Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Friday, June 3, 2011

Gay adoption uber alles

Over at Justin Vacula's blog, they are wringing their collective hands over the fact that Catholic Charities of Illinois is giving up the adoption business altogether rather than be bullied into placing children with same-sex couples. Why the state of Illinois is pressuring Illinois Catholic Charities into doing so rather than just leaving them alone is a mystery to me. It seems that the charitable organization wanted an amendment to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that would "have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith". But the amendment failed to pass and you know the story, it's gay adoption uber alles and the possibility of opting out is apparently off the table.



I am quite sure that the charity in this case objected due to religious reasons along with others. However, I am not convinced that objections to young kids having to be canaries in a coal mine in a grand social experiment due to the lobbying efforts of radical gay activists necessarily need to be grounded upon religious reasons. After all, doesnt a charity that places these kids owe the childen they are dealing with the most optimal environment possible in which to live? Please consider the following...



First, " Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation." Someone once stated that gender does not equal role playing, and I agree.



To argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are quite similar to one another flies in the face of empirical evidence. It seems that the right-wing, religious zealots over at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association seem to agree on the following facts...




  • "Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines



  • Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population





  • Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis





  • it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men





  • Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies





  • gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa"





In addition to these facts eminating from the gay community, those homophobes over at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence state that "23% of men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male intimate partner." Exactly how do these numbers stack up against married, heterosexual couples?



Of course all of this is before we get into the fact that..



"Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender)."





And all of this is just off the top of my head. I'm just some putz sitting in his undershirt in Florida, laughing at the leftist nonsense trotted out as legitimate commentary because none of this information was that hard to find. I can hardly wait to hear the rebuttals. Can we at least hope for, "B-b-b-but a stable home environment isn't everything JD!"














3 comments:

Tracy said...

Gosh I just think that if that adoption agency was a privately funded, Catholic agency, they should be able to pick parents by their own standards. As long as they do not receive public funds and it's connected to a church and the choices are being made for religious reasons, it's their affair.

Justin Vacula said...

JD, you're still missing the point. Once Catholic charities agree to receive money from the state, they have to play by the rules. If they no longer want to play by the rules, they no longer can receive the money. This is not the state's fault, but rather the fault of the Catholic charities.

The idea of charities being bullied is nonsense. They're not being bullied, but rather are ELECTING to close because they don't want to provide services to homosexuals.

The state just doesn't 'leave alone' organizations that discriminate. The same goes for other charities and organizations too, not just Catholic ones, so why bother with the special pleading here [why should Catholic charities be left alone and not others, anyway?].

Children being adopted by homosexuals is not some new, sudden 'experiment' like you are making it out to be. It's always happened and children turn out just fine.

Your source is not a reliable one. I don't understand why you keep linking tremendously biased websites. All that this link says, if we, for sake of argument or expediency, is that previous studies stating that children would be just fine are methodologically flawed. Ok, great...where are the studies showing that the children would turn out bad? Your site just asserts many claims and doesn't provide backing.

Next, the person from Rutgers links what functions mothers and fathers play...so what? Many mothers and fathers don't all play the same functions and many can provide what the other does not. Would you say that children with single parents or raised by one grandparent would be disordered? Come on...

Even if all of the bullet points are true, it doesn't matter. As one of my commenters said, African-Americans are also 'high risk' in various areas...so should we exclude them from adopting?

JD Curtis said...

First, I do not think that there is any way possible that Catholic charities can facilitate adoptions without the interference/approval/regulation of the state. It all must be under Dept of Children and Families. They cannot go at it on their own. If I'm wrong about this, pleae explain why.

The idea of charities being bullied is nonsense. They're not being bullied, but rather are ELECTING to close because they don't want to provide services to homosexuals

But you've conveniently left out the fact that they don't wish to place kids with co-habitating couples, period. Whether straight or gay makes no difference.

The state just doesn't 'leave alone' organizations that discriminate. The same goes for other charities and organizations too, not just Catholic ones, so why bother with the special pleading here [why should Catholic charities be left alone and not others, anyway?]

Yet the Cathoic charity in question here only wished to defer to other agencies in the case of refering children to co-habitating couples. I'm sure the same could apply to Lutheran, Methodist or other types of organizations as well. It is my understanding that the Catholic church has historically been involved from it's inception with orphanages and adoption.

Children being adopted by homosexuals is not some new, sudden 'experiment' like you are making it out to be. It's always happened and children turn out just fine

I'm perfectly willing to engage in some speculation with you and accept that it's possible that some homosexuals slipped under the radar and had children referred for adoption. Whether it was the mother or father, we will never know and I don't think there are reliable statistics on these types of occurances or else you would have been citing them by now.

Your source is not a reliable one. I don't understand why you keep linking tremendously biased websites. All that this link says, if we, for sake of argument or expediency, is that previous studies stating that children would be just fine are methodologically flawed. Ok, great...where are the studies showing that the children would turn out bad? Your site just asserts many claims and doesn't provide backing

Yet you do not provide any emperical evidence that you claim to posess in spades to back up these statements.

Might I suggest that you start here and we'll take it from there?

I'll address the other points raised by CNM tomorrow in it's own entry.