Skip to comments.
End of Adoptions as One Agency Protests Gay Parents (MA) (Barf Alert!)
ABC News ^
| June 30, 2006
| Gigi Stone
Posted on 06/30/2006 8:43:24 PM PDT by DBeers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
06/30/2006 8:43:28 PM PDT
by
DBeers
To: DBeers
"To say, 'Oh, because you're gay you can't or you shouldn't be able to raise a child,' that is horrible," said Karen Brown, a mother who gave her daughter up for adoption.Of course she can say this because she doesn't care about the child she gave up for adoption.
2
posted on
06/30/2006 8:45:43 PM PDT
by
highlander_UW
(I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
To: AFA-Michigan; Abathar; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!
If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!
To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.
Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
But the American Academy of Pediatrics said that a growing body of scientific literature shows that children who grow up with one or two gay and or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.
Here is a link to a document that addresses the "growing body of scientific literature":
No Basis: What the Studies Dont Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
A 129 page Adobe Acrobat document:
Executive Summary
It is routinely asserted in courts, journals and the media that it makes no difference whether a child has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific studies that are claimed to have demonstrated this.
An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no basis for this assertion. The studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.
Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea Nagai, Ph.D., professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex (or homosexual) parenting.
The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power).
Each chapter of the evaluation describes and evaluates how the studies utilized one of these research steps. Along the way, Lerner and Nagai offer pointers for how future studies can be more competently done. Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:
- Unclear hypotheses and research designs
- Missing or inadequate comparison groups
- Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
- Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
- Samples too small to yield meaningful results
- Missing or inadequate statistical analysis
Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all fortynine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.
Four Appendices follow. Appendix 1 is a bibliography of the studies and related publications. Appendix 2 is a table that summarizes the evaluation of each of the studies with regard to each research step. Appendix 3 (by William C. Duncan) is an overview of how these studies have been used in the law. Appendix 4 (by Kristina Mirus) describes how the media has covered these studies.
3
posted on
06/30/2006 8:47:24 PM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: highlander_UW
Speaking as an adopted child, much can be said to the fact that she carried it to term. If she didn't care, the infant would have ended up in a PP dumpster.
APf
4
posted on
06/30/2006 8:47:48 PM PDT
by
APFel
(Individualism. The alpha and the omega.)
To: DBeers
You can't expect a dem to rely on any science that does not further their agenda.
5
posted on
06/30/2006 8:58:18 PM PDT
by
phoenix0468
(http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
To: DBeers
"...protects the rights of gay couples to adopt a child." When did adopting a child become ANYONE'S "right?" I think you would find a lot of normal heterosexual couples who have been unable to adopt for whatever reason that would challenge that any such "right" exists. What about the rights of the children? Or is it only perverts who are supposed to have rights now?
6
posted on
06/30/2006 9:24:18 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
(Stupidity should make you sterile!)
To: DBeers
It is sad but I commend them for sticking to their belief and not putting children in harms way.
7
posted on
06/30/2006 9:37:36 PM PDT
by
garylmoore
(Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
To: APFel
Speaking as an adopted child, much can be said to the fact that she carried it to term. If she didn't care, the infant would have ended up in a PP dumpster.With all due respects, which is better... a dumpster as a baby or life as a public toilet in childhood? Think about that one... She is a coward and just wants somebody else to do the dirty deeds...
To: highlander_UW
What she chose to do was infinitely better than abortion.
It seems to me that the parents (or at least the mother) should have some say in the types of people who qualify for adopting the child. The adoption agency should be seen to be an agency of the birth parent(s) as much as for the adoptive parents. (So long as the child is protected.)
Even real estate agents are required to act in the interests of both parties to the transaction. Adoptions are far more important.
To: phoenix0468
"But the American Academy of Pediatrics said that a growing body of scientific literature shows that children who grow up with one or two gay and or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual"
Then why, why, why did nature make it so that a child could only be born to a man and a woman? Since it makes no difference.
I don't know what's easier to believe, that people are really this insidious or this stupid.
To: APFel
I was not suggesting that she should have aborted it...I am saying that she doesn't care about the kid...that can be determined by the fact that she doesn't care rather homosexuals are fit to be parents or not.
11
posted on
06/30/2006 10:49:07 PM PDT
by
highlander_UW
(I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I agree, carrying to term and then adopting out was the best option for her. Suggesting that it doesn't matter if the adopting "parents" are homosexuals means she does not care what happens to the child. A quick review of statistics show that homosexuals abuse children at a MUCH greater rate than heterosexuals. Additionally, practicing homosexuals have a very much shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. There are also higher instances of disease amongst homosexuals...all of these, of course, are not much addressed in the MSM so ignorant people such as this woman have no clue what they are claiming.
12
posted on
06/30/2006 10:52:50 PM PDT
by
highlander_UW
(I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
To: highlander_UW
I agree with you up to a point. I was trying to say that parents should be able to check a box on the adoption papers that says "no homos". That way, it's not an issue of the "rights" of the 'mos vs. the adoption agency. It becomes a matter of the rights of the birth parents vs. the 'mos; with the agency being just that -- an agency.
However, pro-aborts often say that a foetus is better off being aborted, than being born unwanted. It's dangerous to suggest anything remotely similar.
To: mockingbyrd
But the American Academy of Pediatrics said that a growing body of scientific literature shows that children who grow up with one or two gay and or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. poo-poo on their crap science. Lies, lies and more lies. "Fare as well" isn't saying much. We want to give children the environment that at least gives them a chance to do better, not an environment that "fares as well". Tell me that children do better with gay parents? I don't think they can without telling more lies.
I am becoming disaffected by a kind of gov't that can't even agree that marriage should be between a man and woman, that an 8 month fetus is a human being, and people should be able to say "God" in a public forum, just to name a few things. Our politicians are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. It doesn't take much brains to ruin society. Any mongoloid fascist can do that. I think there was better gov't and more common sense under the monarchies.
14
posted on
07/01/2006 6:10:59 AM PDT
by
virgil
To: DBeers
>"If they love to give let them?"
That quote takes the cake.There are many cruel women who do not care about the children they produce ,but in the context of the article she seems to convenient. The adoption market is full of stable, heterosexual, married infertile, would be parents.So naturally, the anti children crowd want to give children to overcompetitive gay ,political activists.The arrogance is astonishing. I have never met a gay man who could replace a good mother.
15
posted on
07/01/2006 6:46:48 AM PDT
by
after dark
(I love hateful people. They help me unload karmic debt.)
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
With all due respects, which is better... a dumpster as a baby or life as a public toilet in childhood? Think about that one... She is a coward and just wants somebody else to do the dirty deeds... I'm not quite clear as to what you are saying here. A Dumpster as a baby?? or life as a public toilet??
I WOULD think about it if you gave me something coherent to think about. As it stands, I have no Earthly clue.
APf
16
posted on
07/01/2006 10:14:46 AM PDT
by
APFel
(Individualism. The alpha and the omega.)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
It seems to me that the parents (or at least the mother) should have some say in the types of people who qualify for adopting the child. Generally speaking, at one time [they] did and in some cases still do. Children without custodial parents are wards of the state -as such "society" is the custodial parent. What we see here is an activist court or judge (servant od society) imposing his or her beliefs over that of the custodial parent (society)...
17
posted on
07/01/2006 10:18:07 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: DBeers
"We find ourselves in a conflict," said the Rev. Bryan Hehir from Catholic Charities. "The religious, moral principles of Catholic teaching and practice clash with the political and civil regulations of the state." Don't know why they just don't tell them to phuck off. Separation of church and state! Since the church can't get into your business, you can't get into ours!
18
posted on
07/01/2006 10:34:21 AM PDT
by
Bommer
(Attention illegals: Why don't you do the jobs we can't do? Like fix your own countries problems!)
To: mockingbyrd
Then why, why, why did nature make it so that a child could only be born to a man and a woman? Since it makes no difference.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Homosexuals are not reproductively viable. It is a fact. Stealing other people's children and indoctrinating them with a perverted belief system does not change this fact.
19
posted on
07/01/2006 3:31:36 PM PDT
by
VxH
(This species has amused itself to death.)
To: virgil
>>poo-poo on their crap science.
Second that.
>>We want to give children the environment that at least gives them a chance to do better
The question is - to do better at what?
I suspect some Corporations believe that homosexuals are better for the short-term bottom line.
Better, from their perspective, to have workers who are drones whose sole purpose in life is to make more honey for the hive.
After all, passing on one's genetic material should be a privilege reserved for the elite.
The worker bees should be content with their labor and then have the decency to shrivel up and die. /Sarc
Now, given that God is dead, (or so they'd like to believe), all they have to do is rid the human race of 4.5 billion years worth of evolutionary programming.
Social engineering and Science, mixed with a dash of obsession...
Viola!
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", anyone?
20
posted on
07/01/2006 3:59:06 PM PDT
by
VxH
(This species has amused itself to death.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson