Why would a homosexual couple want to raise a child?

Consider this......regardless of what children need, there will always be children who do not have both a mom and a dad. Can we agree on that? Please explain how not allowing gays to marry and/or adopt is going to change that. As I see it, its a Non sequitur. Regardless of the validity of your premise about children’s needs- there is a disconnect between it and your conclusion regarding marriage and adoption. I've pointed that out many times before and have never gotten anything close to an answer that makes sense. I'm starting to think that there is no answer that makes sense.

Here are some fun facts:

There are more children waiting to be adopted than there are traditional, opposite sex couples willing and qualified to adopt. http://www.fostercareadoption.us/custom1.php
Including same sex couples-there are an estimated 2M-will go a long way towards correcting that imbalance. In 2008 there were 129,000 children waiting to be adopted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that two million gay or lesbian individuals said they had considered adoption . The Urban Institute found that a national ban on gay or lesbian adoption would result in 9,000 to 14,000 children never being adopted. The national financial burden of caring for these children would range from $87 to $130 million and could cost states anywhere from $100,000 to $27 million. Additionally, these children would eventually age out of the foster care system. This means that at age 18 or 21, they are turned out of the system with no official family and no resources.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2veb5tgKI

http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2vb55w73S
Not allowing gays to adopt on the pretext that children need/deserve two parents of the opposite sex, or any other reason only ensures that more children will not have either a mother or a father
When we talk about adoption by gay people, most often we are not referring to situations a single person or a couple go to an adoption agency to adopt an unrelated child. Rather, the more likely scenario is where a child is already living with a gay parson-usually a biological parent- and that person wants to allow their partner to adopt as a second parent. Not allowing adoption will not change the fact that the child has same sex parent figures. However, It will mean that the child will not have the protections and benefits of having two legal parents. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/second-parent-adoption

 

Marriage Equality and adoption…The Right Thing to do For The Children
by The Progressive Patriot 9.26.13

People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.

It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.

Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.

 

This is for all of those ignoramuses who insist on bloviating about same sex marriage and adoption and how it allegedly harms children :
The Children Get Their Chance To Speak In Utah Gay Marriage Case

Utah's ban on gay marriage harms the children of gays and lesbians, despite arguments the state has made to the contrary, according to an amicus brief filed Tuesday by a group of national and state gay rights organizations.

The brief includes testimony from some of these children, who talk about growing up with gay and lesbian parents and how the same-sex marriage ban affects them. It was filed in the challenge to Utah's ban now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
"Family is really important in Utah and [Gov. Gary Herbert and the state of Utah] claim to want to protect families, but it hurts me and my brother to not be able to have married parents," one 12-year-old, identified by the initials R.H.P., told the authors of the brief. "My parents are good moms and are patient with me and are just regular people."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/utah-gay-marriage-children_n_4899080.html

 

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage and child rearing will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda.

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerps follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.
In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”
But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.
“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Update:
Same-Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional, And This Latest Ruling Proves That
The “will of the people” argument against same-sex marriage bans falls flat, as Judge Friedman pointed out. Here’s why: Something that is a right shouldn’t be subject to a vote. We should not be able to vote on who gets what rights in a free country. Or we are not truly free. The case against marriage as a right also doesn’t hold water.
It’s time for conservatives to realize that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. It’s also time for the religious right to understand that they can’t continue to push their religious agenda for the purpose of denying equality to a certain group of people. Straight couples take their ability to marry or not for granted. Same-sex couples don’t have that. Since being gay isn’t a choice, they do fall under the Equal Protection clause. Same-sex marriage bans are illegal under the Constitution, and it’s time for the religious right to realize they’ve lost.


In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontier...-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf

Now what do you people have?

 

pot, meet kettle

 

But significantly further than those couples who neither love nor desired a child, but had one anyway...

When, exactly, did you factor genuine love out of the homosexual parenting equation?

according to who?

Why would this not relate equally to heterosexual couples?

On what basis are you assuming that they are more likely to "figureatively eat what tastes like dirt" than any other kid?

 

Based on what?

And this is relevant to gay couples, but not straight ones, why?

I think you forgot a few other presidents that were elected in between those...

 

Pretty much this.

 

QFT

Thank you for this completely disgusting and ignorant post. It's people like you who should be prevented from having children.

 

And you know this how?

 

It might be true that a few narcissistic sociopaths need to see their kids as miniature versions of themselves in order to care for them, but I disagree that this is normal - or that it has anything to do with why childless couples decide to have kids in the first place.

They're worthless already.

 

The third paragraph of the OP must be scary as hell, as determined as the local miscreants are to pretend it isn't there.

 

I don't know about the rest, but I pretty much ignored most of the nonsense in the OP, and stuck with responding to the title.

So once again- I assume that homosexuals want to raise children for the same reason as every other parent wants to. Certainly that has been what those homosexual parents that I know have told me. In my limited experience people who want to raise children do so for a variety of reasons, but within that universe of reasons, heterosexual and homosexuals seem to have the same variety of reasons.

 

See what I mean?

 

Like I said-

I don't know about the rest, but I pretty much ignored most of the nonsense in the OP, and stuck with responding to the title.

So once again- I assume that homosexuals want to raise children for the same reason as every other parent wants to. Certainly that has been what those homosexual parents that I know have told me. In my limited experience people who want to raise children do so for a variety of reasons, but within that universe of reasons, heterosexual and homosexuals seem to have the same variety of reasons.

 

Welcome to my i-list.

 

Just going to use one another poster comment in response to this unverifiable account from an anonymous poster.

BTW : The comment is made in a sarcastic manner

 

Is that how you usually deal with perspectives you can't argue against?

 

No, it's how I deal with posters who insist on talking at me rather than to me. You're welcome.

 

He just hates that I am addressing the thread- and don't dance to his tune

So once again- I assume that homosexuals want to raise children for the same reason as every other parent wants to. Certainly that has been what those homosexual parents that I know have told me. In my limited experience people who want to raise children do so for a variety of reasons, but within that universe of reasons, heterosexual and homosexuals seem to have the same variety of reasons.

 

I disagree. Gays have rejected procreation, so its odd that people who have rejected a fundamental aspect of society suddenly want to have children. I don't think gays want children for the same reason as normal people (thats right, normal people). To gays, children and "marriage" are just more accoutrements in their facade of being socially normal and accepted.

 

A) I didn't thank you for anything.
B) I believe that "for the same reasons as anyone else" is a very direct answer to the OP.

 

That's an interesting position. Are you saying that the production of children and the raising of children are inexorably linked?
If so, please explain why there are so many children available for adoption in the first place. Clearly, producing kids and raising kids are two completely different activities, and many folks choose to do one without the other.

 

Yes. Marriage (that would be between a man and a woman) is oriented around raising children. Thats the mental and physical biology of human beings. Gays have rejected that paradigm.

Because some heterosexual people have a flawed behaviour pattern and have children out of marriage (formal marriage or a stable long term relationship) or have problems raising children is not a reason to let other people with flawed behaviour (gays) raise children.

 

That's an odd assertion for which you'll need to provide a source.
When I married my wife almost 20 years ago, it wasn't for the purpose of having kids.
It was about our relationship and our dedication to each other, rather than some sort of breeding contract.

Would you also preclude single people from adopting, since they too seem to break the paradigm that you've subjectively labeled "normal"?

I see, so people who have kids outside of wedlock are exhibiting "flawed behavior"...
I assume this means people who divorce after having had kids are also exhibiting "flawed behavior"?

I find it interesting that you would classify so many individual relationships as "flawed", but seem only to support creating an underclass from folks who demonstrate one of these traits.