On Gay Adoption
My personal view is that everyone should adopt a couple.
Kidding aside, in Tennessee, there is a push to allow gays to adopt. And Martin Kennedy says the dumbest things about it:
There is no need for gay adoption, no compelling argument.
Well, if you say so, I have to believe it, I guess. After all, you’re a Kennedy! Actually, there are plenty of compelling arguments. One is that it is better for kids to be in a loving home than in state custody. Even if that home has gay cooties. And there’s also a compelling argument if, say, a parent is killed and willed their children to a gay relative.
Via Aunt B. who says that even though it may make Mr. Kennedy feel bad to be called a bigot, that he is one.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am
More importantly, there is no compelling argument against it. The biggest arguments have always been that it “psychologically harms” the kid, or that it makes them more likely to be gay themselves – both of which have been shown to be false. Of course, we all know that the bigots don’t care about silly little things like facts unless they can be fitted into their prejudice.
I think that, if/when they bother to acknowledge the truth, and think rather than follow their knee-jerk reactions, they’re more worried about a couple of other things:
a) Kids raised by a gay couple are much less likely to be homophobic, and are more likely to treat gay couples just like they would treat straight couples; and
b) Kids who are gay and raised by a gay couple are more likely to be “out” than they are likely to spend their lives afraid and in the closet (which is how the homophobes want them – scared and in hiding).
October 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Not to mention every gay couple missing some important hardware in baby making….so like Japan when they want lumber, they import!
Being from Mass our state has a LOT of problems, Gay Cooties from letting the homos get married isn’t one of them.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
My girlfriend is a social worker. The horror stories that come from her about abuse in the foster care system make my blood boil. Any stable home, gay or not, is better than being a ward of the state. Its almost abuse itself to not let a gay couple who is otherwise completely normal adopt a kid.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Of course, any normal couple would be better than an alternative couple/group of people for the child.
Right?
October 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Because a gay or lesbian couple would inflict differnt brain washing than a religious hetro couple or a single mom working 2 jobs right?
October 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
It’s fun to disparage all those who disagree with your position as being afraid of t3h cooties, but if you would take the time to study their points, you might find a few that give you pause. Not every bigot is bigoted without reason, and not every bigot is bad for being one.
Here’s 2 minutes of google searching I did for you for you (aka a scientific study according to some *other* bigots we all know)
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
October 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Before i click on it, I’m going to state that those are links to those discredited studies that say teh gay means you’re more likely to be a child molestor.
Update: Ok, only one was. The other listed a bunch of behavior that would disqualify a heterosexual from being able to adopt.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Sorry, but merely identifying a study as “discredited” hardly makes it so. Roughly 2% of the population is gay, so all other things being equal, one should expect male child molesters to victimize 50 times as many young girls as young boys. Do you have stats to back that up?
October 14th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
The fact is the first study is from “traditionalvalues.org”, and the second is from the “National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality”. You’re citing NAMBLA in an age of consent debate, here. Or more appropriately for a gun blog, you’re citing the VPC in a gun debate. There’s about a billion ways to make statistics say what you want them to say – so link to a study done by someone without an agenda.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Actually, recent work by the the Centers for Disease Control found that about 4% of men have had sex with a man in the last year. Previous work would indicate that number of lesbians is on the same order. –
October 15th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Except that pedophiles tend to be attracted to children, regardless of the child’s gender. Some reading on the topic here.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
If by “reading” you mean “blatant propaganda that isn’t even made to read like anything else,” I suppose so. Funny-money quote:
No friggin’ duh! WTF else would anyone in his right mind call it?!
October 15th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
It’s not propaganda. Consistent with my experience.
Pedophiles target children. It’s largely irrelevant if they’re male or female. So, while “anyone in his right mind” may call it that, it’s not accurate.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
No, it’s not irrelevant. Politically incorrect, perhaps, but political incorrectness is hardly the same thing as irrelevance. Some pedophiles target children of their own sex. Others target children of the opposite sex. Very few target children without regard to sex, and equally few target children of one sex while seeking more mature relationships with adult members of the other.
I’ve never heard of the North American Man-Girl Love Association or the North American Woman-Boy Love Association. Have you?
October 16th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Also note the clever definitional games. Arguing that pedophiles “don’t really have an adult sexual orientation,” the authors proceed to exclude all pedophiles from the definitions of both “homosexual” and “heterosexual.” Once you accept those crazy definitions, there’s nothing left to prove but a tautology. Of course homosexual non-pedophiles are no more likely to be pedophiles than are heterosexual non-pedophiles.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Excluding all is definitely dumb. But, generally speaking, someone who has molested children has done it more than once and to children of different genders. But in 100% of cases, they molested children.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Do you have any hard data to back that up? I’ve heard of individual priests buggering more than one boy, and other child molesters buggering (or whatever the word is) more than one girl, but I can’t remember the last time I read about an equal-opportunity molester. Not saying they don’t exist, but I think are more the exception than the rule. As are, for that matter adults who target adults of both sexes.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am
All the data I have read is dated from when I actually used to work with sex offenders. And, of course, anecdotal info from their various victims.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
And are you saying that most had victims of both sexes?
October 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I would say a majority. So, depending on definition of most, sure. Their particular attraction was to things like fat cheeks, small hands and other child like features. Truly, a fucked up group of people. One day, I realized I wanted them all dead. So, I left.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Keep in mind that opportunity probably also plays a large part in victim selection. In America, at least, it’s much more likely that a “trusted” adult male will be left unsupervised with a young boy than with a young girl. There’s always been a general reluctance in American society to leave a man alone with a young girl – it’s just not “proper”. Greater opportunity leads to greater occurrence – especially if gender isn’t really important.