Posted on 06/30/2006 8:43:24 PM PDT by DBeers
June 30, 2006 — For 103 years, Catholic Charities of Boston has found homes for tens of thousands of needy children, but tomorrow the adoption agency shuts its doors.
It is closing because of pressure from the Catholic Church, which opposes the Massachusetts law that protects the rights of gay couples to adopt a child.
"We find ourselves in a conflict," said the Rev. Bryan Hehir from Catholic Charities. "The religious, moral principles of Catholic teaching and practice clash with the political and civil regulations of the state."
Churches are increasingly banding together to fight gay adoptions, something George Graham and Michael Fleenor feel personally.
They have been partners for 16 years and adopted their 3-year-old son, Robbie, who was in foster care.
Now they want to adopt another child, but it might not be as easy this time, because legislators in their home state of Ohio have proposed a bill to ban adoption by gay couples.
"We really do feel under pressure," George Graham said. "We feel like there is a window that is possibly closing and once it is closed, it's closed."
States Debate Issues as Children Need Homes
In addition to religious activism on this issue, a groundswell of grassroots activity to ban gay couples from adopting children has led to proposed legislation across the country.
Last year, bills banning adoptions by gay couples were introduced in Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. All those bills were killed in committee, but some legislators say they're not giving up.
"It's my job as a state legislator to make sure that these children have the best environment and the best household they are able to be placed in, and that is a traditional household with a mom and a dad," said Rep. Paul Stanley, R-Tenn.
But the American Academy of Pediatrics said that a growing body of scientific literature shows that children who grow up with one or two gay and or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.
The academy has found that children's development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
The AAP is expected to take a closer look at the legal and financial challenges for the children of same-gender parents in a special article in the journal Pediatrics, due out next week.
There are nearly 126,000 children in foster care who are eligible for adoption each year. Less than half find permanent homes.
"To say, 'Oh, because you're gay you can't or you shouldn't be able to raise a child,' that is horrible," said Karen Brown, a mother who gave her daughter up for adoption.
She added, "If they have the love to give, let them!"
Of course she can say this because she doesn't care about the child she gave up for adoption.
But the American Academy of Pediatrics said that a growing body of scientific literature shows that children who grow up with one or two gay and or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.
Here is a link to a document that addresses the "growing body of scientific literature":
No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
A 129 page Adobe Acrobat document:
Executive Summary
It is routinely asserted in courts, journals and the media that it makes “no difference” whether a child has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific studies that are claimed to have “demonstrated” this.
An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no basis for this assertion. The studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.
Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea Nagai, Ph.D., professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex (or homosexual) parenting.
The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power).
Each chapter of the evaluation describes and evaluates how the studies utilized one of these research steps. Along the way, Lerner and Nagai offer pointers for how future studies can be more competently done. Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:
- Unclear hypotheses and research designs
- Missing or inadequate comparison groups
- Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
- Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
- Samples too small to yield meaningful results
- Missing or inadequate statistical analysis
Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all fortynine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.
Four Appendices follow. Appendix 1 is a bibliography of the studies and related publications. Appendix 2 is a table that summarizes the evaluation of each of the studies with regard to each research step. Appendix 3 (by William C. Duncan) is an overview of how these studies have been used in the law. Appendix 4 (by Kristina Mirus) describes how the media has covered these studies.
Speaking as an adopted child, much can be said to the fact that she carried it to term. If she didn't care, the infant would have ended up in a PP dumpster.
APf
You can't expect a dem to rely on any science that does not further their agenda.
When did adopting a child become ANYONE'S "right?" I think you would find a lot of normal heterosexual couples who have been unable to adopt for whatever reason that would challenge that any such "right" exists. What about the rights of the children? Or is it only perverts who are supposed to have rights now?
It is sad but I commend them for sticking to their belief and not putting children in harms way.
With all due respects, which is better... a dumpster as a baby or life as a public toilet in childhood? Think about that one... She is a coward and just wants somebody else to do the dirty deeds...
"But the American Academy of Pediatrics said that a growing body of scientific literature shows that children who grow up with one or two gay and or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual"
Then why, why, why did nature make it so that a child could only be born to a man and a woman? Since it makes no difference.
I don't know what's easier to believe, that people are really this insidious or this stupid.
I was not suggesting that she should have aborted it...I am saying that she doesn't care about the kid...that can be determined by the fact that she doesn't care rather homosexuals are fit to be parents or not.
poo-poo on their crap science. Lies, lies and more lies. "Fare as well" isn't saying much. We want to give children the environment that at least gives them a chance to do better, not an environment that "fares as well". Tell me that children do better with gay parents? I don't think they can without telling more lies.
I am becoming disaffected by a kind of gov't that can't even agree that marriage should be between a man and woman, that an 8 month fetus is a human being, and people should be able to say "God" in a public forum, just to name a few things. Our politicians are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. It doesn't take much brains to ruin society. Any mongoloid fascist can do that. I think there was better gov't and more common sense under the monarchies.
I'm not quite clear as to what you are saying here. A Dumpster as a baby?? or life as a public toilet??
I WOULD think about it if you gave me something coherent to think about. As it stands, I have no Earthly clue.
APf
Generally speaking, at one time [they] did and in some cases still do. Children without custodial parents are wards of the state -as such "society" is the custodial parent. What we see here is an activist court or judge (servant od society) imposing his or her beliefs over that of the custodial parent (society)...
Don't know why they just don't tell them to phuck off. Separation of church and state! Since the church can't get into your business, you can't get into ours!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.