Stay lifted on gay adoptions. This one really disturbs me.


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613844/Stay-lifted-on-adoptions-by-same-sex-parents-in-Utah.html

 

I know there are many thousands of children being raised by gays. I know there isn't much we can do about it. I know lots of these kids will come out of it OK. Probably a lot more liberal and "tolerant" and perhaps a bit confused about traditional gender roles than other kids, but otherwise alright. 

 

But still.  Someone help me to see the logic of this or anything that makes this reasonable. If we are to be non-contentious and Christlike in our responses to this different lifestyle, how can we do that with a straight face? What words do we use? None at all? Do we just stay silent?

 

I'm really bugged!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613844/Stay-lifted-on-adoptions-by-same-sex-parents-in-Utah.html

 

I know there are many thousands of children being raised by gays. I know there isn't much we can do about it. I know lots of these kids will come out of it OK. Probably a lot more liberal and "tolerant" and perhaps a bit confused about traditional gender roles than other kids, but otherwise alright. 

 

But still.  Someone help me to see the logic of this or anything that makes this reasonable. If we are to be non-contentious and Christlike in our responses to this different lifestyle, how can we do that with a straight face? What words do we use? None at all? Do we just stay silent?

 

I'm really bugged!!

 

I am not sure if I understand the scenario. :confused:  What words do we use in what circumstance? Do you mean like if you have a relative or friend who happens to be gay and adopted children if you should say something, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlimac, if it's really bugging you that much, I'd suggest you go find a gay couple with kids, befriend them, learn about their lives, and learn to love their kids.  Somewhere during that process, I'm betting you'll figure out how to pull off the whole "stay non-contentious and Christlike with a straight face" thing.  You'll probably not need to abandon any of your beliefs about the importance of the traditional family unit, either.  

 

At least, that's how it's working for me.  Years ago I knew a family in our ward.  I was exec secretary, he was ward clerk.  We agreed and argued a lot on a lot of topics.  Wife and I did some social things together.  We admired how they were raising their kids, them in general.  Fast forward a few years, and now they're in a different state, divorced, he came out of the closet earlier this year, and is in a relationship with a guy named John.

 

The deal is, I didn't hit fast forward - I watched it all go by over the years.  I've interacted with them and watched their daughters grow.  The guy talks about decades of feeling wrong, hating himself, trying to force himself to change.  I've been witness to their pain and fears and tears.  I see how the adults have put much effort and working together into minimizing the impact on their daughters.  

 

Here's the deal - there's a lot there for me to not judge.  There's a lot there that I don't know, and much that I do isn't any of my business.  Dood was raised in the church like me.  He's making his choices and facing his consequences.  I don't need to agree with his choices to love him.  I don't need to be contentious to remain true to my beliefs and testimony.  (Actually, we still like arguing.  I should say I can contend with love, and not give anything up.)

 

Right now, people fall into two categories for this guy.  Those who ostracize and renounce him and those who accept and show love to him.   I'm finding it possible to love him without budging a single dang inch on my beliefs about God's plan or the importance of marriage and the traditional family unit.

 

Anyway, maybe you should try something similar.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no families of gays around me. Frankly I think some of my nieces and nephews might be doing as much earthly and possibly eternal damage to their offspring with their criticism of church leaders and inactivity as gay parents do to theirs.

 

Kids are going to be influenced by what they see when they are young. 

 

I do know a woman from a past ward whose husband came out to her at an extremely awkward time. I can't divulge all the details because it's so unique it would be recognizable. Parents are divorced.The young  kids are split between the parents (which is difficult in and of itself) but the woman says the kids don't like spending time with their dad and his partner and that he's terrible with kids. (Apparently he was great with them till this happened.) 

 

Another personal experience was a good friend whose wife decided she was a lesbian and left him for a woman. Their two girls (according to grandma) have turned wild and are so confused and act out whenever they visit their dad. Mom has custody. He only has visitation. He is a mild mannered, sweet guy who doesn't deserve to have to deal with this.

 

 

My other gay friend is married but has no kids. Thankfully.  

 

 

I just don't know if  or when I discuss this with people that I can be objective when I can see with my own eyes the damage being done to these kids.  I can use my imagination that perhaps two women can be really nurturing with some children and everyone lives happily ever after in their little hovel.  But I also know that this is going to be the exception and that there are going to be some really screwed up kids that come out of these arrangements.

 

So according to Elder Oaks, we just sit back and be non-judgemental and do nothing to raise our voices against this? NOne of the scenarios are great but I'm especially referring to artificial conception- just so two lesbians can be mommies or adoption just so two gay men can play house together.  If the children were conceived naturally and still know both their bio parents, I'm not quite as irked.

 

These kids have no voice. I agree that having a loving home is good (depends on so many factors so I can't really say it's better) for kids abandoned by their parents or taken away from an abusive or neglect situation. But at the same time, it's also taking away the opportunity for them to be adopted by a mom and a dad where they can grow up with a healthier and more balanced life. 

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic is simple.  A child is healthier when adopted into a home with a committed married couple (gay or otherwise), than being tossed around the foster system, in 10 different homes over the course of 18 years.

 It's not a situation of either/or a lot of times.  And I don't believe that gays and lesbians are really only adopting these hard case kids. It would be nice to believe that, but until someone shows me the numbers and it's overwhelmingly convincing, I'm not going to get sucked into this mindset. So much of the gay and lesbian lifestyle is whitewashed and sanitized.  I think this aspect of adoption is, too. Of course it happens, but I think the agenda is get us to believe it's ALL bleeding heart goodness and light. 

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random thoughts, now that I've been doing child welfare work for the last five months:

 

1.  We sorta let the cat out of the bag when we started letting single people adopt.  I agree that children need a father and a mother--but if we're going to let one father adopt (without a mother), it's hard to argue against letting two fathers adopt (still without a mother).

2.  There is a huge need for good foster parents and potential adoptive placements.

3.  Let's be honest.  Couples--gay, straight, or whatever--don't generally want to adopt children.  On the whole they want to adopt healthy, young, and (overwhelmingly) (and I don't support this, but that's just the way it is) white children.  I doubt whether gay couples are going to be significantly more immune to these prejudices than straight couples are.  So the net result is that it will be even harder to adopt babies, while the glut of older/minority/troubled children in the system is going to remain more or less unchanged.

4.  Adopting a kid out of the foster system over the age of five is, frankly, stupid.  You don't know what you're getting, and you'll be financially liable for whatever the kid does--and if the kid winds up back in the system because of some sort of ghastly behavioral issues (burning down your house, say; or trying to convince multiple teenaged friends to kill you)--you, dear adoptive parent, will be on the hook for child support.  (I'm fighting a case like this right now; but it doesn't look good.  Utah's pretty brutal about these kinds of situations.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would venture a guess that kids are going to do better under a loving gay couples home than under no home at all or even a broken one. I don't believe it's the ideal circumstance, but at the end of the day I'd be glad these kids found a home.


I'm not sure how such a minority can make a statistical difference in adoption rates though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how such a minority can make a statistical difference in adoption rates though.

 

It doesn't take much.  Just from quick Googling, it looks like as of 2008 Utah saw about 1800 adoptions per year.  I don't know how many adults of child-bearing age Utah has; but I'll use the number of registered voters as a baseline for the number of adults generally (and just to annoy MoE, who will be able to tell me all kinds of reasons why what I'm doing is wrong, wrong, wrong ;)  ). Utah has just under 1.5 million registered voters.  Assume that 3% of that number are gay adults, and that even just 10% of that amount actually WANT kids, and that all of those are in monogamous same-sex relationships (so you split your result by half):  You've just added 1,125 new potential placements to the pool. 

 

In a state with fewer than two thousand adoptions per year, that's HUGE.

 

(But, it would be very enjoyable to see someone file a lawsuit if more than 3% of the Utah adoptions in any given year were to same-sex couples.  Equal protection for straights, and all that . . .)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that at the center of this question is the assumption that our sense of "ideal" is that every child should be raised by both a mother and a father in a stable, loving marriage. As JAG indicated, our society is full of "families" that do not fit this ideal. From widows/widowers whose life circumstances force them to be single parents to those who have children outside of marriage and choose not to marry to, now, homosexual couples who raise their own or adopt children. IMO, it seems to me that we face these individuals/couples/families the same way we would face all the other "families" that do not live up to our version of "ideal". We do our best to help them with their struggles and rejoice with them in their triumphs. We continue to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in love and give them opportunities to accept or reject that Gospel. We need to continue to do what we can to make sure our own marriages stay intact and our own children feel loved and are taught the Gospel.

 

I guess we also need to decide how we should try to promote our "ideal" in political and legal arenas. I'm not exactly sure what that needs to look like. Sure we'd all like to see our ideal promoted, but real life seems to be messy. This really hit home to me in reading some of those "my exwife/girlfriend illegally put our baby up for adoption without my knowledge or consent and, even though she doesn't want to raise the baby, I (the father) do want to raise the child" scenarios. As I see these cases work themselves out for better or for worse, it seems to me that our legal and cultural systems are considering more than just the ratio of mothers to fathers to children. Until Christ Himself reigns on this earth, I expect there will be plenty of these "less than ideal" family situations that we need to accept and work with as best we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I in favor of gay adoptions? No. I believe it to be unnatural and like Carli said, unfair to children.

Yet the presence of gay adoptions is only a symptom of the destruction of families. We do have broken homes, broken marriages, etc. These families are already in the midst of destruction.

Giving stable homes fills a pressing need. If these children are loved and cared for, perhaps that makes a greater good than the evil of the gay families. Perhaps this adoption is the lesser evil in a world of war against the family.

Is it perfect? Hardly. But I'd rather get to the root of the problem than picking at the symptoms. Children ought to be raised to the gospel, in its entirety or otherwise. Once that's in a good place (time frame probably millennium) I think other ills will fade away.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I in favor of gay adoptions? No. I believe it to be unnatural and like Carli said, unfair to children.

Yet the presence of gay adoptions is only a symptom of the destruction of families. We do have broken homes, broken marriages, etc. These families are already in the midst of destruction.

Giving stable homes fills a pressing need. If these children are loved and cared for, perhaps that makes a greater good than the evil of the gay families. Perhaps this adoption is the lesser evil in a world of war against the family.

Is it perfect? Hardly. But I'd rather get to the root of the problem than picking at the symptoms. Children ought to be raised to the gospel, in its entirety or otherwise. Once that's in a good place (time frame probably millennium) I think other ills will fade away.

 

My thinking too. Which is the lesser of the two evils?

 

Hard to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a symptom of a very sick, twisted, immoral and decadent society.

 

There is a paradox ongoing right now.  The first side is that the government is allowing more individuals to have the liberty to live their life without government restrictions who's lifestyle has previously been very restricted; i.e. more individuals are able to engage in acts that while they are very personally destructive they do not infringe on someone else's life, liberty or property.

 

The flip side is that while it has increased many individuals liberties, the government is now more restrictive on allowing other people to shun those who act in a manner that they do not agree with.  A business absolutely has the moral liberty (regardless of what the law says) to refuse service to whomever they choose.

 

Because of this paradox, more liberty for some, less liberty for others, society in general is being shaped to accept what was once abnormal as normal.

 

For example, if I am an adoption agency I would not allow any children to be adopted by homosexual deviant individuals.  From the laws perspective, I am fully supportive of homosexuals forming their own church and having their own pastor "marry" them or whatever they want to call it; government should not be involved in the least bit in marriage as it is a social contract.  At the same time, I find it morally repugnant and as such in any business that I owned I would not do business with said individuals when such business transactions are moral in nature to me (i.e. participating in "weddings", adoptions, etc.).  

 

Unfortunately, government and society doesn't see it as such. 100 years ago it was the reverse, society saw it as part of my liberty to restrict business and government also restricted individual liberty.  Now if I did such things, I'm labeled a bigot, in violation of the law, how dare you "discriminate" etc.  

 

Thus due to anti-discrimination laws and a lack of understanding about liberty, we will continue the long slide into moral decay.

 

The solution to these problems is less government, not more.  The state should not be involved in adoptions, nor in foster care.  Private charities would take care of it and if they had the ability to discriminate on who they gave kids out to this problem would be solved very, very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Giving stable homes fills a pressing need. If these children are loved and cared for, perhaps that makes a greater good than the evil of the gay families. Perhaps this adoption is the lesser evil in a world of war against the family.

 

Unfortunately, the data that I have read suggests that homosexuals couples have higher rates of instability than normal relationships.

 

I actually think it is a very grave and serious danger.  Thankfully, the quantity of children involved in these situations is quite low.  Parents are vital in the formation of the way a child thinks, acts, behaves as they grow older.  

 

In a parenting book I read a quote that sometimes parents say "well I just want them to think for themselves" and the comment in the book about it was that it is a load of hogwash.  Parenting is raising the next generation, it is about taking what we have learned and transmitting it to the next generation and guiding them through the pitfalls of life. 

 

Children raised in those environments will have drastically different ideas about what the world means and how to interact with it than those raised in traditional environments; they will become voting members of society and one day raise families of their own.  It is a long slow slide into decay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I'm adopted so I know firsthand what a blessing adoption is. I can't imagine my life without the parents who adopted me. I do have a great relationship with my birth mother, whom I met when I was 26.

 

 I accept the churches teaching on this issue, but I would rather a child get adopted by two loving parents than an unstable parent or orphanage. It's such a complex issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm adopted so I know firsthand what a blessing adoption is. I can't imagine my life without the parents who adopted me. I do have a great relationship with my birth mother, whom I met when I was 26.

 

 I accept the churches teaching on this issue, but I would rather a child get adopted by two loving parents than an unstable parent or orphanage. It's such a complex issue.

 

Giving stable homes fills a pressing need. If these children are loved and cared for, perhaps that makes a greater good than the evil of the gay families. Perhaps this adoption is the lesser evil in a world of war against the family.

 

 

I just wonder how stable these homes really are though. Gay marriage is still so new that we don't really know if the stats are going to be better or worse or about the same as hetero marriages as far as stability.   

 

I guess time will tell.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the other thing.  The goal of preventing homosexuals from adopting is because you believe that it is not particularly healthy to raise a child in that particular environment.  That argument has merit, but there are problems.  As has been pointed out, single people have been adopting.  That may or may not be worse, but also about 50% of the homosexual population are lesbians. For the most part, all they need is a donor and can have children.  They don't even have to go through the state to do it.

 

Now I'm not comfortable with homosexuals raising children (that is the crux of the issue, not adoption), but practical matters aside, to prevent it you would have to let the government decide who does and doesn't get to have children, and even the thought of giving the government that kind of power gives me the screaming willies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

There are no families of gays around me. Frankly I think some of my nieces and nephews might be doing as much earthly and possibly eternal damage to their offspring with their criticism of church leaders and inactivity as gay parents do to theirs.

Kids are going to be influenced by what they see when they are young.

I do know a woman from a past ward whose husband came out to her at an extremely awkward time. I can't divulge all the details because it's so unique it would be recognizable. Parents are divorced.The young kids are split between the parents (which is difficult in and of itself) but the woman says the kids don't like spending time with their dad and his partner and that he's terrible with kids. (Apparently he was great with them till this happened.)

Another personal experience was a good friend whose wife decided she was a lesbian and left him for a woman. Their two girls (according to grandma) have turned wild and are so confused and act out whenever they visit their dad. Mom has custody. He only has visitation. He is a mild mannered, sweet guy who doesn't deserve to have to deal with this.

My other gay friend is married but has no kids. Thankfully.

For every story of troubled kids with gays parents, I'm sure there are plenty of positive stories as well (There's a lesbian couple that lives in my building who are raising a sweet, well-behaved little girl). And there are plenty of straight parents messing up their kids lives. Good parenting isn't specific to one sexual orientation. There are good gay parents and bad gay parents, just like there are good and bad straight parents. The difference is that it's easier for people to look the other way when straight parents falter.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does Elder Oaks say to not raise our voices?

 

I guess the problem lies in his encouragement to not be contentious. There is simply no way to state something like "It's best for a child to be raised with a mother and a father" without it turning into a contentious discussion. Gays take offense very easily. Elder Oaks never tells us how to handle that kind of situation. He just says to be respectful. I don't know. I guess it is possible to keep trying to discuss this but at what point does the offense we cause gays surpass any good we can do by "raising our voices" against their marriages and adoptions?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a much bigger problem with surrogacy.  Why are people paying for someone to produce a child when there are so many kids out there that need homes already?  And I agree with those who have said that gay couples parenting is better than unstable homes or abusive or neglectful foster care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share