Welcome to the APBWeb.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32
  1. #1
    Terminator's Avatar
    Terminator is offline BANNED
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    16,064
    Rep Power
    0

    Bill would ban adoptions by unwed couples

    NASHVILLE, March 2 (UPI) -- A bill before the Republican-dominated Tennessee Legislature would ban adoptions by unwed couples -- gay or straight. Supporters of the bill say it would place more children in "traditional" families, while critics say it would leave more children lingering in the state foster care system, The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville reported Monday.
    Children in foster care usually have few people waiting to adopt them, said Adam Pertman, who heads the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a New York group that works to develop better adoption policies.
    "So would it be better for these children to wait for your personal notion of the ideal family to come along," Pertman said to The Tennessean, "or to put children who need homes into the homes of loving, responsible, stable adults who are willing to parent?"
    The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents after Tennessee's attorney general concluded in 2007 there was no legal basis in state law for a ban solely on gay couples adopting, the newspaper said.

  2. #2
    Rhino's Avatar
    Rhino is offline Meat-eater & Fire-breather
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-08-07
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,524
    Rep Power
    1750835
    Once again, the moral majority is forcing it's principles on other people. This is the main reason I'm not a Republican.

    I've known unwed couples- gay and straight- that offer a far more stable environment than some couples that have been married years.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." -Gen. George S. Patton

  3. #3
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Rather than engaging in an emotional religious debate, and while it is certainly very easy to fall into that 'trap' often set by the religions of the non-religious...

    the fact still remains that perhaps they are functioning statistically:

    Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties


    Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron
    Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems or concerns in 48 (92&#37 of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
    References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 90, 71-82.
    Homosexual Parents: Testing “Common Sense” — A Literature Review Emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker

    Summary: Counter to claims by the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers as well as numerous reviewers that children raised by homosexuals and married heterosexuals do not differ, the elaborate social-personality theory called “common sense” predicts that because “like produces like” and because psychopathy/sociopathy informs the major expressions of social deviance including homosexuality, children of homosexuals will (1) be more frequently subjected to parental instability (of residence and sexual partners) and (2) have poorer peer and adult relationships. Also, as is held to be true of their parents, homosexuals’ children will be more apt to (3) become homosexual, (4) be unstable (have emotional problems and difficulty forming lasting bonds) with reduced interest in natility, and (5) be sexually precocious and promiscuous. Differences between homosexual and heterosexual comparison groups that bore on “common sense” were considered suggestive “bits” of empirical evidence. Differences that emerged within studies conducted by sympathetic researchers utilizing volunteer samples were considered bits of adverse evidence. Of 171 bits, 82 adverse and 55 nonadverse bits supported, while 34 bits fell against “common sense.” From this tentative method of counting, support was found for common sense beliefs that children of homosexuals will be more apt to become homosexual and have poorer peer relationships, while weaker support was found for some of the other predictions. As assessed in this way, the empirical evidence in the literature tended to lean against claims of “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals
    Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children


    Summary: 40 appeals cases of custody disputes drawn systematically from all cases involving a homosexual parent in the United States were compared to 38 appeals cases involving heterosexual custody disputes drawn randomly from listings under parental “character” and 18 appeals cases drawn randomly from “general” cases in Dicennial Digest from 1966 to 1991. Each case involving homosexual vs heterosexual claimants was examined for recorded information about (1) the character of the homosexual parent, the associates of the homosexual parent, the heterosexual parent, and the associates of the heterosexual parent, (2) the effects, particularly harms, upon the child(ren), and (3) psychiatric opinion. 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexual’s associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant. Of the 66 recorded harms, e.g., molestation, physical abuse, to the 73 children, homosexual persons accounted for 64 (97%). Of the 32 lesbians, 6 were recorded as having engaged in criminal activity and 3 of bringing false charges of child sexual abuse against the father. Psychiatric opinion, however, ran 25 to 12 in favor of custody for the homosexual parent. In the 56 heterosexual vs heterosexual comparison cases, 38% of the heterosexual parents and 28% of their associates were recorded as having poor character. Six harms to their 105 children and 3 instances of criminality but no false charges of sexual abuse were recorded. In the appeals court literature, homosexual parents were disproportionately of poor character and disproportionately associated with various harms to their children.
    Homosexual Parents


    Summary: Does the homosexuality of parents affect the sexual orientation or experiences of their children? Seventeen of 5,182 randomly obtained adults from six U.S. cities answered questionnaires indicating that they had a homosexual parent. Parental homosexuality may be related to findings that: (1) 5 of the 17 reported sexual relations with their parents; (2) a disproportionate fraction reported sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives; and (3) a disproportionate fraction: (a) claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (47%); (b) indicated gender dissatisfaction; and (c) reeported that their first sexual experience was homosexual. Of 1,388 consecutive obituaries in a major homosexual newspaper, 87 of the gays who died had children and registered a median age of death of 47 (the 1,267 without children had a median age of death of 38); 10 lesbians did and 24 did not have children. We estimate that less than 1% of parents are bisexual or homosexual and that < 7% of gays and about a third of lesbians are parents.
    References: Adolescence, 1996, 31(124), 757-776
    Child Molestations by Homosexual Foster Parents: Illinois, 1997-2002


    Summary: Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed “substantiated” sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 of these mother and 148 (86%) of 173 of these father perpertrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) of the mothers and 25 (14%) of the father perpetrators sexually abused boys, i.e., 92 (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. Of these parents 15 both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 of the mothers and 4 of the fathers, sons by 3 of the mothers, i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%. Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.
    References: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 227-230
    During the past decade, the number of same-sex households “grew significantly” in 10 states for which figures have been released: more than 700 percent in Delaware and Nevada; more than 400 percent in Vermont, Indiana, Louisiana and Nebraska; and more than 200 percent in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and Montana.
    Q:Who are the perpetrators of child maltreatment?A:The vast majority of perpetrators were parents (80%), including birth parents, adoptive parents, and stepparents.
    Percent of perpetrators by relationship to victim, 2006:

    Perpetrator-victim relationship Percent Parents 79.9% Other Relative 6.7 Other caregivers 4.1 Unmarried Partner of Parent 3.8 Child Daycare Provider 0.6 Foster Parent0.4 Friends/neighbor 0.5 Residential Facility Staff 0.2 Legal Guardian 0.3 Other professionals 0.1 Unknown/missing 3.5 Notes: This table is based on sample data from 47 states.

    Domestic Abuse, Child Abuse, & Neglect Facts:
    The Office of Violence Against Women acknowledging that at least 40% of Domestic Violence is perpetrated by women.
    Who are the perpetrators of child abuse? Approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both parents (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2007).
    Children who had been physically abused by parent-substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their father-substitute 90% versus 19% by their mother-substitute (Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect; NIS-3).

    Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators 87% versus 43% by males (Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect; NIS-3).

    Compared with their counterparts living with both parents, children in single-parent families had:
    &#183; A 77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a 63-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using the Endangerment Standard).

    &#183; An 87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect and a 165-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable physical neglect.

    &#183; A 74-percent greater risk of being harmed by emotional neglect and a 64-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable emotional neglect.

    &#183; A 220-percent (or more than three times) greater risk of being educationally neglected.

    &#183; An approximately 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect.

    &#183; An approximately 90-percent greater risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child maltreatment.

    &#183; A 120-percent (or more than two times) greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or neglect.

    (Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect; NIS-3).
    I could certainly fill up three or four posts full of statistics supporting traditional homes as optimum places for the development of a child, and three or four more supporting the premise that single parent, non-traditional, parental-substitutional, or homosexual homes have overwhelmingly higher rates of producing ill-adjusted, criminally at-risk, or even suicidal children and adolescents. The truth simply remains that while certainly not all children are victimized or rearing-compromised by the fracturing and re-alignment of our societal morality, it is statistically and evidentially safer to restrict adoption to traditional married male-female parental unit households. Many find that opinion unpopular, but when devoid of emotion and predispositions of faith (or lack thereof), the truth remains.

    When the 'State' takes on the burden of adjudicating child adoptions, it cannot but recognize that adoptions to certain groups attend the statistics which most carefully, and through perponderance of the evidence, place the adoptees in environments of stability and proper nurturing. It isn't about religion, nor is it about bigotry. Its simply about the facts.

    I suggest that before this debate become some heated and empassioned 'lifestyle' or religion guise, our more enlightened members take on some personal due-diligence.

    Rip at me, blaze at me, hate me, call me hateful, snobbish, elitist, homophobe, whatever you will... then read the above again.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  4. #4
    Rhino's Avatar
    Rhino is offline Meat-eater & Fire-breather
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-08-07
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,524
    Rep Power
    1750835
    CB, I've only had time to skim what you posted. I'll give it full attention this evening when I get home.

    But it seems like just the other day Rush Limbaugh, in his CPAC speech, was saying that Republicans look at the individual. The spirit of this Bill seems to counter that.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." -Gen. George S. Patton

  5. #5
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    CB, I've only had time to skim what you posted. I'll give it full attention this evening when I get home.

    But it seems like just the other day Rush Limbaugh, in his CPAC speech, was saying that Republicans look at the individual. The spirit of this Bill seems to counter that.
    I'll not engage in a pro-con republican-vs.-libertarian-vs.-democrat debate here. This bill should not be looked upon with partisanship, but with the best interests of the child.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I am conservative, and will belong to whichever party most closely emulates those principles. I consider my membership in the Republican party as secondary, perhaps even tertiary, to my belief in the values of conservatism.

    Conservatism is geared to the individual, both in rights and responsibilities. One supports the other, and both are firmly grounded on the premise that what is good for the individual supports growth and prosperity for the whole as well. Conservatism is the bastien of liberty, free from government nanny-ism and socialism. But when the government is already in such control, conservatism reigns in its desire to broad-brush the people as a single faceless, clueless, ignorant, and irresponsible mass.

    Such a bill actually restrains government in espousing political correctness and apathy, forcing them to differentiate the responsible from the irresponsible. Anything that fosters government restraint with regard to promulgating convolution in a traditional family structure and the placement of the truly innocent into the absolute best environment possible in this society is inherently good.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  6. #6
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties


    Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron
    Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems or concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
    References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 90, 71-82.
    The part you cite (giving you credit that there is more to this study than what you quoted) seems to only deal with issues of children with homosexual parents, and doesn't compare with the same statistics dealing with children with married and unmarried heterosexual parents. Is this merely a one sided study? Also with the children with homosexual parents in this study... Is it a situation of a single homosexual parent, or a homosexual couple as parents? While people can argue back and forth about gay vs. straight parents, there is still the issue about single vs. paired parents as well. This study does not appear to address this issue specifically. Also I notice that the age of the children is not mentioned other than describing some as "older". What exactly does older mean? Eight is older than four. A child's capacity to deal with anything is greater as they get older. So that could factor in as well. The issue of at what age to explain to a child that the parent is gay can factor in as well. If a parent choses the wrong time (too young), the child may not be able to handle it. Similarly, if a parent choses too late of a time, the child could take that the wrong way as well (the "I'm mad that you didn't care enough to tell me" argument). Also what are the "problems or concerns" that the study speaks of? When I was a kid I had a problem with my married parents, that they wouldn't let me stay up past 9pm when I was young. Could a child be "concerned" that other kids would think they are gay as well? That is a "concern" but hardly anything major. The latter part about how many kids were also homosexual perhaps isn't as much disproportionate as it might be a good argument in the nature vs. nurture debate. If homosexuals are born that way, then it makes sense to see gay parents have a higher percentage of gay children than straight parents do. But in general, this study just seems rather vague and one sided to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Homosexual Parents: Testing “Common Sense” — A Literature Review Emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker

    Summary: Counter to claims by the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers as well as numerous reviewers that children raised by homosexuals and married heterosexuals do not differ, the elaborate social-personality theory called “common sense” predicts that because “like produces like” and because psychopathy/sociopathy informs the major expressions of social deviance including homosexuality, children of homosexuals will (1) be more frequently subjected to parental instability (of residence and sexual partners) and (2) have poorer peer and adult relationships. Also, as is held to be true of their parents, homosexuals’ children will be more apt to (3) become homosexual, (4) be unstable (have emotional problems and difficulty forming lasting bonds) with reduced interest in natility, and (5) be sexually precocious and promiscuous. Differences between homosexual and heterosexual comparison groups that bore on “common sense” were considered suggestive “bits” of empirical evidence. Differences that emerged within studies conducted by sympathetic researchers utilizing volunteer samples were considered bits of adverse evidence. Of 171 bits, 82 adverse and 55 nonadverse bits supported, while 34 bits fell against “common sense.” From this tentative method of counting, support was found for common sense beliefs that children of homosexuals will be more apt to become homosexual and have poorer peer relationships, while weaker support was found for some of the other predictions. As assessed in this way, the empirical evidence in the literature tended to lean against claims of “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals
    That this study uses language that calls homosexuality "socially deviant" and equates gays to sociopaths and psychopaths shows an obvious bias underlying it. Also it uses language such as "become homosexual", appearing to show that the author of this study already believes that being gay is a choice. That opinion can only color the study. This quote is labeled a summary, so I give it the benefit of the doubt that it does cite more detail, rather than sounding like a person stating their opinion. But the language of it again appears to show bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children


    Summary: 40 appeals cases of custody disputes drawn systematically from all cases involving a homosexual parent in the United States were compared to 38 appeals cases involving heterosexual custody disputes drawn randomly from listings under parental “character” and 18 appeals cases drawn randomly from “general” cases in Dicennial Digest from 1966 to 1991. Each case involving homosexual vs heterosexual claimants was examined for recorded information about (1) the character of the homosexual parent, the associates of the homosexual parent, the heterosexual parent, and the associates of the heterosexual parent, (2) the effects, particularly harms, upon the child(ren), and (3) psychiatric opinion. 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexual’s associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant. Of the 66 recorded harms, e.g., molestation, physical abuse, to the 73 children, homosexual persons accounted for 64 (97%). Of the 32 lesbians, 6 were recorded as having engaged in criminal activity and 3 of bringing false charges of child sexual abuse against the father. Psychiatric opinion, however, ran 25 to 12 in favor of custody for the homosexual parent. In the 56 heterosexual vs heterosexual comparison cases, 38% of the heterosexual parents and 28% of their associates were recorded as having poor character. Six harms to their 105 children and 3 instances of criminality but no false charges of sexual abuse were recorded. In the appeals court literature, homosexual parents were disproportionately of poor character and disproportionately associated with various harms to their children.
    How is this one defining "poor character"? As for the "harms" section, how much is the psychology and reasoning for children's claims explored? I would think that a straight child would be more likely to "side" with the straight parent than the gay one. Could those types of situations be factoring in? Also when talking about a divorce of a gay-straight couple, it would make more sense to me that there would be more animosity involved since the straight parent would feel betrayed that their loved one really wasn't straight. (The children can feel the same betrayal, thinking that the gay parent is just a total liar, etc.) The issue of how long the gay parent knew they were gay factors in. It being kept secret longer could really amp up the anger factor on the part of the straight parent. As any of us cops have seen when dealing with calls of families that are splitting up, the anger involved is often through the roof, and often both parties will stop at about nothing (lying, harming property, threats, physical violence, etc.) to make the other parent lose. An explanation on how that fits into the finding, or didn't fit into the findings of this study would be interesting to hear. Another thing that would be interesting to hear from this study is the relationship of how it found the gay parent in general to be of poorer character but better off in the psychiatric category, and how that juxtaposition specifically played out.

    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Homosexual Parents


    Summary: Does the homosexuality of parents affect the sexual orientation or experiences of their children? Seventeen of 5,182 randomly obtained adults from six U.S. cities answered questionnaires indicating that they had a homosexual parent. Parental homosexuality may be related to findings that: (1) 5 of the 17 reported sexual relations with their parents; (2) a disproportionate fraction reported sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives; and (3) a disproportionate fraction: (a) claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (47%); (b) indicated gender dissatisfaction; and (c) reeported that their first sexual experience was homosexual. Of 1,388 consecutive obituaries in a major homosexual newspaper, 87 of the gays who died had children and registered a median age of death of 47 (the 1,267 without children had a median age of death of 38); 10 lesbians did and 24 did not have children. We estimate that less than 1% of parents are bisexual or homosexual and that < 7% of gays and about a third of lesbians are parents.
    References: Adolescence, 1996, 31(124), 757-776
    What are the stats/percentages of the 5,165 samples without a homosexual parent? This would be interesting to hear as far as sexual relations with the parent(s). As for sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives... unless the gay parent knows these are taking place, how can they be attributed to and blamed on the gay parent? And as for the third part... again how you see this finding depends on if you think people are born with their sexual orientation or not. To me it makes sense that having a gay parent goes along with more chance of also being gay. The part about the obituaries seems to say that gays having children helps them live longer. Though even a median age of death of 47 is scary. I'd love to hear more stats about many other factors in the lives of these dead people, and what lead to their deaths. That might give a much better insight on whether or not we can draw much inference to the obituary stats.

    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Child Molestations by Homosexual Foster Parents: Illinois, 1997-2002


    Summary: Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed “substantiated” sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 of these mother and 148 (86%) of 173 of these father perpertrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) of the mothers and 25 (14%) of the father perpetrators sexually abused boys, i.e., 92 (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. Of these parents 15 both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 of the mothers and 4 of the fathers, sons by 3 of the mothers, i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%. Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.
    References: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 227-230
    I wonder how many "unsubstantiated" cases might have still been actual abuse cases. We all know that sometimes there just isn't enough to bring charges. And those stats could affect numbers in either way. These stats to me seem to show that girls are by far more victimized by parents than boys are. And most of the offenders were male. It says 34% of the perps committed same sex sexual assaults. That shows most of the offenses were hetero, but 34% is higher than the estimated percentage of GLBT people in the general population. Has this study been replicated elsewhere? What percentage of the straight offenders both physically and sexually abused their kids? Was it higher or lower than the percentage for gay offenders? Also I would think all cases of sexual abuse were merely a subset of physical abuse. How is this study defining those terms as being separate? Were there any "cross cases" where a perp who identifies as straight had a same sex victim child, or where someone who identifies as gay has a opposite sex victim child? Sexual abuse could be about power as well as actual sex. Maybe more for some.

    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    During the past decade, the number of same-sex households “grew significantly” in 10 states for which figures have been released: more than 700 percent in Delaware and Nevada; more than 400 percent in Vermont, Indiana, Louisiana and Nebraska; and more than 200 percent in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and Montana.
    I'm curious how they define same-sex households. As for numbers going up, my best guess is that may be due to more people being willing to say they are GLBT or that their child is, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Q:Who are the perpetrators of child maltreatment?A:The vast majority of perpetrators were parents (80%), including birth parents, adoptive parents, and stepparents.
    Percent of perpetrators by relationship to victim, 2006:

    Perpetrator-victim relationship Percent Parents 79.9% Other Relative 6.7 Other caregivers 4.1 Unmarried Partner of Parent 3.8 Child Daycare Provider 0.6 Foster Parent0.4 Friends/neighbor 0.5 Residential Facility Staff 0.2 Legal Guardian 0.3 Other professionals 0.1 Unknown/missing 3.5 Notes: This table is based on sample data from 47 states.
    Parents-79.9% Unmarried partner of parent-3.8% This one on the surface seems to say straights abuse (or should I say maltreat) more, but it does not detail how many of the parents were gay or straight.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  7. #7
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Domestic Abuse, Child Abuse, & Neglect Facts:
    Compared with their counterparts living with both parents, children in single-parent families had:
    · A 77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a 63-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using the Endangerment Standard).

    · An 87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect and a 165-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable physical neglect.

    · A 74-percent greater risk of being harmed by emotional neglect and a 64-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable emotional neglect.

    · A 220-percent (or more than three times) greater risk of being educationally neglected.

    · An approximately 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect.

    · An approximately 90-percent greater risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child maltreatment.

    · A 120-percent (or more than two times) greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or neglect.

    (Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect; NIS-3).
    If gays were allowed to marry or have some kind of civilly recognized bonded relationship, then I guess their children become less likely to be in these categories. It would be nice if these stats were broken down more as far as the single parents are concerned, as to how many of them were gay and how many were straight.

    --------------------------------------

    One issue with figuring out how it would be with married (or legal equivalent) GLBT couples is that there aren't that many out there since legality of such status is so sparse. So we don't have much of a pool to sample from. We can only try to extrapolate from instances of gays that are married to straights, and that obviously is a way different set of circumstances (and obviously problems) than a married gay couple is or would be.

    At least I give you credit for honesty, CB. By seeing that the majority of your quotes target homosexual vs. heterosexual than married vs. single, you seem to honestly state (as I believe to be the case) that this bill is more about gay vs. straight then it is about single vs. married. I feel that some lawmakers feel that if they say that the an adoption bill is more about single vs. married, that the bill might be more likely to pass than if they marketed it as a gay vs. straight issue. I mean whether I would support or not support any bill, I would rather have the sponsors just be honest about their intentions. But then again, expecting a politician to be honest isn't too good of a proposition.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  8. #8
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    The part you cite (giving you credit that there is more to this study than what you quoted) seems to only deal with issues of children with homosexual parents, and doesn't compare with the same statistics dealing with children with married and unmarried heterosexual parents. Is this merely a one sided study? Also with the children with homosexual parents in this study... Is it a situation of a single homosexual parent, or a homosexual couple as parents? While people can argue back and forth about gay vs. straight parents, there is still the issue about single vs. paired parents as well. This study does not appear to address this issue specifically. Also I notice that the age of the children is not mentioned other than describing some as "older". What exactly does older mean? Eight is older than four. A child's capacity to deal with anything is greater as they get older. So that could factor in as well. The issue of at what age to explain to a child that the parent is gay can factor in as well. If a parent choses the wrong time (too young), the child may not be able to handle it. Similarly, if a parent choses too late of a time, the child could take that the wrong way as well (the "I'm mad that you didn't care enough to tell me" argument). Also what are the "problems or concerns" that the study speaks of? When I was a kid I had a problem with my married parents, that they wouldn't let me stay up past 9pm when I was young. Could a child be "concerned" that other kids would think they are gay as well? That is a "concern" but hardly anything major. The latter part about how many kids were also homosexual perhaps isn't as much disproportionate as it might be a good argument in the nature vs. nurture debate. If homosexuals are born that way, then it makes sense to see gay parents have a higher percentage of gay children than straight parents do. But in general, this study just seems rather vague and one sided to me.
    For the sake of brevity, I only posted the executive summaries of these studies, otherwise the post would have been far, far more than we can address here. Vagueness and ambiguity, slant and sidedness, are unfortunately the product of such summaries, as they are honestly intended to be the 'meat of the meal', rather than the intricasies of preparation, sample, control, and margin of error. As each of the primary summaries you question either cite their reference or are easily available through basic internet searches, I'll defer to those references if you care to study the mechanics.

    I'll not attempt to address each point you posed, as it is not my intention to captialize this thread, and I am constrained by time also. I accept your dissenting viewpoint, and applaud you in your thoughtful responses.

    I'll also grant that it is politically incorrect to refer to homosexuality as 'deviance', and that use of that term perhaps carries some stigma. However, granting that the definition of 'deviate' is:

    Deviate:intransitive verb 1 : to stray especially from a standard, principle, or topic 2 : to depart from an established course or norm <a flight forced by weather to deviate south> transitive verb : to cause to turn out of a previous course.
    The stigma is unearned by the term itself. If the GLBT community refers to its own lifestyles as 'alternative', then they are themselves agreeing that they are deviating from 'an established course or norm', by pursuing an alternative:

    1: alternate 3. different from the usual or conventional: as a: existing or functioning outside the established cultural, social, or economic system <an alternative newspaper> <alternative lifestyles> — al&#183;ter&#183;na&#183;tive& #183;ly adverb
    — al&#183;ter&#183;na&#183;tive& #183;ness noun
    Remember, we are speaking scientifically, not with partisan agenda.

    The larger portion of my post, granted, is devoted to homosexual adoption and studies relating to that topic. The secondary portion, however, does address specifically single, non-traditional, and 'parent-optional' households. I am certainly not attempting to knock single parents who are not such by choice. Anyone who knows anything of my history knows that I, in fact, was a single parent personally for a number of years of my two small children. I am compelled, however, given the overwhelming nature of the statistics shown, to remark that the best case scenario for the rearing of children is the traditional family model. Being as the State has historically accepted the burden of legislating and placing children without parents, then it is incumbent upon the State to do so where there is statistically the best chance for those children to prosper and grow into stable, well-adjusted adults.

    I certainly do not harbor ill-feelings toward the GLBT community. My feelings along the lines of child placement are with the odds, because there is absolutely -0- reasoning for denying science just when it suits our politically correct guises. These kids must be given every chance to prosper without adoption being some sort of lottery. Any parent will afford you that there is some element of chance in the rearing of children regardless of having all the cards in one hand. Kids simply deserve the best that we can grant them, in future, in success, and in security.

    I believe that your insight regarding this segment of your post is well-stated:

    I feel that some lawmakers feel that if they say that the an adoption bill is more about single vs. married, that the bill might be more likely to pass than if they marketed it as a gay vs. straight issue. I mean whether I would support or not support any bill, I would rather have the sponsors just be honest about their intentions. But then again, expecting a politician to be honest isn't too good of a proposition.
    I singularly agree with you on this point. Score another win for our ability to see through the smoke and mirrors. However, I will differentiate with you on this point in simply saying that I do not consider the facts to be in favor of parent-optional adoptions. I certainly see the numbers disqualifying the latter as strongly as I see them discounting the stability, safety, and security of adoptions by GLBT individuals and couples. I didn't dwell on that as much, given the gross over-popularity of the statistics on single-parent and parent-optional (non-GLBT) child rearing recently.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  9. #9
    Wolven's Avatar
    Wolven is offline Major
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    10-06-07
    Location
    Heaven on Earth
    Posts
    4,061
    Rep Power
    1322608
    A shitty parent (or parents) is a shitty parent..whether they are gay, straight, single or married.

    Statistics can be thrown in any which way the statistician sees fit and I am sure with a little bit of time I, too, could find statistics which show whatever I wish them to say (someone somewhere must agree with me! LOL). The single parent statistics are more likely due to monetary issues then just the single parent factor..wonder if the statistics for rich married couples is different from those in poverty? Personally, my life got MUCH better after my mother left the "sperm donor"....despite being in a single parent home and despite being raised quite poor.
    Never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way" ~Martin Luther King, Jr

  10. #10
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolven View Post
    A shitty parent (or parents) is a shitty parent..whether they are gay, straight, single or married.

    Statistics can be thrown in any which way the statistician sees fit and I am sure with a little bit of time I, too, could find statistics which show whatever I wish them to say (someone somewhere must agree with me! LOL). The single parent statistics are more likely due to monetary issues then just the single parent factor..wonder if the statistics for rich married couples is different from those in poverty? Personally, my life got MUCH better after my mother left the "sperm donor"....despite being in a single parent home and despite being raised quite poor.
    I'm sure your story is shared by others. However, remember that these studies are literally of thousands, not individuals.

    While I am certainly appreciative of your personal experience, you weren't adopted, and your transition into a single-parent home reflects just that... your personal experience.

    Again... I do not, nor will I, repudiate single parenthood in and of itself. Again, I am experienced as a single parent myself. But we must ponder what would cause an individual to intentionally and with purpose, adopt a child with the same lack of consideration for the odds regarding the child's own well-being that many have when adopting a puppy.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  11. #11
    irishmick's Avatar
    irishmick is offline Do not mistake my kindness for weakness.
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    08-12-08
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,226
    Rep Power
    1538983
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    I'm sure your story is shared by others. However, remember that these studies are literally of thousands, not individuals.

    While I am certainly appreciative of your personal experience, you weren't adopted, and your transition into a single-parent home reflects just that... your personal experience.

    Again... I do not, nor will I, repudiate single parenthood in and of itself. Again, I am experienced as a single parent myself. But we must ponder what would cause an individual to intentionally and with purpose, adopt a child with the same lack of consideration for the odds regarding the child's own well-being that many have when adopting a puppy.
    The bill (from what I read above) specifically targets "un-wed couples" and does not target single adults wishing to adopt. If we look at that aspect reasonably, most single adults who want to adopt are often very well off and are able to provide whatever may be needed for the child (at least monetarily if not emotionally...and emotional care short of neglect is not a prerequisite for parenthood). To target a group of individuals, whether gay or straight, and tell them they cannot adopt children is irresponsible at best. I cannot, and will not, believe that children sitting in the state system is better for them than having parents that are either straight and not married, or gay.
    --"D.B.A.D." --Me

    --Life's tough...it's tougher if you're stupid.

    --"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -Elbert Hubbard

  12. #12
    Wolven's Avatar
    Wolven is offline Major
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    10-06-07
    Location
    Heaven on Earth
    Posts
    4,061
    Rep Power
    1322608
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    I'm sure your story is shared by others. However, remember that these studies are literally of thousands, not individuals.

    While I am certainly appreciative of your personal experience, you weren't adopted, and your transition into a single-parent home reflects just that... your personal experience.

    Again... I do not, nor will I, repudiate single parenthood in and of itself. Again, I am experienced as a single parent myself. But we must ponder what would cause an individual to intentionally and with purpose, adopt a child with the same lack of consideration for the odds regarding the child's own well-being that many have when adopting a puppy.
    Now CB....I realize the studies are done with the sampling of thousands...my mother did not raise stupid girls.

    I might point out that I am sure most people (of any group) do set out to raise a child with the very best of intentions..especially those that chose to adopt with all the red-tape associated with adoption. And yet as deftly as you point out the value of statistics, it is the personal experience of each child that dictates how they turn out, right?
    Never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way" ~Martin Luther King, Jr

  13. #13
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Quote Originally Posted by irishmick View Post
    I cannot, and will not, believe that children sitting in the state system is better for them than having parents that are either straight and not married, or gay.
    Believe what you wish. You are statistically wrong. Children are more likely to be abused in the care of parents (including adoptive parents) than in States' custody. The difference is 79.9&#37; to .05%, (0.9% cumulatively, including foster homes).

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  14. #14
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolven View Post
    Now CB....I realize the studies are done with the sampling of thousands...my mother did not raise stupid girls.
    I had no intention of demeaning your intellect.

    ... it is the personal experience of each child that dictates how they turn out, right?
    ... and the personal experience of the largest number of children (statistically) dictates that children of traditional homes, with married mothers and fathers, are most likely to become productive members of society.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  15. #15
    irishmick's Avatar
    irishmick is offline Do not mistake my kindness for weakness.
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    08-12-08
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,226
    Rep Power
    1538983
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Believe what you wish. You are statistically wrong. Children are more likely to be abused in the care of parents (including adoptive parents) than in States' custody. The difference is 79.9% to .05%, (0.9% cumulatively, including foster homes).
    OK, but where does the information for children that are adopted fit into this? With so much red tape, I would imagine that an adopted child fares better than a regular "we pushed it out ourselves" child.
    --"D.B.A.D." --Me

    --Life's tough...it's tougher if you're stupid.

    --"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -Elbert Hubbard

  16. #16
    Odd's Avatar
    Odd
    Odd is offline Cosmonaut Trainer
    Supporting Member Lvl 3
    Join Date
    10-08-08
    Posts
    2,056
    Rep Power
    2508663
    Quote Originally Posted by irishmick
    I cannot, and will not, believe that children sitting in the state system is better for them than having parents that are either straight and not married, or gay.
    Quote Originally Posted by countybear View Post
    Believe what you wish. You are statistically wrong. Children are more likely to be abused in the care of parents (including adoptive parents) than in States' custody. The difference is 79.9% to .05%, (0.9% cumulatively, including foster homes).
    I'd like to see data proving or disproving irishmick's view, I'm just not sure we've arrived at it yet. Countybear, you've found a wealth of data on the subject. Let's make sure we're agreeing on the math in this bit of analysis.

    I found those same number on the Health and Human Services website. What it shows there are raw total numbers. This table doesn't show the % of abusers within each category - it's missing the percentage of children living with parents, in state care, etc to arrive at that. This table does show more children are likely to be abused in the care of parents, but only in so much as there are many more children are in the care of parents. (even that I'm inferring as that data is not shown either) Does your source provide us with that bit of data missing from the table I'm looking at?

    I'm not sure this is a case where statistics should be the deciding factor. I just want to make sure that while we're looking at the stats we're reading them the same way.

  17. #17
    irishmick's Avatar
    irishmick is offline Do not mistake my kindness for weakness.
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    08-12-08
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,226
    Rep Power
    1538983
    Also, keep in mind that I'm not speaking in terms of physical abuse, but in the way that the child will eventually end up. The amount of children in the state system who end up in the justice system is huge. To say that more children are abused by parents is probably like saying that more dogs that are owned by people other than the pound poop on peoples' lawns. I definitely think we need more numbers...but am well aware that numbers can say just about anything.
    --"D.B.A.D." --Me

    --Life's tough...it's tougher if you're stupid.

    --"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -Elbert Hubbard

  18. #18
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Quote Originally Posted by irishmick View Post
    Also, keep in mind that I'm not speaking in terms of physical abuse, but in the way that the child will eventually end up. The amount of children in the state system who end up in the justice system is huge. To say that more children are abused by parents is probably like saying that more dogs that are owned by people other than the pound poop on peoples' lawns. I definitely think we need more numbers...but am well aware that numbers can say just about anything.
    Disorders are more likely in adopted teenagers

    By JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY, Star Tribune
    Last update: May 5, 2008 - 11:03 PM



    Adolescents adopted as infants are twice as likely to have behavioral disorders as those who are not adopted, according to research published Monday that is the deepest analysis yet of the larger mental health burden carried by some adopted children.

    Researcher Margaret Keyes, a University of Minnesota psychologist, stressed that adoptive parents or those thinking about adopting shouldn't be alarmed by her study, because rates of emotional problems are relatively low among all adolescents studied, but were higher among adopted kids.

    For example, she said that among the 692 adopted kids in the study, 14 percent had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, compared with 7 percent of the 540 kids in the non-adopted group.

    Keyes found similar differences in other mental health conditions that manifest themselves outwardly in destructive or defiant behavior. But she found no significant differences in mental disorders such as anxiety or depression that are more internal.

    In a finding that is contrary to what researchers expected, she also found that children adopted from the United States had somewhat higher rates of mental health problems than those who were adopted from other countries.

    Adoption experts said that the study documents and quantifies what they have intuitively known for some time.
    Like this?

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  19. #19
    irishmick's Avatar
    irishmick is offline Do not mistake my kindness for weakness.
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    08-12-08
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,226
    Rep Power
    1538983
    Does that take into account the number of babies adopted that were subjected to drugs and alcohol while in the womb? Or the number of those children who were not adopted as babies, but children who had already developed some behavior issues? Statistics and studies are only as good as the person who did them...and their biases.
    --"D.B.A.D." --Me

    --Life's tough...it's tougher if you're stupid.

    --"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -Elbert Hubbard

  20. #20
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Quote Originally Posted by irishmick View Post
    Does that take into account the number of babies adopted that were subjected to drugs and alcohol while in the womb? Or the number of those children who were not adopted as babies, but children who had already developed some behavior issues? Statistics and studies are only as good as the person who did them...and their biases.
    Nor, evidently, can statistics keep up with the many questions you have... perhaps you should research some yourself.

    There's one that I found really spooky:

    Joel Norris, in his book, Serial Killers, notes that "many serial murderers were raised by adoptive parents or caretakers both within and outside of their biological parents' families." The FBI estimates that of the 500 recorded serial killers in U.S. history, fully 16 percent were adopted – an incredible statistic, considering that adoptees represent only 2-3 percent of the general population. To name a few adoptee serial killers: Charles Albright, the Texas "Eyeball Killer," Kenneth Bianco, the California "Hillside Strangler," David Berkowitz, New York City's "Son of Sam," Steve Catlin, the Bakersfield, Calif., serial wife and mother poisoner, Joseph Kallinger, the "Philadelphia Shoemaker," Gerald Eugene Stano, executed killer of 42 women in Florida, and Joel Rifkin, New York's most prolific serial killer.
    Given the problems that we already have in the adoption process, I believe some reform should take place. The beginning of that reform, should be our adoption practices of placing children with the goal of 'getting them out of States' custody' as the motivator, and 'placing them in settings fitting of their own best interests as its ultimate goal. As we see from the studies below, there are much worse circumstances than State or foster care.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •