Scotland: Homosexual couples given right to adopt children

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | June 11, 2005 | Auslan Cramb

[Stoat]

Homosexual couples given right to adopt children

By Auslan Cramb
(Filed: 11/06/2005)

Same-sex couples are to be allowed to adopt children under a radical overhaul of adoption laws in Scotland.

In the first major change to the laws governing adoption for 25 years, unmarried couples, including gay couples, will be able to adopt jointly.

At present, only married or single people can adopt and although homosexual or unmarried couples can currently raise children, only one can be recognised as the legal parent.

The Scottish Executive set up a review group to look at the issue four years ago, and backed the "overwhelming majority" of its recommendations, which were published yesterday.

Those wanting to adopt will have to prove they are in an "enduring family relationship".

Euan Robson, the deputy education minister, said unmarried couples could "to all intents and purposes" adopt at present, as both partners were assessed together, although only one could legally apply and would be registered as a single parent.

He said: "This confusing legal position needed to be addressed. Any couple being assessed as adopters would undergo a rigorous examination of their relationship to make sure it provides stability for the child, and to explore in depth their parenting abilities.

"This would ensure that only couples that can provide a secure home to a child would be allowed to adopt."

The laws have already been changed south of the border, but the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien said said the move was "contrary to the common good" and could "cause harm to children".

He said homosexual relationships were "notoriously fragile and unstable" and that the small number of gay couples living together undermined claims that the move could increase the number of potential adoptive parents.

"Sadly, demands for parental rights for homosexual partners are more to do with fulfilling their wish for status rather than meeting needs of children," he said.

"It is the view of the Catholic Church that to place children in such a situation is to put them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.

"This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognised in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Tory education spokesman, said there was evidence to show that a child's best interests were served by living with a married couple.

"This is not a question of gay rights, but solely the interests of each child," he said.

"The immediate priority is to extend the number of married couples who can adopt and by tackling prejudice on the grounds of age or race, to allow more to do so."

The number of adoptions in Scotland has fallen from about 1,000 a year 20 years ago to around 400 a year now. Last year, there were nearly 3,500 children in foster care, with 600 in need of immediate adoption.

[little jeremiah]

Please click the links in my comment #8 above. There is enough material there to read for many hours.

[DBeers]

Sounds like a good ruling.

From the perspective of homosexuals that play house and practice depraved sexual activities it may on its surface seem like a good ruling; however, that which contravenes absolute morality and social acceptance can never be 'ruled' acceptable to any but the moral relativists of which it appears you are a card carrying member...

From the perspective of the innocent children this ruling is but sanctioned child abuse at the hands of selfish disordered members of society...

[Canard]

I have read those previously, as far as I remember they were comparing children being raised by a homosexual couple and children being in a traditonal hetrosexual marriage. Can you point me specifically to anything comparing children being raised by a homosexual couple and being brought up in a home?

[little jeremiah]

I'll see if I have time later to post some links with that kind of research.

In short, the unbiased (and oddly enough, even some of the pro-homosexual researchers) have found that children, when raised by homosexuals, have proportionately higher percentages of homosexual activity, sexual confusion, higher rate of being molested, promiscuity, alcohol and drug use, depression, acting out in school, and the like.

It is definitely not good for children to live with homosexuals.

[scripter]

Can you point me specifically to anything comparing children being raised by a homosexual couple and being brought up in a home?

Nobody has the time to parse each article for you. But here are a number of links on homosexuality and adoption:

2005

Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children (LifeSiteNews), FreeRepublic
Review of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting (NARTH)
Bill would prohibit gay couples from adopting (TN) (WBIR), FreeRepublic
Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue (Original Source Not Available)

2004

Board rejects gay adoption lobbying (The Florida Bar), FreeRepublic
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? (American College of Pediatricians)
Board to take up advertising, gay adoptions December 10 (The Florida Bar), FreeRepublic
Where Children Have No Voice: The 'Right' of Adoption by Homosexual Partners (Tradition, Family and Property), FreeRepublic
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 1) (Zenit)
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 2) (Zenit), FreeRepublic
Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents? (WorldNetDaily), FreeRepublic
Judge says gay pair can sue Web site (SFGate), FreeRepublic

2002

Children and homosexual adoption (Good News Magazine)
Homosexual adoption (Townhall)
Pediatrics Group Endorses Homosexual Adoption (NARTH)
Trophy children (WorldNetDaily), FreeRepublic

---

We're not done updating the following in the database, as you'll see with the empty parenthesis, but here are a number of articles on homosexuality and parenting:

2005

Court: Lesbian must support adopted kids (Fort Wayne), FreeRepublic
The girl with two mums (they used to be two dads) ( ), FreeRepublic

2004

Professional Pediatrics Group Discourages Gay Parenting ( ), FreeRepublic
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? ( )
Are children of gay parents worse off? ( ), FreeRepublic

2003

Mother appeals ruling on gays (Original Source Not Available)
Gay With Children ( ), FreeRepublic
Seeing the Slip (Original Source Not Available)
Heather Has 3 Parents (Original Source Not Available)
Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching ( ), FreeRepublic

2002

Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review ( )
Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages" ( )

2001

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk ( )
Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says ( ), FreeRepublic
Homosexual Parents: 'Hidden Study' Uncovered!! ( )

[Canard]

I'm not asking for anything to be parsed to me. The articles that I've seen compare children being adopted by gay couples with children being brought up in a hetrosexual marriage.

All well and good, evidence points to the latter situation being superior for the child. But what we are talking about here is a situation where the child is either adopted by a gay couple or not adopted by anyone and remains in a children's home. My instincts say that being raised by a loving couple who happen to be gay would be better for the child than being raised in a home. None of the links that have been posted seem to specifically address this situation.

[scripter]

If you're really interested you'll click the links, follow the links in each respective link and follow up with the data sources. Again, nobody has the time to parse all the information for you into one paragraph.

[little jeremiah]

Intuition isn't always right. It all depends on what's been fed into the old brain earlier.

If you read up, your intuition will something to chew on first.

Everyone's being real nice to you, giving you links and everything, why don't you play nice too and read them?

Fact free opinions and intuition are not worth much here or anywhere else, except maybe the NYT and Newsweak.

(Thanks, scrip, for the facts!)

[Canard]

Yes, as I said previously, I did read the initial links and I have read quite a few of the others provided. None so far deal with the specific question at hand, I'll get back to you if I find anything.

[scripter]

None so far deal with the specific question at hand

It's not easy when you have to dig for something you're not really interested in finding.

I'll get back to you if I find anything.

Please don't bother. As I see it, I've spent enough time trying to help you when you're apparently not really intested in finding what you claim to be looking for.

[Canard]

Why the attitude?

" It's not easy when you have to dig for something you're not really interested in finding."

How presumptious and patronising of you. I've been through every one of your links actually. The only one that touches on the question I asked (you did actually read my previous posts right?) is this one:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=61437

which touches on it briefly, but dismisses it as not a practical concern -

"Q: Would children linger unloved in foster care if not placed with a same-sex couple?

O'Leary: Given the increase in infertility due to late marriage and the consequences of the pandemic of STDs, the number of securely married couples who want to adopt is very high. Due to abortion and the acceptance of single motherhood, the number of healthy babies being released for adoption is very low.

Therefore, since the demand overwhelming exceeds the supply, agencies should have no problems finding a virtually perfect placement for every healthy baby released at birth by the mother.

There is no reason for choosing a second-best placement, and adoption by a same-sex couple is by definition second-best, since it deprives the child of a parent of one sex and all the experiences that having a father and a mother provides."

Now that may be true in the US, but is clearly not the case in Scotland in the situation we are discussing. As we can see from the original article -

"The number of adoptions in Scotland has fallen from about 1,000 a year 20 years ago to around 400 a year now. Last year, there were nearly 3,500 children in foster care, with 600 in need of immediate adoption."

So we are left still with the question of whether having a child brought up by two homsexual parents, while it does not appear to be as desirable as being brought up in a traditional hetrosexual partnership, is more or less beneficial to the child than being left in a childrens home, essentially with no 'parent' at all. As I said earlier, my gut reaction to that is that it probably would be, but there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence specifically contrasting the two options that we can look at to support that one way or another.

You don't seem interested in a debate on the matter though, so I'll leave you to it, cheers anyway.

[longtermmemmory]

In the states that allow homosexuals to adopt children most are adopted as a "single parent". The sex partner is does not legally adopt the child. Most times it is because the states restrict or do not allow same sex second parent adoption. (heather only gets ONE mother and ONE father) This makes the paperwork go smoother. Sometimes it allows them to conceal the recreational sex life.

It is rather sad that scotland is allowing this tragedy.

[scripter]

Why the attitude?

Where to start. You're new here and we've seen the same comments from others who didn't last long. You claim the articles don't have the information you're looking for, yet they do. And, even if you read my response immediately after I posted it, there's no way you could have read the links I provided in the 13 minutes it took you to respond. My time is valuable.

You must realize I've read the same articles and know, as do many others here who have read the same articles, there's a lot more to it than the limited information you've provided here. That in itself speaks volumes.

I encourage others to read the very link you claim to have read, part 1 here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=61437 and part two here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=61500 and they'll see you're either playing a game, you have difficulty comprehending what you've read, or you're not really looking for what you claim to be looking for.

[Canard]

"And, even if you read my response immediately after I posted it, there's no way you could have read the links I provided in the 13 minutes it took you to respond"

Clearly not. I took a browse through some of them, some I had seen before and noted that most seemed to deal with comparing children raised by hetrosexual adoptive parents with children raised by homosexual adoptive parents. You replied that "If you're really interested you'll click the links, follow the links in each respective link and follow up with the data sources" which I thought was a fair point and did so over a two hour period.

Now two hours may not be a mamouth research effort, but it's a fair deal and I quoted above the only thing that I found that specifically addressed the question in hand.

I still don't really get the hostility, I've not insulted you, cast any aspersions on your beliefs, I posed one question and attempted to look for data which might answer it. In retrospect, it's not really suprising if that data doesn't exist at least in any definitive form. As your links show it's only in the last few years that the data concerning the differences between children raised in hetrosexual and homosexual homes has begun to be organised and reveiwed properly.

Anyway, I wouldn't dream of asking you to use any more of your valuable time. Later.

[scripter]

As your links show it's only in the last few years that the data concerning the differences between children raised in hetrosexual and homosexual homes has begun to be organised and reveiwed properly.

Then you should have the answer to your query. You started off saying the answers didn't exist in the links provided when in fact they do. When you make what appears to be an intentional false claim to somebody who has compiled all the evidence and knows what it says, you're going to get a terse response.

Telling somebody the information they provided doesn't support what they claim it supports isn't a friendly tactic. In fact it's something we see from those who don't last too long.

[Canard]

I'm slightly mystified by your last post. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, it's late. Just checking that you did read my posts and do know that I wasn't at any point contesting the argument that being brought up by hetrosexual parents is likely to be 'better' for a child than being brought up by homosexual parents?

[scripter]

I wasn't at any point contesting the argument that being brought up by hetrosexual parents is likely to be 'better' for a child than being brought up by homosexual parents?

I never thought you were saying anything even remotely close to the above.

Previously you said: My instincts say that being raised by a loving couple who happen to be gay would be better for the child than being raised in a home.

From the studies and links I've provided, it's obvious placing children with a loving couple who happen to be gay is definitely not better than living in a childrens home. There are so many, many issues to consider.

[Canard]

That's good then, I did hope I was being clear.

" From the studies and links I've provided, it's obvious placing children with a loving couple who happen to be gay is definitely not better than living in a childrens home. There are so many, many issues to consider."

That's fine as your conclusion and you're obviously entitled to your opinion. I hope to have more time to go through the sources in the future. My reservation would be that while they may show some problems that can be caused by placing children with homosexual parents, there are also numerous problems that can be caused by living children in children's homes which often seem to themselves be breeding grounds for criminality and promiscuity.

I by no means consider myself fully informed on the issue obviously, but the conclusion isn't yet as obvious to me as it evidently is to you. I hope you'll not condemn me too harshly for maintaining an open mind on the subject.

Anyway, I'm definately off to bed now. Thanks for your time.

[scripter]

When you have some time check out my profile.