Using Children to Advance the Progressive Agenda

 

One of the latest attacks on religious freedom comes from a demand of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, that all adoption agencies must approve adoptions to gay and lesbian parents.

New Hope Family Services is the adoption agency that has filed a lawsuit against the state, protesting that this requirement is inconsistent with their faith. This is the background of the lawsuit:

New Hope Family Services is a religious adoptive provider and pregnancy center that has served Syracuse women, children, and families since 1965. Founded by a group of local Christian ministers, the organization has found over 1,000 forever homes for children since opening its doors. In 1986, New Hope added a pregnancy center to provide pregnancy tests, medical referrals, and counseling to anyone in need, in addition to its comprehensive adoption services. Because of New Hope’s belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman, New Hope places children only in homes with a married mother and father, while referring unmarried couples, same-sex couples, and others to nearby adoption providers.

New Hope clearly articulates its beliefs to clients and has faced no formal complaints from prospective clients due to its policy. Yet, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) sent New Hope a letter in October 2018 describing its policy as “discriminatory and impermissible.” OCFS gave New Hope an ultimatum that it either revise its policy or it would be required to submit a close-out plan for its adoption program.

Clearly these legal requirements being forced on New Hope have nothing to do with the welfare of the children. The government agency points to the research that same-sex couples can be just as effective as heterosexual couples at raising children. The OCFS explained their 2013 policy  in this way:

The amendments also promote fairness and equality in the child welfare adoption program by eliminating archaic regulatory language that implies the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual prospective adoptive parents — but not of heterosexual prospective adoptive parents — is relevant to evaluating their appropriateness as adoptive parents.

Moreover, OCFS is charged with the welfare of children, and protecting the children of same-sex couples accomplishes that [my italics].

Again, the religious and moral issue is completely ignored in this policy; the fact that children being adopted by gay couples is outside the norm of religious doctrine and relationships is irrelevant. I wonder ( in the sentence italicized just above) what the OCFS is promising to protect the children from?

Catholic Charities, an organization also highly respected for their adoption services, is considering the shutting down of their adoptive services rather than serve same-sex couples. Catholic Charities of Buffalo suspended its adoption work this past August.

The tide is rising against those organizations that choose to serve children within a Christian framework. Congress, however, is considering protection for child welfare agencies following nine states that passed legislation in 2017 and 2018: Alabama, Texas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Carolina; to shield organizations from requirements that conflict with their religious beliefs. By the way, New Hope receives no government funds for its operations. And it only places approximately ten children per year.

I’m encouraged that legislation is being considered by Congress to take steps against government intrusion and anti-religion actions. Still, there is the question of whether this kind of issue should be resolved at the state level. Clearly, the actions against adoption agencies are being taken to further the gay rights agenda.

It has nothing to do with the children.

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 63 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    Thanks for posting this Susan. This discrimination against traditional Judeo-Christian ethics (and common sense) has been going on for some time. Catholic Charities of Boston closed its doors rather violate their religious conscious in 2006 because of a similar law in Massachusetts and it has happened elsewhere since.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    Thanks for posting this Susan. This discrimination against traditional Judeo-Christian ethics (and common sense) has been going on for some time. Catholic Charities of Boston closed its doors rather violate their religious conscious in 2006 because of a similar law in Massachusetts and it has happened elsewhere since.

    It makes me so angry that they are forcing their political agenda on groups who want to help take care of kids. Good organizations are going to stop doing this work unless we can stop them from these actions. Good for New Hope!

    • #2
  3. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    In some cases, cases like this may serve to discourage adoption. I live in Massachusetts; ten or fifteen years ago, a baby was left in a Catholic Church in the next town over from us-the whole community, especially the community within that particular Church, rallied around this baby: there were scores, if not hundreds of heterosexual married couples lined up begging to adopt that baby. A judge decided to give the baby to a lesbian couple. I often wonder how the birth mother felt about that: it seems safe to assume that when she left her baby at a Catholic Church, she wanted the baby to be adopted by conservative or relatively conservative people. 

    Heterosexual married couples should be given preference in adoption over single people, gay couples, and straight couples who are not married. If that makes me a bigot, then fine, I am a bigot.

    • #3
  4. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    It’s just maddening. Being adopted is already less than optimal. Being adopted into a family lacking either a mother or a father is a burden on the child, whatever your religious beliefs. Further proof we’ve lost our ever lovin’ minds.

    • #4
  5. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    SQ, the title here implies new outrageousness.  This is but the latest in a long line.  Catholic Charities, in many dioceses, is out of the ministry of facilitating adoptions. 

    • #5
  6. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    SQ, the title here implies new outrageousness. This is but the latest in a long line. Catholic Charities, in many dioceses, is out of the ministry of facilitating adoptions.

    I believe Susan’s news is that New Hope is fighting back. 

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    SQ, the title here implies new outrageousness. This is but the latest in a long line. Catholic Charities, in many dioceses, is out of the ministry of facilitating adoptions.

    @nandapanjandrum, See WC’s comment #6. Also that Congress may be taking action.

    • #7
  8. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    SQ, the title here implies new outrageousness. This is but the latest in a long line. Catholic Charities, in many dioceses, is out of the ministry of facilitating adoptions.

    I believe Susan’s news is that New Hope is fighting back.

    Indeed so, perhaps a hint at the new effort against this shameless ploy by Progressives in the title would be uplifting.

    • #8
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Susan Quinn:

    …the religious and moral issue is completely ignored in this policy; the fact that children being adopted by gay couples is outside the norm of religious doctrine and relationships is irrelevant.

    Unless the State supports a particular religious doctrine then that should be irrelevant.

    From your post:

    The OCFS explained their 2013 policy in this way (I’ve highlighted what I think is relevant):

    The amendments also promote fairness and equality in the child welfare adoption program by eliminating archaic regulatory language that implies the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual prospective adoptive parents — but not of heterosexual prospective adoptive parents — is relevant to evaluating their appropriateness as adoptive parents.

    It actually only is relevant to some religious doctrines. 

    It is apparently not relevant to adoptive children’s outcomes – and that’s where the rights of the child come in – if you rule out prospective homes for irrelevant reasons, you reduce the likelihood of the best option for all adoptees.

    What constraints are there on the State’s (acting for society’s) duty of care towards children.  Is it limited to those situations where tax dollars are immediately involved, or is it broader?

     

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    …the religious and moral issue is completely ignored in this policy; the fact that children being adopted by gay couples is outside the norm of religious doctrine and relationships is irrelevant.

    Unless the State supports a particular religious doctrine then that should be irrelevant.

    From your post:

    The OCFS explained their 2013 policy in this way (I’ve highlighted what I think is relevant):

    The amendments also promote fairness and equality in the child welfare adoption program by eliminating archaic regulatory language that implies the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual prospective adoptive parents — but not of heterosexual prospective adoptive parents — is relevant to evaluating their appropriateness as adoptive parents.

    It actually only is relevant to some religious doctrines.

    It is apparently not relevant to adoptive children’s outcomes – and that’s where the rights of the child come in – if you rule out prospective homes for irrelevant reasons, you reduce the likelihood of the best option for all adoptees.

    What constraints are there on the State’s (acting for society’s) duty of care towards children. Is it limited to those situations where tax dollars are immediately involved, or is it broader?

     

    I don’t understand, @zafar–what religious doctrine is the state supporting? The “religious doctrine” of the adopting couple is not at issue; it is that their relationship contradicts Christian doctrine which is the basis of New Hope and Catholic Charities.

    The studies that say that gay parents are equally capable of raising healthy children is not the issue. The issue is that gay relationships (in spite of what the government requires) do not fit into the Christian norm and they are setting an example that contradicts the religion. Young children in particular can take quite a while to become clear about their own sexuality; we can see the chaos created by transgenderism. Same sex parents, I believe, confuse children because they contradict the Christian norm through their relationship.

    Most important, why should these organizations be forced to adopt out children to gays, when there are many organizations that are perfectly willing to adopt the children out to them?

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    @zafar, I want to emphasize that the organization has rights in this process, of running their organization as they see fit. In the lawsuit link I cited, it explained:

    There are approximately 130 licensed adoption providers in New York State, the overwhelming majority of which will place children with same-sex couples.

    Children will have plenty of agencies that can take care of the same-sex couples without New Hope having to compromise their beliefs.

    • #11
  12. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    @zafar, I want to emphasize that the organization has rights in this process, of running their organization as they see fit. In the lawsuit link I cited, it explained:

    There are approximately 130 licensed adoption providers in New York State, the overwhelming majority of which will place children with same-sex couples.

    Children will have plenty of agencies that can take care of the same-sex couples without New Hope having to compromise their beliefs.

    The issue isn’t same-sex couples’ rights, it’s the rights of the children to have the best possible set of options for adoption. The individual children placed by New Hope have fewer options because of New Hope’s policies.  The children are the ones who are discriminated against as a result, not the same-sex couples.

    • #12
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    @zafar, I want to emphasize that the organization has rights in this process, of running their organization as they see fit. In the lawsuit link I cited, it explained:

    There are approximately 130 licensed adoption providers in New York State, the overwhelming majority of which will place children with same-sex couples.

    Children will have plenty of agencies that can take care of the same-sex couples without New Hope having to compromise their beliefs.

    The issue isn’t same-sex couples’ rights, it’s the rights of the children to have the best possible set of options for adoption. The individual children placed by New Hope have fewer options because of New Hope’s policies. The children are the ones who are discriminated against as a result, not the same-sex couples.

    What options are they missing? What does that mean? Adoptive parents go to just one agency at a time, and New Hope does only about ten adoptions per year. Wouldn’t a couple have more options almost anywhere else? 

    • #13
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    There are approximately 130 licensed adoption providers in New York State, the overwhelming majority of which will place children with same-sex couples.

    Children will have plenty of agencies that can take care of the same-sex couples without New Hope having to compromise their beliefs.

    The issue isn’t same-sex couples’ rights, it’s the rights of the children to have the best possible set of options for adoption. The individual children placed by New Hope have fewer options because of New Hope’s policies. The children are the ones who are discriminated against as a result, not the same-sex couples.

    What options are they missing? What does that mean?

    Let’s say there is a child being put up for adoption.

    There are five potential adoptive families who want to adopt the child.

    These are assessed, and the adoption goes forward with the one that’s found to be in the child‘s best interests.  The best option in five.

    Reduce the number of potential families by using irrelevant measures, and that becomes the best option in, at best, four.

     

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Let’s say there is a child being put up for adoption.

    There are five potential adoptive families who want to adopt the child.

    These are assessed, and the adoption goes forward with the one that’s found to be in the child‘s best interests. The best option in five.

    Reduce the number of potential families by using irrelevant measures, and that becomes the best option in, at best, four.

    Okay. You say they’re irrelevant measures. I don’t. You can’t convince me, Zafar, that out of the remaining four, there won’t be an excellent option. Trying to figure out the “best” for the child may very well come down to subjective criteria, not just objective.  That’s my position.

    Any Christians want to jump in?

    • #15
  16. JudithannCampbell Member
    JudithannCampbell
    @

    Nowadays, in many or most cases, the birth parents choose the adoptive parents. The fact that New Hope exists means that at least some birth parents want their children to be adopted by married heterosexual couples. Why not start an adoption agency that only places children with gay couples, and see how it works out? Why not let the free market decide?

    Is there a fear that not enough birth parents would be willing to place their children with gay couples, so the state has to intervene? Again, this seems like a really good way to discourage adoption altogether.

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Nowadays, in many or most cases, the birth parents choose the adoptive parents. The fact that New Hope exists means that at least some birth parents want their children to be adopted by married heterosexual couples. Why not start an adoption agency that only places children with gay couples, and see how it works out? Why not let the free market decide?

    Is there a fear that not enough birth parents would be willing to place their children with gay couples, so the state has to intervene? Again, this seems like a really good way to discourage adoption altogether.

    Very insightful points, @judithanncampbell. It is a very interesting idea. Let the market decide.

    • #17
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Nowadays, in many or most cases, the birth parents choose the adoptive parents. The fact that New Hope exists means that at least some birth parents want their children to be adopted by married heterosexual couples. Why not start an adoption agency that only places children with gay couples, and see how it works out? Why not let the free market decide?

    How would limiting a birth mother’s choice the other way be of any value?

    Currently, with open adoptions, the birth mother looks at a bunch of potential adoptive families’ information and makes a choice.  (@susanquinn – this is where the subjective element sits.).  This info includes whether they are gay, straight, their religion, their marital and financial status, etc.  

    If the birth mother thinks being a straight married couple is important, that’s what she’ll pick.  If not, not.  

    That’s actually where the free market comes into it.  Guess who’s trying to distort the free market and reduce other people’s choices because of ideology?

    (Hint: as usual, it’s not gay people.)

    • #18
  19. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    There are approximately 130 licensed adoption providers in New York State, the overwhelming majority of which will place children with same-sex couples.

    Children will have plenty of agencies that can take care of the same-sex couples without New Hope having to compromise their beliefs.

    The issue isn’t same-sex couples’ rights, it’s the rights of the children to have the best possible set of options for adoption. The individual children placed by New Hope have fewer options because of New Hope’s policies. The children are the ones who are discriminated against as a result, not the same-sex couples.

    What options are they missing? What does that mean?

    Let’s say there is a child being put up for adoption.

    There are five potential adoptive families who want to adopt the child.

    These are assessed, and the adoption goes forward with the one that’s found to be in the child‘s best interests. The best option in five.

    Reduce the number of potential families by using irrelevant measures, and that becomes the best option in, at best, four. 

    According to the WaPo, same-sex couples account for half of one percent of the total number of US married couples. 

    So, assuming a gay couple has parity with a non-gay couple (an assumption not backed up by studies in any meaningful way) a given child would lose one chance in two-hundred if such a child were adopted out by a long-standing Christian adoption agency. 

    Or it would if adopters were population-based. 

    Fact is, adoption is the preferred way for a gay couple to have a child, while hetero couples have an easy alternative – all too easy, hence the adopted-child-of-gays-is-truly-wanted narrative. 

    True as far as it goes. 

    Back to the business of what is best for the child, though. I find it hard to believe that there are many gay parents who can’t adopt because of Christian agencies refusing to cough up their inventory to them. This seems less to me like concern for children than it does resentment at being dissed. 

    • #19
  20. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    I completely mistrust any studies which conclude a child is unaffected by lacking either a mother or a father. It defies common sense. Men and women are not interchangeable in their roles as fathers and mothers. It makes me wonder just what “outcomes” these studies are measuring. 

    • #20
  21. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Here is a question – if a parent chooses a Christian adoption agency, what interest does the state have?    If a parent wants their child to go to a parent that shares their beliefs, why should the state be involved? 

    I supposed a Jewish mom could not choose a Jewish adoption agency to take her kid?

    • #21
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I completely mistrust any studies which conclude a child is unaffected by lacking either a mother or a father. It defies common sense. Men and women are not interchangeable in their roles as fathers and mothers. It makes me wonder just what “outcomes” these studies are measuring.

    Well, so long as you have an open mind about it I can’t ask for more.

    • #22
  23. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TBA (View Comment):

    Back to the business of what is best for the child, though. I find it hard to believe that there are many gay parents who can’t adopt because of Christian agencies refusing to cough up their inventory to them. This seems less to me like concern for children than it does resentment at being dissed

    Oh I think there’s some of that dissed thing going on for sure.

    Re: concern for children -I genuinely believe that projecting ideology onto it results in worse outcomes because the process now serves two functions rather than just the child’s welfare.  If it turned out that, all else being equal, being adopted by a gay couple was worse for a kid than being adopted by a straight couple then I’d be down with limiting adoption to straight couples. Because it isn’t. About. Me. (Or shouldn’t be.) 

    Are Conservatives similarly ready to test their beliefs on this subject against data and amend their position to accommodate the conclusions? (Are most progessives?  I don’t know.  We’re a stubborn species when ego gets involved.)

    I also doubt that there are fewer children being adopted because Christian agencies are being replaced by non-discriminatory ones.  So if children are still being adopted at the same rate, and with the same (or hopefully better) outcomes, what do we lose as a society when one set of adoption agencies are replaced by another?  Imho nothing.  Though these agencies certainly may find it confronting that they were less crucial than they had believed?

    • #23
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Here is a question – if a parent chooses a Christian adoption agency, what interest does the state have?

    The State has an interest in the welfare of the child, surely?

    If a parent wants their child to go to a parent that shares their beliefs, why should the state be involved?

    The birth parent can chose just that under most open adoption processes.

    I understand that this right remains even when adoption agencies list religious/irreligious or straight/gay or rich/poor or black/white/brown families.  Iow the adoption agency doesn’t do the selecting, the birth parent does. 

    I don’t think the law is calling into question the birth parent’s right to select, only the adoption agency’s.

    • #24
  25. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):
    I live in Massachusetts; ten or fifteen years ago, a baby was left in a Catholic Church in the next town over from us-the whole community, especially the community within that particular Church, rallied around this baby: there were scores, if not hundreds of heterosexual married couples lined up begging to adopt that baby. A judge decided to give the baby to a lesbian couple. I often wonder how the birth mother felt about that: it seems safe to assume that when she left her baby at a Catholic Church, she wanted the baby to be adopted by conservative or relatively conservative people. 

    Judithann, it’s worse than that.  The Commonwealth closed down Catholic Social Services’ Boston adoption agency in 2006 for their refusal to place babies with gay couples.

    http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services.cfm

    • #25
  26. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    The people who seek to force Christian adoption agencies to act against the agency’s belief system are not at all interested in the welfare of children. By putting Christian adoption agencies out of business, those people are telling us that actually putting children into loving homes is less important than imposing their narrow-minded political will.

    • #26
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Re: concern for children -I genuinely believe that projecting ideology onto it results in worse outcomes because the process now serves two functions rather than just the child’s welfare. If it turned out that, all else being equal, being adopted by a gay couple was worse for a kid than being adopted by a straight couple then I’d be down with limiting adoption to straight couples. Because it isn’t. About. Me. (Or shouldn’t be.) 

    Interesting way to frame it. How about, all else being equal, adoption agencies may choose biologically complementary couples because they’re able to provide both a mother and a father? Or do gay couples make for superior parents in some way?

    It isn’t “ideology,” it’s nature you can blame for discriminating. 

    Those studies admit up front (I only read the intro, obviously) they’re dealing with a (very) limited data set and then wave it away as unimportant. How about the more robust studies (because the data set is yuge!) that show children of divorced parents who are raised by their dads have better outcomes than if raised by their moms? Is that ideology? And why would that be? Could it be that dads provide a different set of parenting parameters (boundary enforcement) than moms?

    I thought being gay was not a denial of one’s sex (unlike transgender) but an attraction to the same sex. Does sex make a difference, other than, you know, the procreation part of parenting? I also thought lefties were kind of into that organic back-to-nature thing. Am I wrong?

    • #27
  28. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Back to the business of what is best for the child, though. I find it hard to believe that there are many gay parents who can’t adopt because of Christian agencies refusing to cough up their inventory to them. This seems less to me like concern for children than it does resentment at being dissed

    Oh I think there’s some of that dissed thing going on for sure.

    Re: concern for children -I genuinely believe that projecting ideology onto it results in worse outcomes because the process now serves two functions rather than just the child’s welfare. If it turned out that, all else being equal, being adopted by a gay couple was worse for a kid than being adopted by a straight couple then I’d be down with limiting adoption to straight couples. Because it isn’t. About. Me. (Or shouldn’t be.)

    Are Conservatives similarly ready to test their beliefs on this subject against data and amend their position to accommodate the conclusions? (Are most progessives? I don’t know. We’re a stubborn species when ego gets involved.)

    I also doubt that there are fewer children being adopted because Christian agencies are being replaced by non-discriminatory ones. So if children are still being adopted at the same rate, and with the same (or hopefully better) outcomes, what do we lose as a society when one set of adoption agencies are replaced by another? Imho nothing. Though these agencies certainly may find it confronting that they were less crucial than they had believed?

    If non-Christian agencies want to out-perform (without the state picking winners and losers) Christian ones that’s perfectly fine and in line with how things should work. What I don’t want is the state coming in decades, if not centuries, after these adoption agencies started their work and telling them who they must adopt out to. 

    I realize that religion can make a great cover for garden variety bigotry. But that is the side we must err on if we are to have religious freedom that involves actual freedom. 

    • #28
  29. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Looking at gay adoption studies does not tell the whole story for many reasons. It’s a very mixed picture. First, there’s this from Cornell University (emphasis mine):

    We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the well-being of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.

    In other words, some of these studies looked at only children in single-parent divorced homes because they were studies of adoptees, not children in general.

    Furthermore, children’s well-being cannot be measured by talking to children. Research has to be conducted on adults who have seen a little bit of the larger world and can look back at their childhood for the roots of their adult happiness or unhappiness.

    Also, if a homosexual lifestyle is all a child has ever known, if his or her parents constantly tell him or her how wonderful the homosexual lifestyle is, that will affect the child’s objectivity.

    Over the last decade, a lot of kids would think it was really cool to be brought up in a gay household. And because the lifestyle is so frequently promoted in the mass media, it’s much more likely today to create a positive outcome than it would have been twenty years ago, when a teenager living in a gay household would have been a highly abnormal way to grow up. So some of my fears for adopted children’s mental health have never materialized. I think it can work well if everyone wants it.

    I have many concerns about birth parents in foster care or adoptive situations not having the right to specify that their children be placed in a heterosexual family. (In Massachusetts parents do not have that right.) As a society, we have to respect the parents’ wishes in terms of religion and sexuality. This priority should be inviolable. Adding to the urgency in this regard is that expecting parents to give up that control will cause many parents in need of help to withhold or seriously delay giving their permission for adoption or foster care.

     

    • #29
  30. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    How about the more robust studies (because the data set is yuge!) that show children of divorced parents who are raised by their dads have better outcomes than if raised by their moms? Is that ideology? And why would that be? Could it be that dads provide a different set of parenting parameters (boundary enforcement) than moms?

    I would hazard that part of that might be that moms raising children is the default – in many cases the dad is either unknown or unavailable – while in the relatively rare cases where the dad is chosen because he can demonstrate that he would be so much better a parent than the mom that even our anti-male courts are convinced, such a dad would be…well, pretty damned superior. 

    Which is not to say that there isn’t any validity to the idea that single dads aren’t innately superior to single moms, just that this data too seems weak. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.