Assuming G/L marriage becomes law of the land

[MarginOfError]

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

In 2006, the Red Cross applied to the FDA to have the lifetime restriction on homosexual blood donors lifted. The application was denied, but it was pretty close to being accepted. In the next 10 -15 years, we'll likely see enough evidence come out to support the conclusion that there is no need for the restriction.

These things take time though. We don't change policies like this on a whim.

[gabelpa]

Do blood donations, insurance companies, etc ask hetero couples if they are swingers, or in open relationships? Do they ask how many partners they've had, or for a full STD panel? I ask, because I don't know. I have a proper needle phobia, so I avoid anything that involves them.

[Elgama]

1. Same should be as if three hetereosexual couples were in the same boat. Whoever came first.

2&3 In terms of AIDS etc the group least likely to be effected are lesbians so maybe the rest of us should stop donating and leave them to it:) and heterosexual couples should be charged more insurance than lesbians.

[Soulsearcher]

I guess I'd want a clear definition of high risk behavior. In this day and age with the view of most youth, straight or homosexual, that celibacy or being monogamous is silly or out dated i think the stereo types of the past need to really be updated. Also with the knowledge gained after aids became a huge thing for homosexual men, attitudes and safety precautions have become very different than 20 or even 10 years ago from what i'm finding.

[hordak]

I don't think homosexuals automatically engage in more risky behavior then their heterosexual counterparts because they are homosexual.

However that being said IF stats show they are higher risk then naturally the insurance companies should charge more. It's like car analogy, not all young males race around in their cars trying to show off, but enough of them do that it has been determined they are a risk and as such pay more.

As far as adoption goes i think the hetero couple as the child would get the best of both.

I believe the the idea in the family proc that men and women are born with different natures to be true. Not just because the Prophet said it, but because i have seen it. Boys tend to be a "handful" because of their competitive, get it done nature, while girls tend to be more caring, empathetic and compassionate. I have seen this in 2 parent homes, single father, and single mother homes.(By single i mean no other parent in the equation). It could be said this is based on society norms but i have raised my children in the same way ( actually trying to "toughen up" my daughters and tone down my sons' wildness) and they still fit this mold.

I think it is biological and based on hormones and chromosomes.

I'm not saying men can't be caring or women can't have that drive but have found that gender/ nature is in born and as such if all things are equal the child would be best having both.

[Gwen]

Assuming g/l marriage eventually becomes the law of the land:

- If three married couples, two female, two guys and one old school (hetero) want to adopt a child and all three couples are equal with regards to income, loving, etc. Who gets the kid and why?

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

- Should openly g/l couples be charged more for health insurance and/or life insurance coverage given their high risk behavior> Why or why not?

there are a lot more reasons for picking adoptive parents than gender of the parents. what about gender of the kid or race of all the parties? they may be equal in being able to love a child or income but there is more to a good home than that. there is no way all 3 would be equal in everything. i would hope the parents that are the best fit for the child get chosen, no matter who gets there first or anything else.

i think when it comes to blood donation they should ask if you have unprotected sex in a non monogamous relationship. we can complain about the "risk" of gays all we want the reality is straight ppl engage in a lot of sexually high risk behavior. i recall watching a show as a teen where they were talking to this man who was proud that he did not have "safe" sex and he had many different partners (he was straight). they asked him if he was worried about std's and if he got tested regularly. know what he said? "oh yeah, i donate blood all the time, they will call me if something is wrong".... yeah that's who i want blood from, that sounds safe.

the health insurance is the same as blood donation. risky behavior has nothing to do with what gender preference you have. if they want to increase costs of everyone that is promiscuous that makes since but not because of who they like.

[GaySaint]

Wow. I’m kinda glad I missed this thread until now

Bytor: I still must not be understanding your definition of risky behavior. How is what a committed monogamous homosexual couple does differ at all in risk assessment from what a committed monogamous heterosexual couple does (and for the record, there are many heterosexual couples that do the very exact same things homosexual couples do).

I agree that promiscuous behavior is risky. I’ll even agree that the gay community has an issue where promiscuity is looked upon as the “norm” (which is why, I believe, stats for disease transmission among gay men are high), but we as a community haven’t really been given the CHANCE to be accepted into society’s accepted form of monogamy… so I think it’s a silly for you to deny us society’s accepted form of monogamy, only to then tell us the reason we don’t get it (or it’s benefits like health insurance) is because we aren’t monogamous.

Should an HIV positive person be charged more for health insurance, regardless of orientation? Probably… and I think they are (any pre-existing condition can raise health insurance premiums, especially if switching health care providers).

But I don’t think an equally situated heterosexual couple should get a “discount” because both genders are represented in their relationship.

As to the adoption question – the chances of EVERYTHING being on equal footing is highly unlikely. One couple is bound to make more money, or have a stay-at-home parent, etc. etc. But if it is equal, I like the first come first served idea.

Please also note the following:

From the American Psychological Association:

Redirect Page

"Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

The full study is available online in pdf format (88 pages)

From the Child Welfare League of America:

Child Welfare League of America: Culture/Diversity: Sexual Orientation/Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth Issues: Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults

"Based on more than three decades of social science research and our 85 years of service to millions of families, CWLA believes that families with LGBTQ members deserve the same levels of support afforded other families. Any attempt to preclude or prevent gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals or couples from parenting, based solely on their sexual orientation, is not in the best interest of children.

CWLA, therefore, affirms that gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

[carlimac]

Wow. I’m kinda glad I missed this thread until now

Bytor: I still must not be understanding your definition of risky behavior. How is what a committed monogamous homosexual couple does differ at all in risk assessment from what a committed monogamous heterosexual couple does (and for the record, there are many heterosexual couples that do the very exact same things homosexual couples do).

I agree that promiscuous behavior is risky. I’ll even agree that the gay community has an issue where promiscuity is looked upon as the “norm” (which is why, I believe, stats for disease transmission among gay men are high), but we as a community haven’t really been given the CHANCE to be accepted into society’s accepted form of monogamy… so I think it’s a silly for you to deny us society’s accepted form of monogamy, only to then tell us the reason we don’t get it (or it’s benefits like health insurance) is because we aren’t monogamous.

Should an HIV positive person be charged more for health insurance, regardless of orientation? Probably… and I think they are (any pre-existing condition can raise health insurance premiums, especially if switching health care providers).

But I don’t think an equally situated heterosexual couple should get a “discount” because both genders are represented in their relationship.

As to the adoption question – the chances of EVERYTHING being on equal footing is highly unlikely. One couple is bound to make more money, or have a stay-at-home parent, etc. etc. But if it is equal, I like the first come first served idea.

Please also note the following:

From the American Psychological Association:

Redirect Page

"Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

The full study is available online in pdf format (88 pages)

From the Child Welfare League of America:

Child Welfare League of America: Culture/Diversity: Sexual Orientation/Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth Issues: Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults

"Based on more than three decades of social science research and our 85 years of service to millions of families, CWLA believes that families with LGBTQ members deserve the same levels of support afforded other families. Any attempt to preclude or prevent gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals or couples from parenting, based solely on their sexual orientation, is not in the best interest of children.

CWLA, therefore, affirms that gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

But the CWLA hasn't researched their spiritual growth.

[GaySaint]

Carli: Do adoption agencies that are not religiously affiliated take into consderation religious conviction?

I think it is obvious that the LDS adoption agencies would favor LDS couples (and are free to discriminate in a world where SSM is allowed - at least in this country - as long as they don't accept any tax breaks or dollars from the government, which is why the LDS agencies are still discriminating in states where gay marriage IS legal), and other religious agencies the members of their own faith. I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

Edited August 19, 2010 by GaySaint

[GaySaint]

Also, if you are worried about the spiritual well-being of children, you might find this interesting:

The Barna Group - Spiritual Profile of Homosexual Adults Provides Surprising Insights

[Elgama]

But the CWLA hasn't researched their spiritual growth.

well I got baptised as a Latter Day Saint whilst living with my Mother and her female lover. Both supported me in it. If my husband and I die my children will be adopted by a homosexual because I feel of all the people we know they will get the best all round upbringing and the most open spiritual in put

Edited August 19, 2010 by Elgama

[Tarnished]

I agree that promiscuous behavior is risky. I’ll even agree that the gay community has an issue where promiscuity is looked upon as the “norm” (which is why, I believe, stats for disease transmission among gay men are high), but we as a community haven’t really been given the CHANCE to be accepted into society’s accepted form of monogamy… so I think it’s a silly for you to deny us society’s accepted form of monogamy, only to then tell us the reason we don’t get it (or it’s benefits like health insurance) is because we aren’t monogamous.

I am friends with a heterosexual married couple that practices polyamory, or in other terms they are swingers. They attend parties that involve polyamory, and actively look for people to date and have sex with. I think if homosexual couples are charged more for health insurance due to promiscuous sexual behavior then people like this couple would need to be charged similarly. Promiscuous sex is promiscuous sex no matter what your sexual preference is. Straight, bi, or gay, if you are sleeping around chances are you are going to catch something.

[GaySaint]

Tarnished: Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Yes, some gays are promiscuous. Yes, some straights are promiscuous. Yes, some gays are monogamous. Yes, some straights are monogamous.

[bytor2112]

As to the adoption question – the chances of EVERYTHING being on equal footing is highly unlikely. One couple is bound to make more money, or have a stay-at-home parent, etc. etc. But if it is equal, I like the first come first served idea.

So, gender and the idea of having a mother and a father shouldn't be given preference? Putting aside the Proclamation for a moment or the fact that nature seems to lean in favor of male/female relationships....you think first come first serve is better than trying to give a child the benefits of a normal family life with male/female parents? Really? (And again we are assuming all else being equal...or relatively equal if you prefer.)

[GaySaint]

Bytor: I don't know how to answer that without bias, but SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, or politically speaking (as gender is a protected class), I don't think there is evidence that a child will be HARMED by a same-sex adoption. In fact, a recent study suggested that lesbian couples provide even a more stable home, because of the preparation that has to go into having children (IE, there are no mistakes. Every child in a same-sex headed household was planned for extensively. The study did not include gay men).

If I had spent time and thousands of dollars to adopt a child, and it went to anther couple simply because they had a heterosexual relationship, I would be hurt. But I also do see that if a heterosexual couple did the same thing, and the child went to me simply because I had a homosexual relationship, how that would also be unfair.

Which is why I don't think the sexuality of the parents should be considered.

But, from an LDS perspective, of course a worthy heterosexual couple should (and will) be given preference. But as long as there are other opportunities for me to adopt, I'm fine with some organizations discriminating on the basis of religious freedom.

Does that help?

[Elgama]

So, gender and the idea of having a mother and a father shouldn't be given preference? Putting aside the Proclamation for a moment or the fact that nature seems to lean in favor of male/female relationships....you think first come first serve is better than trying to give a child the benefits of a normal family life with male/female parents? Really? (And again we are assuming all else being equal...or relatively equal if you prefer.)

If I step outside of being LDS I actually don't see why a gay or lesbian couple can't provide a child, with love, warmth, security, education etc

My friend is much more capable of doing that with my kids than most heterosexual couples. I have no doubt when we named him in our will that we have done the absolute best for our children, His morals are stirling and I know he would rather be single than make a stupid partner choice.

[Maya]

One thing I am glad for is that I am not more for adaption!

Anyway what is the right of the mother of the child to choose... I would never give my child to a same sex couple... well luckily that is not an option for me either

I am soooo glad I was not born later than I was. :)

[Elgama]

One thing I am glad for is that I am not more for adaption!

Anyway what is the right of the mother of the child to choose... I would never give my child to a same sex couple... well luckily that is not an option for me either

I am soooo glad I was not born later than I was. :)

would you choose an unloving/abusive heterosexual couple or a childrens home over a secure loving homosexual couple?

See this is my issue my priority is my children are adored and cared for by someone they know and love. I was much better off with my lesbian mother in my teen years than my sleeping with everyone heterosexual father or the horrendous respectable christian couple i was placed in foster care with.

My friend is a good man, kind, nuturing and adores my kids. He has a good secure job etc explain to me why he can't do a good job of raising my kids if he has too?

[Soulsearcher]

I guess i also wonder about where these great heterosexual couples are. There seem to be a large number of kids in the system that need a home. If there is an over abundance of these loving perfectly capable couples willing to take these kids, rendering the desire of gay couples to adopt children moot, then why are these kids still in the system. In the hypothetical in this thread we are looking at a case of one child and a number of couples, but right now there are a lot of children and not enough couples, so we ask the kids to suffer in the system when there are alternatives that might not be perfect, but much better than living in the system. Are we protecting children or are we punishing them because we don't like the class of people they could end up with out of lack of understanding of what these people can offer?

[bytor2112]

My question isn't whether g/l couple s should be allowed to adopt or whether in some instances they may provide better environments for a child. Because all of that may be true...in some instances.

My question was if all things being relatively equal...shouldn't a hetero couple be chosen over a g/l couple? A father/ mother combo should be preferred over a father/father or mother/mother combo.

[Elgama]

My question was if all things being relatively equal...shouldn't a hetero couple be chosen over a g/l couple? A father/ mother combo should be preferred over a father/father or mother/mother combo.

Guess I am just not sure what a child can get from a straight couple that are not biological to them that they can't get from a g/l couple?

[bytor2112]

Guess I am just not sure what a child can get from a straight couple that are not biological to them that they can't get from a g/l couple?

Well...for starters a life in the kind of family patterned after the way the Lord decreed it. Less confusion. Normalcy. Normal role modeling.

A Father and a Mother. I mean which one of these do you find unnecessary or insignificant?

[Soulsearcher]

Well...for starters a life in the kind of family patterned after the way the Lord decreed it. Less confusion. Normalcy. Normal role modeling.

A Father and a Mother. I mean which one of these do you find unnecessary or insignificant?

The problem again is in assuming that they would get this. Even LDS families are proven to not always last, not show normal role models, cause massive confusion.

Man and woman does not assure a good mother and father. Just by having mom and dad present doesn't always help children. Divorce and custody battle happen quite often. That's a heterosexual thing in most places. Parents fighting and bickering with out concern of damage being done to the kids. Parents working too much and leaving the kids in the care of others, lol some times a gay man who raises them from the time they wake up til the time he puts them to bed and is the only adult they have constant contact with.

The confusion you talk about, can you site where you find that kids raised in gay homes are this confused as to show they can't grow up happy and well adjusted?

Normal in today's world for a family tends to seem to mean step parent and step siblings and trying to fight to fit in in a place that's not home causing confusion and heart break, or a working parent trying to support their children leaving the kids in the care of others, or loveless marriages full of bickering and anger that drive kids to seek escapes. So while the picture perfect male/female happy home is a wonderful idea, i'm not sure it's normal or common in today's world.

As for which doesn't seem necessary, ask the number of single parents who are not really looking to get married and who really could care less if their children's other parents was ever in their child's lives again, we have a few on this board, or have family members of such people on this board who support keeping the other parent out of their child's lives for good reasons.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Elgama]

Well...for starters a life in the kind of family patterned after the way the Lord decreed it. Less confusion. Normalcy. Normal role modeling.

A Father and a Mother. I mean which one of these do you find unnecessary or insignificant?

Well to be honest I am not sure why a happy healthy well adjusted child can't come out of a gay relationship?

I can think of a lot of heterosexual couples that would be allowed to foster/adopt that no way would I let them take my kids. Whereas I know a few homosexual couples where they will produce normal well adjusted happy kids.

[Moksha]

My question was if all things being relatively equal...shouldn't a hetero couple be chosen over a g/l couple? A father/ mother combo should be preferred over a father/father or mother/mother combo.

A good adoption agency can usually assess the situation on a case by case basis. They usually look for a good stable environment that provides the necessary nurturing for the child to grow and prosper.