10 comments

• 

  Brian

  1 year ago

  Interestingly, this "comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents" in many US states which prohibit gay couples and/or individuals from fostering and adopting. It's too bad such legislation is "affecting other peoples lives" here in the US.
  
  It's hard to take this complaint seriously (even if it has some merit) when anti-gay groups (such as Exodus) continue to aggressively advocate against equality for LGBT families... which in turn negatively affects the children most at need in our society.
  
  It shouldn't matter, but I wonder how many UK foster/adoptive parents would become ineligible if they were governed by the anti-families law that restrict the ability of suitable gay parents to adopt.
  
  I guess the question is: why should sexual orientation be an acceptable litmus test but not attitudes towards other citizens? Where is the consistency there?
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  1 year ago

  Brian, first of all the difference is that these parents are being excluded because of their personal beliefs--not because of their behavior or relationship patterns.
  
  As for gay adoption, sure I'm personally not a supporter of the idea. My position, however, is based upon what I believe is best for a child, not how much I value the adults. A child needs a mother and a father; the question is who can supply that.
  
  I also don't think it can be accurately said that Exodus "aggressively advocate[s] against equality for LGBT families." Other than a handful of blogs that might mention it once in a while, to what are you referring?
  
  And it goes without saying that, in the arena of parenting, heterosexual couples do present an unequal advantage starting from the very nature of it. No LGBT couple (however you'd define that--and some would still probably call you close-minded) can start a family without the contribution of heterosexuality.
  reply
• 

  Brandon

  1 year ago

  I think this whole thing is sad--on both sides. This isn't about the parents. It's about the children. Period. If the parents have a history of providing good care to children--regardless of being gay or straight, or believing pro-gay or anit-gay, or whatever--then what's the difference? I hear people talk about influence on children. I was raised by Christian parents, but I still turned out gay and supported that for awhile. Others are raised to believe homosexuality is okay and yet when they grow up they disagree. This is a personal decision. Most people actually do tend to think for themselves and don't always believe whatever their parents believe or teach them. So, the question there is irrelevent, I think. So long as the parent takes care of the child, provides for the child, loves the child, that's what should matter. To take children out of a home or not allow certain people to be parents, just because they don't believe what you want them to believe, only serves to hurt all those children out there looking for a good home and a family.
  
  This is nothing more than a political issue that just wreaks of intolerance and injustice on both sides. Gays want gays and Christians want Christians. Newsflash: You can't force everyone to always believe the exact same things as you. So, stop trying and learn to accept that just because someone doesn't share all your views, doesn't mean that makes them unfit to raise children. It just makes them different from you--no better and no worse.
  reply
• 

  Brian

  1 year ago

  Interestingly, this "comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents" in many US states which prohibit gay couples and/or individuals from fostering and adopting. It's too bad such legislation is "affecting other peoples lives" here in the US.
  It's hard to take this complaint seriously (even if it has some merit) when anti-gay groups (such as Exodus) continue to aggressively advocate against equality for LGBT families... which in turn negatively affects the children most at need in our society.
  It shouldn't matter, but I wonder how many UK foster/adoptive parents would become ineligible if they were governed by the anti-families law that restrict the ability of suitable gay parents to adopt.
  I guess the question is: why should sexual orientation be an acceptable litmus test but not attitudes towards other citizens? Where is the consistency there?
  reply
• 

  Mensley

  1 year ago

  Brian, first of all the difference is that these parents are being excluded because of their personal beliefs--not because of their behavior or relationship patterns.
  As for gay adoption, sure I'm personally not a supporter of the idea. My position, however, is based upon what I believe is best for a child, not how much I value the adults. A child needs a mother and a father; the question is who can supply that.
  I also don't think it can be accurately said that Exodus "aggressively advocate[s] against equality for LGBT families." Other than a handful of blogs that might mention it once in a while, to what are you referring?
  And it goes without saying that, in the arena of parenting, heterosexual couples do present an unequal advantage starting from the very nature of it. No LGBT couple (however you'd define that--and some would still probably call you close-minded) can start a family without the contribution of heterosexuality.
  reply
• 

  Brandon

  1 year ago

  I think this whole thing is sad--on both sides. This isn't about the parents. It's about the children. Period. If the parents have a history of providing good care to children--regardless of being gay or straight, or believing pro-gay or anit-gay, or whatever--then what's the difference? I hear people talk about influence on children. I was raised by Christian parents, but I still turned out gay and supported that for awhile. Others are raised to believe homosexuality is okay and yet when they grow up they disagree. This is a personal decision. Most people actually do tend to think for themselves and don't always believe whatever their parents believe or teach them. So, the question there is irrelevent, I think. So long as the parent takes care of the child, provides for the child, loves the child, that's what should matter. To take children out of a home or not allow certain people to be parents, just because they don't believe what you want them to believe, only serves to hurt all those children out there looking for a good home and a family.
  This is nothing more than a political issue that just wreaks of intolerance and injustice on both sides. Gays want gays and Christians want Christians. Newsflash: You can't force everyone to always believe the exact same things as you. So, stop trying and learn to accept that just because someone doesn't share all your views, doesn't mean that makes them unfit to raise children. It just makes them different from you--no better and no worse.
  reply
• 

  Brian

  1 year ago

  Mike, I'm also thinking about what is best for the children. And studies have consistently shown that TWO PARENTS (not "one mother and one father") is what is best for a child. I think what you're referring to is studies that have shown a child with a mother and a father is better off than being raised by a single-parent.
  
  What is best for a child is to be raised in a stable house, ideally but not necessarily by two parents, and not trapped in the foster care system or in group homes. I think that parents--gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian--who can provide a safe and secure family and are capable of raising children should be allowed foster and adopt. That is what is best for children, even if it doesn't suit an anti-gay political agenda.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  I had heard of this case and it is very sad indeed. Good job on the post and response Mike.
  reply
• 

  Brian

  1 year ago

  Mike, I'm also thinking about what is best for the children. And studies have consistently shown that TWO PARENTS (not "one mother and one father") is what is best for a child. I think what you're referring to is studies that have shown a child with a mother and a father is better off than being raised by a single-parent.
  What is best for a child is to be raised in a stable house, ideally but not necessarily by two parents, and not trapped in the foster care system or in group homes. I think that parents--gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian--who can provide a safe and secure family and are capable of raising children should be allowed foster and adopt. That is what is best for children, even if it doesn't suit an anti-gay political agenda.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  1 year ago

  I had heard of this case and it is very sad indeed. Good job on the post and response Mike.
  reply