"Vive La Difference!" [40% of adopted children in Massachusetts adopted by homosexuals?]

Family Operations News, The Fatherhood Coalition ^ | 21MAR04 | Mark Charalambous

[familyop]

Vive la difference!

by Mark Charalambous

March 21, 2004

“Forty percent of children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families.” This remarkable fact was revealed by Sen. Jo Ann Sprague during her passionate speech at the March 11 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. But rather than a warning against the further legitimization of homosexuality, this statement was given as evidence in favor of granting full marriage rights to homosexuals.

Can there be a better example of the lunacy presently holding sway in Massachusetts? Can someone please explain the logic of how it benefits children to be raised by women who wish they were men and men who wish to be women? Previously considered a disorder, homosexuality has now apparently been elevated to a virtue. Sen. Sprague believes we should legalize same-sex marriage for the benefit of children. And she is not alone. Along with Margaret Marshall’s Gang of Four and the Travaligni-Lees axis in the Statehouse, there is no doubt that the mainstream media in the state is also pressing full bore for same-sex marriage.

Homosexuals benefit from a news reporting double standard. Images of loving gay couples with children are juxtaposed with ranting, religious anti-gay marriage partisans. This bias extends to undisputed criminal behavior by homosexuals. Take for example the hand-wringing of PBS news commentators and various other pundits regarding the prison murder of convicted homosexual priest John Geoghan. Judging by the reaction, one would think that this man was some benevolent soul who spent his life helping children but somehow ran afoul of the law because of some character flaw. Prison murders are nothing new. Why the hue and cry and calling for new penal procedures to protect inmates as a result of the murder of this particular criminal?

Earth to liberal media: He raped boys. Get it?

Now, can we have some equal time, please?

I lived in San Francisco for several years in the 70s and 80s. I had bisexual roommates and had gay friends. I went to the first Hooker’s Ball, and mingled with that “diverse” population. I remember one afternoon when a male co-worker told me that he had just had sex in a gas station bathroom with a man he met while at lunch. This was not unusual, but rather typical behavior of the gay population in SF. When the object of the male sex drive is another male, the outcome can be nothing but rampant promiscuity. Can you say “bathhouse?”

And what can we expect from the outcome of lesbian marriages? Attorney and former Mass. gubernatorial candidate Barbara Johnson once had to drop a lesbian client she was representing in a domestic relations case. “They were absolutely off the wall. Nuts.” she said. Bear in mind that Johnson’s stock-in-trade is representing men in the most vicious and contentious of divorces and custody cases--often men who have been falsely accused of sexually abusing their children, but more typically fathers who have just had their civil and human rights, such as access to their children, violated by spurious allegations of domestic abuse.

Just as off-the-wall sexual mayhem is the typical result of male homosexuality because there is no check and balance from female needs and social-biological imperatives, off-the-scale legal mayhem will be the result of lesbian divorces, especially when there are children involved. Operating under the paradigm that it is always the man’s fault, how will courts determine whom to punish in same-sex divorces? Here’s what the salty Ms. Johnson predicts:

“Can you imagine the quagmire and the cost to pay attorneys to prove who is the male and who is the female in a male-male or woman-woman relationship? Lordy, they'll be measuring sphincter muscles and comparing the scores of dildo types. The symptoms of abuse will be diarrhea and torn labia.”

Every day in the newspaper I see reasoned (though wrong) arguments favoring same-sex marriage, sprinkled by letters from fundamentalist Christians opposing homosexuality because “the Bible says…” The logical, commonsense and scientific arguments against placing homosexual unions in the same sphere as the biological family are nowhere to be found.

Where’s the discussion about how much of homosexuality is learned, adaptive behavior versus how much is attributed to congenital factors? Where’s the discussion of the likelihood that gay parents will inculcate homosexuality into their children? Where’s the discussion that links the two? That is, if homosexuality is overwhelmingly learned behavior, same-sex parents will inevitably raise children to be homosexual. Where’s the discussion about disparate rates of homosexuality in twins that shows this to be true?

If homosexuality was not learned, adaptive behavior, one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all the incarcerated men and women who engage in homosexuality behind bars are actually latent homosexuals who merely required the necessary environment to discover their true nature. Common sense dictates that it is the unnatural conditions of imprisonment without access to opposite-sex partners that leads to homosexuality in prison.

Studies that exuberantly report finding no significant difference in children raised by same-sex parents simply can’t be trusted. Like the volumes of other agenda-driven social science studies, they suffer from a lack of sound methodology. According to Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, "not a single one of those studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research."

Even some supporters of same-sex marriage admit the chicanery. According to author Ann Hulbert, a same-sex marriage proponent and author of “Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice about Children,” Judith Stacey is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her “a nemesis of traditionalists.” Yet Stacey “readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns.”

Should we be surprised by well-meaning heterosexual liberals arguing, “Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry? It doesn’t affect me or my marriage?” No. Thirty-plus years of moral relativism has taken its toll. As we slouch our way to Gomorrah, we can unfortunately no longer expect such people to think of anything larger than their immediate concerns. “Make a moral judgment on someone’s behavior? For society’s benefit? Heaven forbid!” These are, after all, the same people who think that the recent canceling of the Howard Stern radio show by several stations is an attack on free speech and poses a danger to civil liberties.

Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the American Psychological Association in 1973, the same year as Roe v. Wade. The lunatics have been running the asylum ever since. I am reminded of a conversation I had with a neighbor, a native of India. Considered an overly strict parent by the neighborhood children--especially his own--this man neatly summed up in two words the state of decay in American society: “It’s chaos.” Concerned Americans on the right side of the culture war are watching Massachusetts and wondering, just where is the bottom of this downward spiral?

Bottom line: The institution of marriage and the biological family are not merely arbitrary social constructs tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; they are civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. For this reason, the union of man and woman has been ritualized by every religion and social system known to history. Vive la difference!


Mark Charalambous, CPF: The Fatherhood Coalition

[familyop]

Fatherhood

PING!

[breakem]

so what are the results? How are the kids doing?

[jwalsh07]

They're doing better than a visit to the abortionist but not quite as well as having a Mom and a Dad.

[breakem]

we don't disgaree on best option.

[billorites]

This isn't the optimal situation is it?

The good news is, kids are remarkably resilient.

[Constantine XIII]

C'mon, that has to be a bogus statistic. :/

[VOA]

[40% of adopted children in Massachusetts adopted by homosexuals?]

This is a suprise?
In a state on-schedule for gay marriage?

[cyborg]

At least babies aren't being ground up for convenience. Frankly there are many child languishing in adoption and I'm glad they're being adopted.

[breakem]

my original poit is that if 40% are going to homosexuals, there's achance to study results, which I think might be short and long term and base some conclusions on factual evidence on not what passes for learned statements here on these threads.

[breakem]

I'm a mom and pop is best, guy, but I know that many kids are not raised in this situation.

[jwalsh07]

I know, I'm not as dense as you sometimes think. :-}

[Constantine XIII]

The rest of the article is great, though. :)

[breakem]

how could you be? LOL

[tbird5]

"The good news is, kids are remarkably resilient."

I hate when people say this. Parents who get divorced like to think this is true. Yet no one ask the children, until they're at the shrinks office.

[xJones]

Somebody might do a study checking the rpms on John and Samuel Adams graves, because they must be revolving so fast.

[jwalsh07]

ROTFLMAO, you're all right breakem....

once in a hundred times.

[cwb]

Yeah, it's a shame that my cousin had to go to Romania to adopt two kids because the process of adopting in America is a nightmare. My brother-in-law, an attorney got lucky as he knew the woman personally looking to put up for adoption...but even he said it's a joke.

[breakem]

Don't let any of the usual suspects on either side catch us making nice. Especially on a homo thread.

[billorites]

You're right. No one asks the kids. And no one will.

What are they going to do?

Most cope pretty well. The ones with marginal coping skills get screwed. Literally.

What action by the feds would improve things?

[cyborg]

Wow...yep believe me the red tape is incredible. I know that personally when my mother tried to adopt.

[familyop]

C'mon, that has to be a bogus statistic. :/"

Maybe. But whether it is or not, MA feminist State Senator Therese Murray did say it. And Mark, a fathers' rights activist, heard it, himself. Here are a couple of addresses (confirming Therese's statement) a few of us dug up after Mark wrote his column.

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/12/the_debate_on_gay_marriage_pro_and_con/
(confirmation that Massachusetts State Senator Therese Murray stated the "forty percent" figure)

http://www.statehousenews.com/public/cc-mr11-4.htm
(more on the same)

BTW, Mark does a good job of showing where most fathers' rights activists stand on social issues.

[DManA]

Can't be right. That would mean they actually give PREFERENCE to homosexuals over married couples in deciding who gets a kid.

[justanotherday]

Sadly, it's good they're being adopted, but the environment they will grow up in will subject them to ridicule. This is the reality of gay's rearing children.

[cyborg]

yep

[LWalk18]

Can't be right. That would mean they actually give PREFERENCE to homosexuals over married couples in deciding who gets a kid.

Maybe- or maybe they are adopting children married couples don't want. Still, 40% seems high to me.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Where’s the discussion about how much of homosexuality is learned, adaptive behavior versus how much is attributed to congenital factors?

Only 10% of homosexual men are born that way.

The rest just get sucked into it.

[familyop]

PING

You might know a few who want to see this one, too, Boyo.

[familyop]

INTREP?

[shaggy eel]

but the environment they will grow up in will subject them to ridicule.

,,, that's the case with many kids brought up by heterosexual parents, for one reason or another. I'm not endorsing gays adopting kids in saying that.

[LiteKeeper]

I am a retired Army Chaplain (ret 1995); VietNam vet - 1967-1969 (Field Artillery Officer in those days)

I am currently teaching a Comparative Worldview (biblical vs humanist) class in the evenings at the Air Force Academy Prep School, Colorado Springs. Fourth year at Air Force Academy. Taught same class at the West Point Prep school for five years.

I also have the privilege of teaching several classes in Colorado Springs to high school, college, and adults on comparative worldviews (biblical vs secular). As I read the various threads, some impress me as good for illustrating different worldviews. So, using some Army terminology, I mark threads as

• SPOTREPS (spot report) - incidents"
• SITREP (situation reports) - &descriptions of the current world scene"
• INTREP (Intelligence Report) - information of an event involving those of the "opposition;"
• INTSUM (Intelligence Summary) provides more general information.
• OB (Order of Battle) - identifies liberals, and other such Rats to watch out for

When I get home, I download these reports to a database for future class use.

Hope that helps?

[justanotherday]

"that's the case with many kids brought up by heterosexual parents, for one reason or another"

So give me one reason, or another.

[justanotherday]

SPOTREPS

[Luis Gonzalez]

Get a room!

:-)

[shaggy eel]

So give me one reason, or another.

,,, sure. What about the nerd with straight parents who's ridiculed?

Here's another. I was adopted when I was thirteen days old. My adoptive father has been living with my ex wife since December 1994. There would be substantially less chance of that if he was gay. Nobody has outrightly ridiculed me on that account, but I know my "dad" has received some sideways glances.

Let me know if you need a third reason.

[knak]

wow

[momfirst]

C'mon, that has to be a bogus statistic.

Not necessarily - in the one family I know that lost their children to the state and the adoption process has four of the six kids being adopted by a lesbian couple. I think in that one instance it calculates to over 40 percent. Oh, and the caseworker is a lesbian and we live in Oregon (Multnomah county to be specific) - wonder what our statistics are. Maybe we should find out how many of the people placing these kids in the adoptive homes are homosexual - I see a personal agenda there...

[justanotherday]

"Let me know if you need a third reason."

Help me out here. Are you for or against changing the definition of parenting?

[Qwinn]

"That would mean they actually give PREFERENCE to homosexuals over married couples in deciding who gets a kid."

This would surprise you why?

Qwinn

[momfirst]

the process of adopting in America is a nightmare.

Unless, of course, you're in league with the homosexual caseworkers. In the instance I mentioned, there were several Christian families that had known the kids well from the church they attended while in foster care that wanted badly to adopt them - but were given the run-around and basically ignored. All family and friends cut off as soon as the lesbian couple was ready for the kids. Sad, sad, story.

The icing on the cake is these kids were removed from a home where they were sexually abused. What better family to put them in when they're already confused and in therapy for sex-related issues? A lesbian home, of course. Seeing this happen before my eyes has given me an insiders view of how these 'families' really work. I pray for those children often.

[shaggy eel]

I'm not endorsing gays adopting kids in saying that.

,,, that's a line from my post #30. I don't think it's in a child's interest to be brought up by two same sex partners in a relationship. I also don't think that the pre-disposition Courts have in awarding custody to mothers is the way to go either, but we're stuck with that - and the very high possibility of gays getting their wish in this regard we're discussing here.

My plight (not that I'm looking for tea and sympathy or playing "Bambi in peril") is something I've disclosed here simply to outline possibilities you may wish to take into consideration before you attempt to apply a one size fits all banner to an issue like this. If you're still in doubt as to what my position is, go back to the top line of this post.

[breakem]

Luis, I'm hoping he'll adopt me. LOL

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh man...that would be the bottom of the slippery slope!

[breakem]

leave my bottom out of this. Prevert!

[longtermmemmory]

Does mass have a referendum process which can be intitiated by citizens petitioning? Perhaps a petition to outlaw homosexuals adopting children would be a valid effort.

The opinion of the 11th is most excellent on the point of supporting the validity of a prohibition for homosexuals adopting children.

[LadyDoc]

Of course.

You see, homosexuals tend to be rich, so would get higher on the "adoption" list than a heterosexual couple. Indeed, the tendency of social workers to prefer rich white families over poorer ones is the reason that Black social workers (and American Indian tribes) stepped in twenty years ago to stop their children from being placed outside their cultural community by white social workers-- rather than with poorer extended family members or friends of the family willing to adopt but who had been turned down because the kid might have to share a bedroom etc.

Second, the dirty little secret is that many social workers are lesbian, and are predjudiced against Christian families...I personally know two families who were turned down for adoption becaus they were too "strict". One was a pastor and his wife, whose foster child was taken from them when after four years they tried to adopt her. Another was an infertile friend who "flunked" the adoption quiz when she said she would not tolorate a child being sexually active at 15.

Alas, adoption is constantly getting a bad name in the press and movies ("I couldn't give my children to strangers" I am constantly told by teens who abort)...rather than seeing it as a loving thing. As a result, we infertile moms adopt overseas children...

[LadyDoc]

When I adopted overseas, we were carefully screened and instructed that adopting was NOT a social statement...adoption was for the good of the child, and we would be considered only if we wanted a child to raise, not a trophy child.

One wonders how many of these "gay couples" want trophy children...to prove they are "normal"...

[familyop]

"so what are the results? How are the kids doing?"

Maybe you can find help for that at the following site.

http://www.narth.com/

or if one prefers more plain language,

http://www.inoohr.org/index.htm

[familyop]

"Don't let any of the usual suspects on either side catch us making nice. Especially on a homo thread."

Huh? And here's some more info. It's not very subjectively rhetorical or emotional, though. ...only facts.

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1

[breakem]

sorry, didn't see anything on the Mass adoptions. Perhaps your links are not updated.