Qualified to adopt?

I, for one, disagree thoroughly with the practice of some wealthy families allowing their children to be raised by hirelings. I would rather hire servants for every other possible purpose in order to be given the time to raise my children.

If you're going to allow your children to be raised by strangers, interchangeable strangers, why would you even give them your family name in the first place?



Can't speak for her, but yes, I am fine with it. All available science shows that children raised by a committed homosexual couple do as well in every measure of childhood well-being as children raised by committed but unmarried heterosexuals. That, and the fact that homosexuals are already adopting children-- since we allow it for singles-- are the main reasons why I am not opposed to allowing homosexuals to legally marry.



You know, there are three main types of children that are practically unadoptable. There are older children, minority children, and defective children.

Ain't much we can about about older children, but increasing the pool of adoptive parents should help.

Avoiding any speculations of a racial nature, one of the major problems with minority children is that the majority of couples that are considered qualified to adopt are white and upper middle class. While there is the matter that many of them would prefer to adopt white children, there are many, many people who would be happy to adopt any healthy child-- and the law in most cases does not allow this, preferring to keep those children "among their own kind." Allow more people to adopt children across racial boundaries, and you will see many of these children adopted and many couples satisfied, when they would have been forced to continue to wait for a white baby.

There isn't much we can do about improving adoption rates among defective children. Frankly, I don't even think it is a good idea. They're just going to end up wards of the state again as soon as their parents can no longer support them.

WHAT IN PRAY TELL IS A DEFECTIVE CHILD?

One who is not "perfect?"

Why don't you ask the parents here of special needs kids if they consider their children "defective." Oh, and while you're at it, ask them when they think they will turn their children over to be 'wards of the state.' :rolleyes:


Geez Freaking Lousie. :mad:

I have two special needs children and I can tell you, depending on the severity of the diability, many children are still given over to be wards of the state, many of them from two parent families as well. Of those raising kids with low function autism, we are one of the few that kept our son at home until he turned 21. He's still at home 3 days out of the week but thank the Lord we've found a good Adult Family Home for him. Sad thing is, if the state would have provided us with two weeks respite care a year, we wouldn't have put him in the AFH in the first place, and the AFH is costing the state a heck of a lot more than respite care would have.

I will also tell you that, having my son in that AFH has done wonders for my health, both mentally and physically. He's not a ward of the state though. I still have to do the paperwork, but we will be his legal guardians and should anything happen to us, my nephew will take over the job.
I have always wondered why they don't pay for respite care.
 
According to the reports I've read, a child raised in a two parent family does better "on every measurable level" than a child raised in a one parent family. Those raised by single moms in a neighborhood of single moms do even worse.

Can a single mom do a great job? Yes, but the odds are against them. That's why they should be last on the list of adoption. Again, two parent heterosexual couples should get to adopt first, then homosexual couples, then single parents. It's the states job to make sure that the children that are adopted have the best circumstances possible.
Did you leave out single fathers on purpose, or was that an oversight?
My personal opinion is that a non-homosexual single parent is a better option for a child's upbringing than a homosexual couple.
That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it's what I think is best.
I don't have a problem if homosexuals want to raise a child, I just think it might be harder on a child to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies rather than a non-homosexual single parent. Any way you look at it though, I think a child is better off in a family (homosexual or straight) than as a ward of the state.
 
According to the reports I've read, a child raised in a two parent family does better "on every measurable level" than a child raised in a one parent family. Those raised by single moms in a neighborhood of single moms do even worse.

Can a single mom do a great job? Yes, but the odds are against them. That's why they should be last on the list of adoption. Again, two parent heterosexual couples should get to adopt first, then homosexual couples, then single parents. It's the states job to make sure that the children that are adopted have the best circumstances possible.
Did you leave out single fathers on purpose, or was that an oversight?
My personal opinion is that a non-homosexual single parent is a better option for a child's upbringing than a homosexual couple.
That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it's what I think is best.
I don't have a problem if homosexuals want to raise a child, I just think it might be harder on a child to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies rather than a non-homosexual single parent. Any way you look at it though, I think a child is better off in a family (homosexual or straight) than as a ward of the state.

leaving out single fathers was an accident. Yes, children need a mother AND a father. However, a child raised in a two parent household, even a homosexual two parent household does better than a child raised in a single parent home. Yes, I've read the reports. I was interested and argued on your side until I read the reports on homosexual parenting. The truth is, that even though I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, two homosexual parents are still better than one heterosexual parent.

You have to look at the facts...not just your feelings, when it comes to placing children in homes. Again, it's the states responsibility to place them in the best possible situation.
 
According to the reports I've read, a child raised in a two parent family does better "on every measurable level" than a child raised in a one parent family. Those raised by single moms in a neighborhood of single moms do even worse.

Can a single mom do a great job? Yes, but the odds are against them. That's why they should be last on the list of adoption. Again, two parent heterosexual couples should get to adopt first, then homosexual couples, then single parents. It's the states job to make sure that the children that are adopted have the best circumstances possible.
Did you leave out single fathers on purpose, or was that an oversight?
My personal opinion is that a non-homosexual single parent is a better option for a child's upbringing than a homosexual couple.
That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it's what I think is best.
I don't have a problem if homosexuals want to raise a child, I just think it might be harder on a child to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies rather than a non-homosexual single parent. Any way you look at it though, I think a child is better off in a family (homosexual or straight) than as a ward of the state.

leaving out single fathers was an accident. Yes, children need a mother AND a father. However, a child raised in a two parent household, even a homosexual two parent household does better than a child raised in a single parent home. Yes, I've read the reports. I was interested and argued on your side until I read the reports on homosexual parenting. The truth is, that even though I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, two homosexual parents are still better than one heterosexual parent.

You have to look at the facts...not just your feelings, when it comes to placing children in homes. Again, it's the states responsibility to place them in the best possible situation.

Read all the studies you want to, a child raised in a two parent family in the ghetto's of New York will most likely end up worse off than a child raised in a single parent family in the suburbs of San Francisco. Which place do you think has more homosexual parents?
There are entirely too many factors involved to boil it down to homosexual vs straight. The child of a single gay parent from the suburbs of San Fran will turn out entirely different than the child of a New York ghetto 2 parent family. That doesn't mean that children should be placed in gay San Fran single parent homes over straight New York ghetto 2 parent families. Just that it's different.
Again, just my opinion.
 
I think The State would need to approve these adoptions on a case by case basis.
That's just too simple. Common sense does not always apply.

it is simple , people just like to complicate matters

Did you leave out single fathers on purpose, or was that an oversight?
My personal opinion is that a non-homosexual single parent is a better option for a child's upbringing than a homosexual couple.
That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it's what I think is best.
I don't have a problem if homosexuals want to raise a child, I just think it might be harder on a child to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies rather than a non-homosexual single parent. Any way you look at it though, I think a child is better off in a family (homosexual or straight) than as a ward of the state.

leaving out single fathers was an accident. Yes, children need a mother AND a father. However, a child raised in a two parent household, even a homosexual two parent household does better than a child raised in a single parent home. Yes, I've read the reports. I was interested and argued on your side until I read the reports on homosexual parenting. The truth is, that even though I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, two homosexual parents are still better than one heterosexual parent.

You have to look at the facts...not just your feelings, when it comes to placing children in homes. Again, it's the states responsibility to place them in the best possible situation.



Read all the studies you want to, a child raised in a two parent family in the ghetto's of New York will most likely end up worse off than a child raised in a single parent family in the suburbs of San Francisco. Which place do you think has more homosexual parents?
There are entirely too many factors involved to boil it down to homosexual vs straight. The child of a single gay parent from the suburbs of San Fran will turn out entirely different than the child of a New York ghetto 2 parent family. That doesn't mean that children should be placed in gay San Fran single parent homes over straight New York ghetto 2 parent families. Just that it's different.
Again, just my opinion.

I always think the needs of the child should come first and if that means a same sex couple raises them then so be it.
 
WHAT IN PRAY TELL IS A DEFECTIVE CHILD? One who is not "perfect?"

Noone is perfect. But the rest of the post indicates that you seem to know exactly what I am talking about. Doesn't seem to have been much point to asking me this question, except to attempt to argue that the children in question are not defective.

Considering the fact that, in order to be defective, a child must suffer from "birth defects" or "congenital deformities", I think trying to argue that they are not defective is an exercise in absurdity.

Why don't you ask the parents here of special needs kids if they consider their children "defective."

Because I know how much they have sacrificed for their children, and that they love their children very much, and the very last thing that I would ever want to do is compound their tragedy by belittling them or by offending them any more than I can avoid. I am sincerely sorry that my opinion is so offensive to so many people, especially to people in a very difficult situation.

But that doesn't change the fact that I believe I'm right, and that all of the money and manpower that we spend on trying to give these people a "normal" life is a terrible waste. Telling them that they can have a normal life, and that they can do anything that normal people can do, is neither fair to them nor to all of the people who have to help them try to accomplish the impossible.

Oh, and while you're at it, ask them when they think they will turn their children over to be 'wards of the state.' :rolleyes:

From my experience, it's either within a couple of years of their child's eighteenth birthday, or when they realize that they are too old (or their finances too depleted) to continue caring for them. I am sure that those in the latter category would love to continue caring for their children forever-- but they're not going to live forever, and after they die their children are not miraculously going to become capable of taking care of themselves.

Thanks for the reality check. However I do believe that the best policy is to attempt to give each individual the best chance at the highest functioning life for that person. Perhaps that might be considered "a terrible waste" by some, but what is the alternative? Any alternative might make our society just a little less human.

Nazi Germany increased the productivity of their society by eliminating the mentally disabled., but I do not think that is a good role model. And then what is defective? At what point should someone be considered defective. Should we administer an IQ test with 85 the break point?

Your opinion is offensive to those parent who love their children, but were not fortunate to have healthy children. While everyone has a right to voice opinions, perhaps some opinions should remain unsaid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top