Skip to comments.Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda
Posted on 11/30/2008 5:03:43 AM PST by Kaslin
On Nov. 4, Arkansas voters approved a ban on adoption by unmarried couples. The purpose of the ballot measure, according to the Family Council Action Committee, was "to blunt a homosexual agenda that's at work in other states and that will be at work in Arkansas unless we are proactive about doing something about it."
On Nov. 25, a court in Florida pointed out something that the FCAC and other anti-gay groups somehow manage to overlook: Allowing gay couples to adopt is much less about protecting gays than protecting children.
With that in mind, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman struck down a 1977 Florida law -- the only one of its kind -- that forbids gays from adopting. (Arkansas, Mississippi and Utah exclude unmarried couples, which has the completely intentional result of excluding gays.) In a case involving two young boys taken in by two gay men, she found the law was unconstitutional largely because it violated the rights of foster children to equal treatment under the law.
You could hardly find better proof than this that efforts to combat the "homosexual agenda" mainly serve to harm children in dire need of stable, loving families. Four years ago, Martin Gill and his longtime partner agreed to provide a foster home for two boys, one 4 years old and the other an infant, who showed the physical and emotional effects of neglect, including scalp ringworm.
Now a legal guardian who regularly observes the boys attests that they are, in the judge's words, "in excellent health, well-behaved, performing well in school and bonded to" their foster family. They have a dog, a cat and a rabbit. They attend a church.
But they have also spent four years in limbo. The adults whom they have come to regard as parents were only foster caregivers. Because of his sexual orientation, the state would not allow Gill to become their permanent, adoptive father.
No one else has asked to adopt the boys. Yet the Center for Family and Child Enrichment, which handles these matters, concluded that if the brothers could not be adopted by Gill, it would have to look for other adoptive parents.
Consider the implications of the policy in this case. It would mean removing the children from the home in which they have been raised -- "one of the most caring and nurturing placements" the guardian has ever seen. It would mean putting them through the trauma, once again, of being uprooted and placed with complete strangers. And because of the difficulty of placing kids their age, the CFCE said, it could mean the brothers would be permanently separated from each other.
And for what? Solely to shield them from the supposed perils of gay parents. Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons, drug offenders and known child abusers -- none of whom is categorically barred from adopting.
As it happens, those dangers are mostly imaginary. According to evidence cited by the judge, gays are slightly more likely than heterosexuals to suffer psychiatric problems, engage in substance abuse and smoke, but so are lots of other groups that are allowed to adopt. The American Psychological Association says it finds no difference between the parenting of homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Would orphaned and abandoned children be better off if every one of them could be raised by stable, loving, heterosexual couples? Possibly. But that's not an option. For many children, the alternative to having gay adoptive parents is having no parents at all.
There are hundreds of kids in Florida who need adoptive families -- nearly 1,000 at any given moment. The average child spends 2.5 years in foster care before being adopted, and some wait forever. Noted Judge Lederman, "165 children in Florida aged out of the system in 2006 without ever being adopted."
The Florida ban is simple and stark. It says, in effect, that a child may not be adopted by gays even when the adoption is in the best interest of the child . That's the main reason the court overturned it: It violates the rights of children and "causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."
Those who want to keep gays from adopting think that's a small price to pay for blocking the "homosexual agenda." But then, they're not the ones who will be paying it.
Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons, drug offenders and known child abusers -- none of whom is categorically barred from adopting.
What Mr. Chapman's statement proves is that the law needs to be changed to bar the above from adopting - not that gays are any more able to adopt.
According to evidence cited by the judge,
I'm sure you could get that "evidence" right off the NAMBLA or GLAAD web sites.
gays are slightly more likely than heterosexuals to suffer psychiatric problems, engage in substance abuse and smoke
Homosexuality is an unrecognized and untreated sexual developmental disorder that causes untold miseray and suffering and causes its sufferers to die by an average age of 42. See, I can cite "evidence", too.
Would orphaned and abandoned children be better off if every one of them could be raised by stable, loving, heterosexual couples? Possibly.
Mr. Chapman totally fails to understand the difference between possible and probable.
Isn’t Townhall supposed to be a conservative website? Why are the allowing sodomite propaganda?
let's ignore infidelity and domestic violence, rates of abadonment and separation of partners, just for the sake of argument. Afterall, those are probably the greater issues in heterosexual relationships which lead to instability in the child-rearing environment.(sarc). Legislating from the bench anyone?
Thanks for the link. Very informative. Every gay person should read it
If overturning the nation’s laws against same sex sodomy by judicial fiat was really JUST about the actions of consenting adults in private, why is it being taught in schools, why was homosexual activity between adults and minors (or homosexual activity by ANYONE under 18) legalized by the decision?
When does the adopted child consent to be brought into an alternative lifestyle and raised by 2 members of the same sex?
You got to be kiddin me....why didn’t the judge just use FactCheck.org?
Those poor kids.
not to mention little johnny knows his two daddy’s are having anal and oral sex with each other right across the hall.
yeh, that a REEEAAALLL normal house to grow up in.
No psychological damage THERE!
makes me sick.
Gay people have psychological illness not news to normal people.
What an idiotic rationalization.
What about PROTECTING a child's right to be raised in a setting that best approximates life how NATURE intended? What about the childrens rights to have their SAFETY considered before they are FORCED to be the fantasy fulfilling child in a sick, demented gay fantasy role playing game, using live human children? Ignoring the evidence that gays are highly likely to be pedophiles, and have very violent "relationships" which are very short in duration is hardly considering the child's rights.
But it is a sick, demented application of "equal treatment under the law". Forcing an innocent baby into a life of abuse by mentally unstable demented sexual predators is not what "equal treatment under the law" meant to adress.
When this child resurfaces in their early 20's as a serial killer, with no emotion whatsoever, driven to perform horrific sexual abuses on his victims, The famillies of his victims can thank this liberal judge for saying it's the 'right' sexual deviates to adopt human babies and form their minds to think the sexual abuse done to them while being raised by the entire gay community (that is how many gay partners the adoptive gay "parent" will have had over the span of this childs youth)is "normal.
I happen to think that gay adoption and their quest to create an artificial family is far worse than gay marriage.
I don't really care about gays coupling together. It's their effect on children that is scary.
Imagine the psychological damage this child will have after a childhood filled with memories of being the child host, fetching drinks and snack food for all “daddies friends” at gay parties.
By the time any child is 10 they’ll have seen every kind of sexual act imaginable, and probably been victim (although willing in his mind)to many of them.
How, when there are 50 years worth of child abuse by gays cases to use as evidence for why children should NEVER be anywhere near gays, no matter what role they are playing, can any sane judge throw children to these wolves?
They’re not ‘gays’ they’re homosexuals. There is no need to use derogatory terms, but euphemisms are not acceptable either.
Yeah - the APA.
The outfit that a few years ago published a paper claiming that sex between adults and children wasn’t necessarily contrary to the best interests of the child.
I’ve talked about this for some time. When gay marriage is allowed and treated as equivalent of a normal marriage, they have equal rights to adopt —— including, perhaps, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION in adoption for past discrimination.
Townhall is starting to turn CINO. They’re allowing too many “moderate” voices on their website.
“According to evidence cited by the judge,gays are slightly more likely than heterosexuals to suffer psychiatric problems,engage in substance abuse....”.Only “slightly” more likely?Totally eroneous statement.The incidence of mental health problems,drug abuse,and std’s is statistically(profoundly)higher amongst homosexuals than heterosexuals.Domestic violence is another “touchy” issue.Contrary to conventional wisdom(indoctrination),homosexual males do abuse their mates.Again-statistically more so than hetero’s.
I disagree. The editorial is the opinion of one person, not the whole site
Do you see liberals posting liberal articles and vanity posts here? Townhall should only promote conservative points of views.
What has happened to Townhall?
“Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons, drug offenders and known child abusers — none of whom is categorically barred from adopting.”
I noticed that child molesters weren’t mentioned, or is that included in child abusers?
Wiser words have rarely been spoken. Well said, ex_desert_cowboy.
Homosexuals want to claim normalcy - and not only that, they want us all to acknowledge it. What happened to TownHall, that they would let this propaganda/filth on their website?
Correction: it is a liberal-tarian website...
Having children is a heterosexual desire.
Lemmings over a cliff.
When did this happen? I haven’t much computer time for quite a while now, so maybe it’s been going on for several months. This is the second freakishly liberal article I’ve seen at Townhall in as many days. Has this become a common occurrence?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I’m baffled. When did Townhall go to the dark side?
That’s a good question. Fox News and Drudge didn’t really surprise me, but I always assumed that Townhall would adhere to conservatism.
That is because the APA is full of homos. There are more queers working in the mental health field than as hairdressers these days.
I thought Townhall used to be conservative, some years ago.
There is nothing wrong with the laws, they do not need changing. The screening process for adoption is so tough and thorough, ALL of the categories Me. Chapman cites would be disqualified/denied. In fact, where homosexuals are allowed to adopt, the screening process for heterosexuals who wish to adopt, is much more rigorous/strict than for homosexuals. I know, I have seen some wonderful people be denied for the most ridiculous reasons.
“Libs insinuate themselves into everything and rot it.”
I guess we’ll soon have to read the lesser of the evils.
I’m sorry, I meant why did Townhall include this liberal in their website.
I didn’t know that, and I appreciate your clarification. I would also point out that, again, your post shows that Mr. Chapman has no clue of which he speaks.
Somehow condemning young boys to a lifetime of sexual abuse and harrassment just doesn’t strike me as being in their best interests. The homos continue to market themselves as kind and loving, completely normal, caregivers. How sensitive of them.
If it is a homosexual’s natural state to practice a sexual lifestyle that procludes them from procreating, why do they desire to become parents? Is their natural state to nurture or to not nurture? Which of these is driven by their instincts and which of these is driven by their desires?
Things that make me go hmmmmm......
In my opinion, given the above questions, the adoption issue is nothing but advancing agendas to the gay community. I won’t assume it is anything more sinister than that, but their sexual behaviour and their desire to adopt is in direct conflict, therefore I can only conclude that it is agenda driven.