Lacking that a gay or lesbian home may substitute and if the characters involved are sane and sensible and caring the kid may do okay compared to being in a dysfunctional hetero home. There is no one way. All families vary and are different. As long as the childs needs are being met and its a positive environment its not so bad. I do think many straights feel their way of life is being infringed upon by aggressive gays, but then the hetero’s use to totally dominate the gays to the point of making them criminals in times not so long ago. Its tit for tat.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:09 am
single moms can adopt
why not a gay couple?
November 5th, 2008 at 8:10 am
You’re the one lumping gay two-parent households in with single-parent households. Studies that actually compare stable, two-parent households to stable, two-parent households show NO difference in the outcome between gay and straight parents. Sorry to dispel your Leave It To Beaver fantasy, but kids thrive with *good* parents who care about them, not with opposite-sex parents.
Why don’t you come to my house and tell my children to their FACES that their family is worthless and they’d be better off in foster care than living with their moms? Doesn’t sound as nice, huh? Doesn’t make you feel as warm and fuzzy and family-valuesish?
Any law that makes it harder for kids to get out of the hellhole of foster care is never good news, and that’s why everyone looks at you “social conservatives” like you’re insane and evil.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Good luck finding homes for all those foster kids who are currently with single parents. (This includes widowed Grandma’s, idiots.)
November 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I’d like everyone to site their “studies,” including MCCAIN. I am interested in the facts.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
In 2004, the American College of Pediatricians stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting:
“ Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts…
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
Here is a great article on homosexuality:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexual_Parenting_and_the_American_College_of_Pediatricians
November 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
your position would be admirable (and agreeable) if there were a surplus of foster parents. the fact is there are a surplus of orphans without foster parents. please justify your reasoning with that in mind…
November 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
so, if a gay couple is banned from adopting a child then why is there no ban on a single parent adopting a child? down with single parents! ban single parents from adopting! they have no right to try and adopt!
sounds stupid, right? so does banning gay adoption. what happened to equality in this country? do we always have to have a group of people to oppress or will we one day follow our own constitution? hopefully, one day personal agendas will be put aside and we will vote based on the words of our constitution. EQUALITY FOR ALL
November 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
So tired, I’m with you on your first point. Single-parent households are also not as good for kids. Ban those too. The “equality” argument is for the kids rather than parents, equal opportunities for the tots. Anything else is just selfish since your feelings aren’t relevant to kids.
Jake, you make a considered point. If adoption agencies were allowed to prioritize based on the living arrangement, that would be acceptable. Put mommy and daddy households first in line, and we can consider other arrangements later. The court challenges would make this an expensive idea though, so we’re probably just better off keeping it simple. And as a reminder, you probably know there are long lines for adoption, so the back of the line would probably never get to the front.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
What is totally disingenuous about the argument for gay adoption is that supporters of it pretend that this kind of “family unit” has always been here, we are just no getting around to “banning” it. This issue is generalized and anyone who opposes gay adoption or marriage is beat down with emotional tripe and called “evil” or accused of being discriminatory.
Here is a question for the homosexual couple (or single parent, if you like): When you decided to adopt, did you consider the well-being of the child before your egotistical desire to have a child? How much doubt about your ability to raise a healthy child would it take for you to reconsider?
Parenting is sacrificial, but we have let kids down by not sticking to our marriage vows, not even bothering with marriage (just a piece of paper, right?), or bringing them into single or homosexual homes on an experimental basis, hoping for the best. Children deserve alot more.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Your argument is lacking on many levels. I will avoid the obvious slippery slope argument (should we regulate which types of families provide the best homes?) because I hate those arguments.
Instead I would pose to you whether it is better for a child to have no parents at all vs. a gay ones? My partner and are top income earners and conceivably could provide a lot to a child (minus a mom of course).
Furthermore, we have seen that the “best” environments do not produce the best citizens, indeed the complete opposite often seems to be true as demonstrated by Obama, the CEO of Starbucks and various others.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Hey Buckaroo…
American College of Pediatricians? Are you kidding? These are christian zealouts who happen to be pediatricians! It is NOT a credible, medically or clinically objective organization - and one the right-wing relies on to support their stupid, insipid demagoguery like the author, MCCAIN.
I am so sick and tired of the stupid moral teachings of like-minded idiots - theories and beliefs that are sooo not based in reality or logic, while homophobia and more hate crimes against gays are possible…
November 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I am sorry Buckeye, PLEASE be objective. Do you know any god-damn gay people to actually talk and LISTEN to them in order to understand that YOU CAN’T TURN A PERSON INTO BEING A HOMOSEXUAL. The evidence that homosexuality is based on biological science is the basis from respectable medical and psychologically organizations is OVERWHELMING….and thus while it deviates from the state of nature in terms of procreation purposes only should NOT be a basis to treat a group of people any differently under the eyes of the law.
The evidence that gay parenting of adopted children is hugely functional and successful everywhere (but the south seemingly) really puts you people to shame regarding an intellectual arguments you try to make…
Bullfrog: what the hell does “egotistical” mean?
Christ, stupidity and ignorance is so sickening!
November 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Ahlesa: Gay parents vs. no parents. How is this different from the heterosexual “bad” parents vs. gay parents argument? Since children represent the future of our country, we should strive to give them the ideal, and not intentionally put them in less than ideal situations. Your “top earner” income can’t take the place of a balanced household with 1 male and 1 female biological parent who love and care for their children. Although, private schools and cool toys are certainly a nice “perk”.
You say “minus a mom of course” as if that is of no consequence, and that arrogance is what gets under my skin as a parent.
rott: from Websters - Egotistical: an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Next time, look it up yourself. I am not interested in your elitist, intellectual drivel.
Your argument is:
2 biological parents = 2 adoptive male parents
Please help me understand how this makes sense? I need assistance due to my “stupid ignorant christian zealoutry”.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Whenever I read about this debate about children growing up better in a heterosexual family rather than a single-sex family, there’s one particular aspect that particularly gets my goat, and it’s this: not all family’s are created alike. Some family’s are abusive, or uncaring, and almost everybody complains of something their parents did that screwed them up. The argument against gay adoption is that it’s not best for the children. Well, is growing up in a loveless household, for example, best for the child? Is it better than being raised by two loving, supportive parents? Obviously not. So what do we do then? Prevent that less-than-optimal family from having children? Of course not, this is America.
And what about single parents? Growing up with only a father or a mother is clearly disadvantageous to a child compared to having that nuclear family structure. Your mother might work 16-hour shifts to pay the bills and be exhausted when she comes home, not having time to do much mothering because she’s too busy fighting for your survival. Do we take the child away from her? Have there not been any people raised by single parents who have, despite not being raised in the “optimal” conditions, turned out alright. Heck, our President-Elect was raised by a single mother. He seems to have turned out alright.
So here’s my point: there are countless examples in America of less-than-ideal child-rearing situations. And of course that’s the case. We’re only human and have our faults, and sometimes circumstances dictate our paths, and create limits. I believe you will be extremely hard pressed to prove that being raised by a loving gay family is worse than being raised by the worst heterosexual family (whose children haven’t been taken away by CPS), or the worst single parent. I have several friends who have been raised by two parents of the same sex, and they are well-adjusted, have all their fingers and their toes, and are productive, caring members of society. So what was wrong with their upbringing? If you want to ban all but the best living environments for children, then you have to go well beyond banning homosexual living arrangements. Otherwise, your motives are clearly guided by something far more insidious than “what’s best for the children.”
None of us are perfect, and none of us ever will be. Nor will our country or any country ever be perfect. But America, as we see it in the ideals we hold closest to our hearts, is a nation that we seek to perfect, day by day. This is not done by restricting the rights of our fellow citizens because of a lifestyle they’ve chosen, but by learning how to live with each other, and by working every day to ensure that America continues to be that shining city on a hill, an example to the rest of the world of freedom, acceptance, and the constant pursuit of perfection.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Well, well, well . . . it is high time for all those heterosexual married couples to step up to the plate and foster and adopt all the children not served by this ban.
I would love to hear from one of the kids, twenty years from now, that languished in foster care for years while an eligible household was passed over because of this ban.
Me, I am hetero . . . from a family consisting of over 60 percent of adopted individuals–a great many of them being single women who adopted. I saddens me to think that my family would not exist under Arkansas law.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Two dads are better than one
Gay adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than do biological parents, according to a national study.
American Sociological Review, found that gay couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.
“One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them.”
November 26th, 2008 at 3:27 am
There is no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting. A case by case basis is what is best for determining the best situation of a needy child. I was raised by my mom and her “choice of the month” (mostly losers) and I turned out fine. I would have had it no other way, because I love my mom. I can’t help but think that any child would grow up feeling the same way about his/her adoptive parent(s), be they gay or straight. If they do a good job with providing guidance, love and security…then that is really all that matters. Get over yourself, please so this great nation can help it’s children!