Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Adoption: The Real Agenda
Townhall.com ^ | November 30, 2008 | Steve Chapman

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: culturewar; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; pedophiles; perverts; samesexadoption; samesexmarriage; sexualizingchildren

1 posted on 11/30/2008 5:03:43 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Steve Chapman has really, really gone off the deep end lately.

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.

2 posted on 11/30/2008 5:16:15 AM PST by Hardastarboard (0bama IS a socialist - I don't care what the elite media poofters say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Isn’t Townhall supposed to be a conservative website? Why are the allowing sodomite propaganda?


3 posted on 11/30/2008 5:17:34 AM PST by demshateGod (the GOP is dead to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Heres a link to some info about this.
4 posted on 11/30/2008 5:17:43 AM PST by ThreePuttinDude (-)....Election 2008, the year of the Affirmative Action President....(-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights


5 posted on 11/30/2008 5:18:32 AM PST by grumpa (VP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
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.

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?

6 posted on 11/30/2008 5:27:39 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude

Thanks for the link. Very informative. Every gay person should read it


7 posted on 11/30/2008 5:29:23 AM PST by Kaslin (0bama was not elected. He was instead selected by the MSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Sun Tsu said that in order to win you must know your enemy. This posting is “allowed” so we can know our enemy; their lies, their tactics and their goals. Knowing our enemy will help us to identify and defeat them.
8 posted on 11/30/2008 5:30:29 AM PST by ex_desert_cowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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?


9 posted on 11/30/2008 5:45:41 AM PST by weegee (Sec. of State Clinton. What kind of change is it to keep the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Oligarchy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The APA?

You got to be kiddin me....why didn’t the judge just use FactCheck.org?

Pathetic ruling.

Those poor kids.


10 posted on 11/30/2008 5:52:10 AM PST by Adder (typical basicly decent bitter white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

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.


11 posted on 11/30/2008 5:54:12 AM PST by Hammerhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hammerhead

Gay people have psychological illness not news to normal people.


12 posted on 11/30/2008 6:05:14 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Used to be a conservative site. Libs insinuate themselves into everything and rot it.
13 posted on 11/30/2008 6:23:56 AM PST by Spirochete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
" 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

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.

14 posted on 11/30/2008 6:27:37 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz
The article point out the scary fact that it's going to hard hard for government to fight this type of thing. Gays will just scream about discrimination laws and it will stay in court forever. Why would the government even let them foster parent? The real answer lies in teaching individuals morals. Most people are still socially conservative.

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.

15 posted on 11/30/2008 6:28:58 AM PST by teacherbarbie (I would go into politics, but I like to keep my youthful looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hammerhead

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?


16 posted on 11/30/2008 6:39:01 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They’re not ‘gays’ they’re homosexuals. There is no need to use derogatory terms, but euphemisms are not acceptable either.


17 posted on 11/30/2008 7:26:07 AM PST by walford (http://the-big-pic.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Isn’t Townhall supposed to be a conservative website?

No.

18 posted on 11/30/2008 7:33:46 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Adder

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.


19 posted on 11/30/2008 7:35:48 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


20 posted on 11/30/2008 7:38:52 AM PST by doug from upland (8 million views of .HILLARY! UNCENSORED - put some ice on it, witch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Townhall is starting to turn CINO. They’re allowing too many “moderate” voices on their website.


21 posted on 11/30/2008 7:44:00 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“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.


22 posted on 11/30/2008 7:46:02 AM PST by Thombo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I disagree. The editorial is the opinion of one person, not the whole site


23 posted on 11/30/2008 7:49:32 AM PST by Kaslin (0bama was not elected. He was instead selected by the MSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Do you see liberals posting liberal articles and vanity posts here? Townhall should only promote conservative points of views.


24 posted on 11/30/2008 8:20:46 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What has happened to Townhall?


25 posted on 11/30/2008 8:26:26 AM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

“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?


26 posted on 11/30/2008 8:55:53 AM PST by murron (Proud Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Actually, it's more of a libertarian website. Big difference.
27 posted on 11/30/2008 10:59:20 AM PST by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ex_desert_cowboy
Sun Tsu said that in order to win you must know your enemy. This posting is “allowed” so we can know our enemy; their lies, their tactics and their goals. Knowing our enemy will help us to identify and defeat them.

Wiser words have rarely been spoken. Well said, ex_desert_cowboy.

28 posted on 11/30/2008 11:06:46 AM PST by BrokenSmile (Fiat justitia, ruat caelum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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?


29 posted on 11/30/2008 11:59:13 AM PST by HondaCRF450
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Actually, it's more of a libertarian website.

Correction: it is a liberal-tarian website...

30 posted on 11/30/2008 2:30:34 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Having children is a heterosexual desire.


31 posted on 11/30/2008 2:32:17 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
What has happened to Townhall?

Lemmings over a cliff.

32 posted on 11/30/2008 2:33:54 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

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?


33 posted on 11/30/2008 2:37:15 PM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; Kaslin; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; ...
It is deeply disturbing to see a site like Townhall.com pushing the homosexual agenda.

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

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 ]

34 posted on 11/30/2008 2:39:42 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I’m baffled. When did Townhall go to the dark side?


35 posted on 11/30/2008 2:42:00 PM PST by BykrBayb (May God have mercy on our souls. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

That’s a good question. Fox News and Drudge didn’t really surprise me, but I always assumed that Townhall would adhere to conservatism.


36 posted on 11/30/2008 2:45:01 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The American Psychological Association says it finds no difference between the parenting of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

That is because the APA is full of homos. There are more queers working in the mental health field than as hairdressers these days.

37 posted on 11/30/2008 3:40:22 PM PST by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I thought Townhall used to be conservative, some years ago.

T’aint so.


38 posted on 11/30/2008 4:14:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Hardastarboard
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.

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.

40 posted on 11/30/2008 5:41:24 PM PST by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

“Libs insinuate themselves into everything and rot it.”

I guess we’ll soon have to read the lesser of the evils.


41 posted on 11/30/2008 6:29:00 PM PST by demshateGod (the GOP is dead to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex_desert_cowboy

I’m sorry, I meant why did Townhall include this liberal in their website.


42 posted on 11/30/2008 6:30:13 PM PST by demshateGod (the GOP is dead to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

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.


43 posted on 12/01/2008 5:43:34 AM PST by Hardastarboard (0bama IS a socialist - I don't care what the elite media poofters say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


44 posted on 12/01/2008 7:11:01 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

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.


45 posted on 12/01/2008 9:35:42 AM PST by CSM (I’m jubilant! Now that the Dems are completely in charge, we can FINALLY blame THEM for everything!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson