Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

But what you don't understand, because you have apparently not read the entire thread, is that for adopted children the choice is not between a mommy and a daddy, or a homosexual family, the choice will many times be between a homosexual family or life as a ward of the state. There are not enough heterosexual families to take care of all orphaned children, hence your argument is fallacious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What burden?

Surely, you're not referring to that burden imposed by the narrow-minded?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That statement was NOT made by the author as you say and you just took the one little statement from the article, here is the WHOLE comment:


Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit."

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."


Tiassa, I wonder why you did not use this quote?

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Big D, what does ANY person on earth want.


Food
shelter
Sex
comfert
Aceptance into sociaty

and in many cases, a chance to pass on your inderviduality to the next generation

 

I Agree,
but, it looks like some guys also want to molest little boys ALOT, I MEAN A REAL LOT, and those guys are homosexuals.

http://216.220.97.17/

 

Big D obviously loves boys so much he has the url of NAMBLA on his computer. How interesting.

Anyway, onto the war of the studies:


http://www.lethimstay.com/wrong_socscience_summaries.html

Parenting Behaviors of Homosexual and Heterosexual Fathers
Jerry J. Bigner and R. Brooke Jacobsen

This study investigated parenting behaviors in heterosexual and gay fathers. Gay fathers did not differ significantly from heterosexual fathers in terms of overall parental involvement, intimacy, and parenting skills. There were some differences between the groups in approaches to parenting; for example, gay fathers tended to be more communicative with their children and to enforce rules more strictly.





Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal
Susan Golombok, Ann Spencer, and Michael Rutter

This study found no significant differences between children raised by lesbians and children raised by single heterosexual mothers on measures of emotions, behavior, and relationships with peers. Also, no differences were found in terms of their gender identity or gender behavior.

And this thread:
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/02/responding_to_m.php#more

By the way, Big D, if I told you that men were far, far more likely to rape women, be phsychopaths and die in street violence than women, would you be trying to ban their adopting children?

 

If two straight men came in and asked if their was a young teenage female available for adoption, would you just close your eyes then?

Look I brought the facts, I know facts take the fun out of a debate, but it reality.

You call this a fact?
"There were some differences between the groups in approaches to parenting; for example, gay fathers tended to be more communicative with their children and to enforce rules more strictly".

Do you think it has been priest raping little boys, or homosexuals.

 

Most gays aren't pedophiles, just as most straights aren't. Many pedophiles are attracted to children so exclusively that the sex of the child doesn't matter. Neither heterosexual nor homosexual pedophiles should be allowed to adopt children.

 

BigD -

If a greater number of Texan women kill their children than Oklahoma women, should we ban Texan women from adopting?

Or is is possible that it would be a huge logical fallacy to do so. Correlation does not equal causation. Once more, altogether, now. Correlation does not equal causation.

If you offer evidence that being a gay man forces you to pedophilia, I'll hear it. As is, your sources only show that it seems more pedophiles happen to be gay.

 

("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")

Big D

Let's get a couple small points out of the way:

The side note is that this shows how much you know about your own source. Check again.

I'm reading the paper right now: "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement", by Steve Baldwin. You might recall my original consideration of this "study":

• Such words by the study's author suggest that this is more about politics than reality. I await BigD's analysis of the study itself, which should already be available online.​

Your response included the quoted statement at the beginning of this post, and also reiterated the WorldNetDaily article while failing to address the point. For instance:

If you truly wonder, then it would seem you're not paying attention. I find the whole "study" suspect. It's political, not scientific. From the outset, it is a political monologue, not a scientific study:

Did you catch his thesis? Indeed, it's buried there at the end of the third paragraph. Now, look at the number of presuppositions surrounding that thesis:

• Lately the gay movement seems to be making large gains in its war on America's Judeo-Christian culture: This is the sort of political rhetoric that is simply dangerous for the person or party employing it. Let's think about it this way: if Christians weren't the majority, and gay activists still existed against perceived prejudice and discrimination, would it still be a war against Judeo-Christian culture? Baldwin attempts to cast a majority of sociopolitical authority as a victim.

• Gay characters have become the norm on sitcoms; it has been fashionable to attack the Boy Scouts; homosexual propaganda inundates many of our public schools; nearly all the mainstream religious denominations have "revised" their understanding of Biblical teaching concerning homosexuality; and the gay "rights" legislative agenda is succeeding beyond the advocates' wildest imaginations: Gay characters aren't quite the "norm" on television, although they are having a voice. We might also think back to films such as the wretched Mannequin and note that gays have long had a place before the public, as a mincing stereotype for comic relief. One would have a better chance asserting as a standard, model, or typical pattern of television shows characters who live beyond their means, currently known as the "Friends" argument. I mean, come on. Ross had a monkey. We never saw the episode where a relationship started after a body-heat affair, f@cking as relief from boredom while the heat was shut off for nonpayment. Perceiving the threat from gays in the first place is a matter of opinion; overstating that threat is unwise in a scientific discussion. Baldwin's summary becomes arguable only in the political context. A phrase like "homosexual propaganda" appearing in a "scientific" discussion is a term begging to be defined in scientific terms.

• And yet the destructive impact homosexuality has upon Western Civilization is rarely discussed by columnists, reporters, religious leaders, politicians, or by anyone else for that matter: This is a seriously questionable statement. What destructive impact? This is a rhetorical vagary left in place to favor Baldwin's argument.

• Even some conservative publications choose to ignore the issue and instead have published articles arguing for greater tolerance of the gay lifestyle: Notice the comparison: "Even some (political) publications ...." Why do political publications matter? They're hardly scientific. Certes, there is a cultural reflection, but Baldwin seems to be taking that on the wrong tack. We'll get to that.

• Indeed, on the homosexual issues, conservatives seem divided between a "live and let live" attitude and one that concludes the homosexual agenda will have to be curtailed if the Judeo-Christian culture is to survive: Baldwin does conservatives in general the kind of disservice generally attributed to liberal rhetoric; he paints conservatives as simplistic and dualistic. The liberal would not go so far as to paint the picture as a juxtaposition of "equality" and the survival of Judeo-Christian continuity. Perhaps there are a few gleeful atheists grinning over another blow to the Judeo-Christian presupposition in society, but the loss of (illegitimate) advantage does not equal the death of an idea, philosophy, or movement. The British empire once held a fifth of the landed surface of the planet. The saying used to go, "The sun never sets on the British empire". It does, now, and Britain still exists, and she's asserting her clout in the international arena. American schools used to teach the Bible to explain the origins of humankind; that Darwinism has scientific support while creationism does not certainly has not spelled the end of creationism, nor has it spelled the end of the Judeo-Christian continuity. Such a polarization as Baldwin presents is more political than it is scientific. It is, in fact, downright unscientific.

• However, overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture: This is a generalization that applies to anything beyond missionary, reproductive sexuality. It is a fluff assertion. Fellatio has "dire consequences" for our culture, too, if you check the statutes. Neither is anybody complaining that heterosexual sodomy is likewise acceptable under Lawrence v. Texas. Additionally, giving credibility to this statement by Baldwin overlooks the fact that homosexuals form a culture traditionally held out on the fringe, pushed into the closet. Sex, drugs, religion, art: anything pushed into the closet becomes inherently more dangerous. Look at Baldwin's numbers; if anything, they're reflective of the dangers of the closet. If you're able to dig up the Abel study cited by Reisman, which citation was mentioned by Baldwin, you can expect to discover a number of problems in Baldwin's interpretation of Abel et al's 1987 research.

• A vast amount of data demonstrating that the deviant nature of the gay lifestyle is ignored by the media as well as the leadership of the psychological, psychiatric, and medical professions: This borders on the hilarious. It could be that the professionals understand something about the data they're looking at that Baldwin has failed to account for. Perhaps context? On page 2 of the report, Baldwin's footnotes include support for the statement that, "Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children." Reading through those notes, we find that they all pertain specifically to child-molesting. Baldwin creates a demand that he must satisfy: show the proper extension of the pedophile to the non-pedophile. Furthermore, a footnote supporting the assertion that, "the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent" leads to Frank York and Robert Knight's "Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia" (article cited by Baldwin is unavailable online; other routes, including York's web page, provide this title in lieu of the other). At the outset, York and Knight seek to represent the "homosexual community" as NAMBLA; the connection is tenuous at best, relying on a NAMBLA activist living in South Africa. The "vast amount of data" Baldwin relies on is in itself suspect. As hard as it may be for Baldwin or others to imagine, it could simply be that the professionals look at the same data and don't see the same sense of threat because that perception of threat is fallacious.

• It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh: Actually, it's not. Homosexuality, like any human practice, has its dark side. However Baldwin's standing in the kitchen yelling about the refrigerator being too cold while the roof is on fire. Now, first of all, the milk's not frozen, so what's "too cold"? Secondly, there are more pressing issues afoot. It would be more appropriate to say it is difficult to raise fictional demons without appearing harsh.

• However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization, the nuclear family: This is a political call to arms. It's not a scientific statement, but rather hyperbole. If we grant the string of untenable presuppositions at the outset, Baldwin has an inkling of a case. But as we see, those presuppositions are seriously faulty. Baldwin goes on to assert that "An unmistakable manifestation of the attack on the family unit is the homosexual community's efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and enlarge the homosexual movement." Do communications students even get schooled in rhetorical fallacy these days? It's a spectacular accusation, but one without much merit in light of its lack of support. "The homosexual community and its allies in the media scoff at this argument," Baldwin asserts. Ah, yes ... the media conspiracy. Doesn't get more scientific than that. Doesn't get any less political than that. "They insist it is merely a tactic to demonize the homosexual movement." Well, it would be a fairly silly assertion if the stakes weren't so high. Let's just grant, for the sake of argument, that there's "something wrong" with homosexuals. Now, are homosexuals human? Would that something be a confusion of circumstance, perception, and emotional disposition (e.g. psychology)? Or is it some sort of sociopathic streak that makes gays calculating predators whose only goals in life are orgasms and the destruction of the Judeo-Christian identity politic? Baldwin would rather cast gays as sociopathic monsters, demonizing them by poisoning the discussion at the outset. Baldwin is interested more in politics than in science and truth. A companion point can be found in liberal rhetoric about the Judeo-Christian identity politic: Is it some human fault or are they really the calculating monsters liberals often cast them to be? That the homosexual community and the media refuse to start the discussion from such a basis as provided by such ridiculous presuppositions is no more reflective of conspiracy than the fact that medical and psychological professionals don't see the same threats Baldwin wants them to.​

Now, let's just pause for a moment. We've just covered page one (of sixteen).

• • •​

Baldwin has fifteen pages remaining to back up the grim picture painted on page 1, and he just doesn't do it. His presentation reflects more a political tone than a scientific one, and also his study of communications and not medicine or psychology. On page 12, he refers to the founder of a political group reviewing nineteen different academic reports and peer-reviewed studies in a 1985 article. Now, let's wait just a minute: 1985? Perhaps that note wouldn't bring such a chuckle except that Baldwin demonstrates a political (superficial) and not medical or psychological understanding of the discussion. His points of argument raise more questions than they do provide answers. They pretend the political assertion is more factual than the sociological or psychological consideration.

There's an ongoing low-key discussion, for instance, about minority men in the closet showing high-risk behavior.

When cultural considerations compel closeteers to prefer looking death in the eye to their own mother, there's something wrong. Yet the condemning voice doesn't seem to be aware of such issues. It's a cycle, kind of like the people who pull forward in a traffic bottleneck, creating more chaos in an effort to gain mere seconds. Condemning voices add to the problems without ever pausing to consider their own contributions.

Gays are promiscuous? Well, it's only these last ten years or so that they've even been able to begin thinking of sanctioned monogamous relationships. Gays are pedophiles? That's a tougher question. While Baldwin would have you believe otherwise, it's a more delicate consideration than that.

"After all," writes Baldwin (p.15), "one of the most common characteristics of homosexual molesters is the fact that they were molested themselves during boyhood."

This notion seems static to Baldwin. It lacks any living dynamism in the relationship between abuse, abused, and abuser. In order to develop a point about HIV transmission, Baldwin reminds that "one must bear in mind that due to the incubation period of the HIV/AIDS disease, many of these boys and young men were infected as long as ten years previous to the reporting of their cases."

The pattern described by those two factors is at once simple and subtle. Well, it's not that subtle, but compared to Baldwin it is.

Quite simply, a young homosexual with no other place to go will go where the gays are. Following desire, they consent (legal definition notwithstanding) to sex with older gays. As adults, it's hard for them to see the "harm" that comes in something they "suffered through" and enjoyed. Any problem perceived here is at present largely symptomatic of the closet. The HIV epidemic and Reagan's inaction sent shockwaves through the gay community: society's outcasts were suddenly called upon to undertake certain duties on behalf of society. The demands of clarity rose significantly, and the response has been entirely human, entirely dynamic, and entirely interrelated. It is this humanity, this dynamism, this interrelationship, that Baldwin ignores completely. HIV pressed considerations of responsibility, demanded an actual behavioral self-examination. The argument in favor of gay marriage reflects this process: promiscuity is in part symptomatic of the closet, of being kept on the fringe with few social resources. The idea of a lasting gay relationship can be conceived and considered without the necessity of stealth: normalization works both ways. As society normalizes homosexuality, homosexuals have more reasons to look at the world according to "normal" assertions of reality.

This is just one of the subtleties of the political nightmare raised by sexual obsession and bigotry: homophobes seem utterly insensate to such delicate considerations. It's almost as if the discussion is too complex to be politically convenient, and thus it gets set aside.

Baldwin's "study" is political trash. At best it's a review of a Christian-conservative perception of the political argument.

The best argument in favor of Baldwin's rant is to say, "The media doesn't see it, the medical and psychological professionals don't see it, and the gays won't have a discussion starting with condemning presuppositions; therefore, Mr. Baldwin must be correct."

And that's not much to go on.

Alarmist is one way to describe it. "Don't panic," would be the appropriate advice to give someone of Mr. Baldwin's disposition:

Look there at that third paragraph, "This type of behavior ...."

First of all, the two exclamation points are exceptionally unscientific. Secondly, the phrase, "And women are not raping them," is phrased for political impact, not scientific communication. MOre substantially, however, Baldwin has misrepresented the APA in order to sound the alarm:

• The new definition defines sex with children as a psychological disorder only if it causes "clinically significant distress" for the molester! Under that definition, most molesters are perfectly normal people! A June 17, 2003 press release from the APA reads:

Baldwin, strangely, opts for a more restricted definition of pedophilia. As it is, the criteria includes people who never lay a sexual finger on a child. Part A establishes both behavior and period; Part B establishes the psychological stake of action or internal conflict; Part C defines the relationship between pedophile and target.

Part B is the important part, as that's what Baldwin throws an exclamation point or two for. On the one hand, we have the active predator, one who has acted on the pedophiliac urge. To the other, we have the tormented soul, one who may eventually seek to act. It is this latter part of the criterion with which Baldwin takes issue. Should we construe him as opposing pre-assault intervention in what could be a manageable psychological distress? Should we construe him as saying we ought to wait until the tormented soul decides to act and takes a victim?​

This is the kind of myopia infesting Baldwin's politics.

Perhaps it's some inner guilt. Perhaps Baldwin knows that he and other adult men he knows have had fantasies that technically qualify as pedophiliac. For instance, it's getting dangerous to ogle in public; not because somebody might beat the shit out of you for it, but because every once in a while you look up from that fantastic rack to find yourself examining a fifteen year-old. Or that ass like an onion that happens to be attached to a junior-high cheerleader.

Such would be the easy explanation, at least on the surface. Maybe he just wasn't thinking things through. The devil, of course, is in the detail. But whatever the cause, it does not serve Mr. Baldwin well to repeatedly bleed his own argument.

Is it mere ignorance, or politics? That's always a hard question, because then we are compelled to ask the follow-up: Is this ignorance or political insensitivity thematic in his life? Rather, Is Mr. Baldwin stupid or dishonest?

He's so far from the mark that there's nothing genuine about his "study".
____________________
Notes:

Baldwin, Steve. "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement". Regent University. See http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF

York, Frank, and Robert Knight. "Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia". See http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

Gardner, Amanda. "HIV Rate High Among Closeted Black Gays". Center for Minority Health. February 7, 2003. See http://www.cmh.pitt.edu/newshivhigh.htm

American Psychiatric Association. "American Psychiatric Association Statement: Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia". June 17, 2003. See http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf ​

 

All that info, but no answer to my one question.

 

My point is only that the majority of pedophiles are homosexuals. I am glad I proved that point to you.

 

Thbpbpbpbpbpt!

Big D, Munchmausen

I, uh ... I don't know how to break it to you, but you're still wrong. That is not to say that the point isn't there, it's just that it's fundamentally mischaracterized even before we undertake consideration of its meaning and significance.

You're looking at a square and calling it a circle. I don't deny that you both see the same thing, but rather protest that you're calling it what it's not.

Specifically, there are two related points to consider:

• Nonincestuous homosexual pedophiles are more productive
• Nonincestuous pedophilia occurs more frequently as a comparative ratio among homosexuals than heterosexuals ​

Neither of these points alone or in tandem equals, "the majority of pedophiles are homosexuals", or "more pedophiles happen to be gay".

• • •​

Also, BigD, just a couple of pointers. Question marks--e.g. ?--help make note that a sentence is in fact a question. Additionally, you might want to give Guthrie a chance to respond to your post before lamenting, "All that info, but no answer to my one question." Sure, it's been over 24 hours, and certain basic prodding hasn't been enough to make me get out my green hat, so it's not like I'm actually objecting or anything. But, well, shouldn't the complaint match the circumstance?

Or are we all clairvoyant? Or supposed to be? I would know if we were, I guess. I mean ... never mind.

But I promise you, give those couple of points some thought, and it will help reduce that appearance that you're not comfortable with the skin you're in.

(Note on edit: Ah, I see you already figured out the bit about question marks. My bad.)

 

So, are you going to answer the question or what?


Do you think it has been priest raping little boys, or homosexuals?

 

Actually that's not true, and even your lunatic source hasn't asserted such. He said that a higher "Rate" of homosexuals are pedophiles, which is true. You see, outed homosexuals only make up a small percent of the population. So among the number of outed homosexuals who can be counted, there is a higher percentage of them who are pedophiles than the percent of presumed heterosexuals who are pedophiles. Check the facts and you will find that girls are far more often victims of pedophilia than boys in our nation. That is however a bum point, because calling pedophilia homosexual or heterosexual completely misses the point of why its wrong. It is not a homosexual or a heterosexual problem, it is a problem of people having sex with children.

 

This is almost an interesting question, being that its rather obviously possible for both priests, homosexuals, and homosexual priests, to rape children. Recently we have quite a few stories to point to of priests raping children... so... what sort of answer exactly are you looking for, or is this some sort of weak rhetorical point to try to vaguely invoke suspicion that the world homosexual conspiracy has been infiltrating the clergy with the intent of discrediting the church by raping children and being convicted of it decades later? If we are that organized I can't wait to get my membership card. Can't say I've ever wanted to rape children, but as your source assures me my criminal homosexual mind will get around to it.

 

Thoughtless nameless

Sure. In the future, though, please consider putting some relevant form of address on such questions. After all, I'm not Guthrie, and had not yet inserted myself into your specific discussion with him.

Nor am I clairvoyant, and I don't think you'd like the result if necessity demanded that I regularly think on your behalf.

Both.

Seems rather self-evident when one pauses to think for a moment about the seemingly-unique challenges facing homosexuals, on the one hand, and Catholic clergy, on the other.

 

Big D,

If you think being gay means one is a pedophile you are very sadly mistaken. If that were true there would be tons of reports on lesbians molesting children.

Since you seem to be focussing on the male gender here has it occured to you that homosexuals have an attraction to men not boys????

 

Not to mention that in most cases its not a gay relationship because they are atracted to WOMEN. its an AGE thing not a GENDER thing

 

They would go through the same adoption process as everyone else. No doubt their eagerness would be noted. Have you tried this yet yourself?

Its a scientific study, so its a "scientific" "fact". Perhaps you dont know the difference?

Pardon? Your english is breaking down.