I’m watching CN8’s “It’s your call” tonight and the subject of debate is: Is it ok for homesexuals to raise children.
At the heart of the debate is a new piece of legislation in Texas that would exclude homosexuals from becoming foster parents (Gah! I’m glad I don’t live in Texas!).
The beginning got bogged down as both sides quoted different studies supporting both of their points of view.
Specifically those against quoted studies claiming that homesexuals are very promiscuous saying that most have over a hundred sexual partners through out their lifetime and a considerable number have over a thousand (although they didn’t explain how this affects gay parent’s ability to raise their children in loving, nurturing homes).
They also mentioned one study supposedly held in Australia (where, according to them, Gay marriage is allowed?) which showed that children did better in heterosexual homes than in gay/lesbian homes.
So are these studies to be believed? What are some reputable studies that have been done that show the same thing, or the opposite?
First off if these people are saying that Gay marriage is allowed in Australia they are full of crap. It isn’t allowed and IIRC the current Commonwealth government is seeking to introduce legislation enshrining that marriage is only possible between male and female.
I have seen a reference at least to what I believe is the Australian study referred to. It found that children raised by homosexual couples did about as well as children raised by single parents. That finding has been bandied about by both sides of the debate as supporting their position. One one hand it’s used to support gay adoption etc. because the children are no worse off than a great many children born to single parents. On the other hand it’s used to oppose it because single parent children perform below average and single parents aren’t allowed to adopt.
This isn’t GD so I’ll limit the editorialising but the reality seems to be that the study shows only that people who won’t, can’t or are forbidden from entering into legally binding and socially sanctioned unions unions have difficulties raising children. That hardly seems ot be a surprise.
I’ll see if I can find the book the study was referenced in next time I’m at the library, but don’t hold your breath.
:dubious: Since when are single parents not allowed to adopt?
It has always been that way to the best of my knowledge. I suspect it dates from English law many centuries old.
"In Queensland, NT and Tasmania only married people are able to adopt under local placement and intercountry adoptions. In other states and territories in Australia, married and defacto couples are eligible to adopt. In NSW, Victoria, WA, SA and the ACT single people may be eligible to adopt in certain circumstances. "
Note that single people can adopt only in ‘special circumstances’. In practice this apparently means being obscenely wealthy or having a pre-existing relationship with the child.
In practice we can say that single people can’t adopt. They certainly can’t routinely adopt in normal circumstances as married people can.
I ran across this site yesterday, from the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse under the heading “Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents”. It offers a number of studies and statistics. It’s part of the US Department of Health & Human Services website, based on previous studies, and I’m guessing the information is reliable and not full of wingnuttery. Maybe this will be a helpful starting point?