I never said any kind of sex was disgusting beastie. You did. I was pointing out the difficulty in explaining anal sex and its purpose to children. Normal sex can be explained with a natural purpose: procreation. When kids learn about sex in school, they will then ask how the heck their two fathers manage to do it and for what purpose. That is where the potential damage can ensue. It isn't a question of whether gay parents are physically abusive or neglectful.
My primary reaction to your comments is that you probably aren’t exposed to children on a regular basis, except for your own (who are probably too young for you to have first hand experience with sex ed as a parent). There’s several reasons why this is my primary reaction to your statements. One is that you think that when kids learn basic sex ed, either from their parents or teachers, they are going to ask all sorts of probing questions about who is doing what to whom. They don’t, by and large. They are not interested in the sexual activities of adults, and are particularly not interested in the sexual activities of their parents. Like Harmony said: EWWWW. It would be expected for a child of gay parents to ask how they were conceived. Adopted children, period, will have special needs in this regard. Abman is right in that regard – all that is necessary is for them to be told that the gay parents could not have a child of their own, so adopted out of love. Just like hetero adoptive parents would do. You are complicating this beyond what would naturally or normally occur. Besides that, if anal sex isn’t disgusting, then why are kids going to be “damaged” in some fundamental way if that discussion should ensue? You’re the one who kept associating it with excrement, while pretending that the semen coming out of the same place as urine is obviously going to be SOOOO different that kids will recognize it and won’t be “damaged” by it in some way that they would be damaged by having anal sex explained. This is why I suspect you haven’t really dealt with children on this issue. Sometimes younger children actually think that the man is peeing inside the woman.
I do not refuse to be held accountable for anything I say. But don't put words in my mouth. Here you are yet again, trying to justify your own miscomprehension of what I have said by literally rewriting my posts.
Then why do you continually bring up the excrement, and why do you think children will be damaged in some way if, by some odd chance, this was explained to them?
Sex and procreation is a fact of life that all humans will have to learn. Anal sex between men is not something that is necessary for children to understand, unless of course their parents are two men.
See above.
Parents and societies who teach children about sex do so for various reasons. One is to protect them. At a young age, we want them to know what is appropriate and inappropriate touching. The actual mechanics of sexual intercourse and its purpose does not have to be addressed at that point. As the children get older, they will be curious, partly due to the fact that their own sexual feelings are beginning to develop. The first step is telling children how babies are made. At this stage, normally no other information is wanted or needed. As they grow older and become teens, as their sexual feelings grow stronger and they have to learn how to make responsible choices, THEN actual mechanics may be taught for the purpose encourage safe and responsible choices. So by the time children could be reasonably exposed to mechanics would be in their teens, when they are more able to understand sexual drives in the first place, and how it entails far more than simple procreation. By that point, it is unlikely they are going to be “damaged” in some serious way by learning about anal/oral sex…unless, of course, they have grown up in a culture that demonizes homosexuality.
I said:
When kids first hear about how heterosexual intercourse works, they DO hear “the man puts the place where he pees from in the place where the woman pees from”.
Kevin’s answer:
What's your point? There is a natural purpose to this process: procreation. That is generally the context in which children are taught about sexual intercourse. They are not first taught about the sexual pleasure that derives from it, because that would only make them curious at an early age. I can easily see how a child who wasn't "born that way" might engage in anal sex anyway, since that is how daddy1 and daddy2 enjoy sex.
What’s my point???? My point was responding to your continual association of anal sex with excrement and the damage children would experience if they heard about it.
You can easily see how a child wasn’t “born that way” might engage in anal sex anyway?? Exactly what are you saying, here? Are you saying that you think children of gay parents might be inclined to experiment with homosexuality due to their parents? Is this your real issue?
I said:
But aside from that, since when do we base our decisions about how to raise children on what is easy to explain and understand?
Kevin’s response:
You're playing dumb again. Why? You are smart enough to know what I am saying here. There is a clear difference.
I’m not “playing dumb”. I am trying to figure out exactly what your issue is with gay parents. You keep insinuating that children are going to suffer some serious psychological damage because their parents don’t have sex in the “normal” way (your words, not mine). Normal = heterosexual, of course.
Here’s what you said:
The only beef I have is when they want to start adopting children. I mean that is taking it beyond the privacy arena. In private quarters I don't care if you want to screw doughnuts and sheep. Two people can do whatever they want with each other sexually, as long as they both consent to it. But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are born "that way" and an adopted child wasn't born that way? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?
What is strange to me is that when I follow up with questions that naturally follow this statement of yours, you accuse me of playing dumb. So if the difficult of explaining the situation has nothing to do with your point, why did you even bring it up??
In specific response to this part of your assertion:
What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?
I said:
First, unless the gay couple with the adopted child are living on an island without any access to a larger culture, even with having gay parents, the children are still going to be exposed to mainly heterosexual pair bonding. Our entire culture reflects this. The mass media reflects this. Thinking that the child of gay parents won’t know how to “adapt to a romantic relationships they have never seen in their home” is bizarre, given the facts about our larger culture, to say nothing of the fact that your reasoning should also prohibit single people (divorced or never married) from raising children.
Kevin said:
I think you are deflecting this through naiveté.
That is no answer at all.
You specifically said that the “psychological torture” would be the result of adapting to a romantic relationships they’ve never seen in their home. First, they would have seen a “romantic relationship” in their home. What they’ve never seen in their own home is a romantic heterosexual relationship. So the things that have to do with negotiating a relationship outside of sex have been demonstrate for them in their home. In fact, they’ve seen more about adapting to a romantic relationship than the children of divorced or single parents, or parents with severe sexual hang-ups. That is exactly why I responded as I did. Your only response is to accuse me of being naïve. Sorry, it looks and smells like a dodge to me.
Sure I can imagine it. And unlike most here, I can also imagine the negative impact that might have on a child. Saying that's part of life and we shouldn't "base our decisions about how to raise children on what is easy to explain and understand" is just ignoring the fact that gay adoption creates a potential psychological stumbling block for a child. Is it enough to deny parents the right to adopt? Apparently not. Should it be? I don't know. But I do know prospective parents have been rejected for far less.
I was only going by your own words when you said:
I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me.
Ok, now you said you can, actually, imagine it, but it would have a negative impact. I keep trying to figure out exactly what that negative impact you imagine is, and you’re not helping clarify it. Is it because the child will be teased? Is it because of learning about anal (or oral) sex? What, exactly, is the negative impact?
Sure, why not? The kid doesn't have to watch the parents doing it. They just have to understand how and why paired adults would or could.And of course, adopted children will most likely have to learn about how his or her adopted mother was unable to have children of her own. This doesn't present a "problem" though. It provides an explanation as to why they were adopted.
But this is exactly what I would reply to you about your concern regarding gay parents. They don’t have to watch the parents doing it. They are most like not going to manifest any curiosity about their parent’s sex life beyond: EWWWW.
So the fact that you think celibate or seriously sexually dysfunctional parents could explain sex without problems, yet you draw the line at homosexuals, leads to the natural question: WHY? Why is it so different for the gay parent?
You really have not answered this yet. You may think you have, but you haven’t. Each of the answers you’ve given, you’ve also deflected later.
In regards to the teasing:
It doesn’t appear that teasing is your primary concern. Actually, the best example I should have used is that kids will be teased if their parents are FAT. And this continues through the teen years. Should fat people be disallowed from adopting? (I also have no idea why you qualified that some teasing would only happen under the age of 8… as if that teasing has no negative impact??)
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Gay parents are more planned than heterosexual parents? That makes no sense to me. As if Gay couples never act spontaneously.
Kevin, geez. Any adoptive parent, gay or straight, is
forced to plan parenthood. How is this not obvious to you? An adoptive parent doesn’t get drunk one night, forget the birth control, and nine months later welcome a new member into their family. D’oh!
Please help me out. What, exactly, is the psychological damage done to children of gay parents??
It’s apparently not that they grow up in a home without a model of a “romantic” heterosexual relationship, because you don’t think that children of celibate, single parents or parents with severe sexual hang-ups are “tortured” in the same way.
It’s apparently not that the child will be teased.
My growing suspicion is that your objection to gay parenting is that the children may be more likely to experiment with gay sex. Is that what it boils down to? Is the rest of this stuff smoke and mirrors?
The sad state of parentless children is the best argument for allowing homosexual adoption. But then again, why stop there? Why are so many potential parents rejected when it is also obvious the kids have a better chance with them than being adopted by the government?
The obvious answer is that the more people there are in the pool of prospective parents, the better chances of all children to be adopted will be.
http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html Author(s): Gary Gates, Lee M.V. Badgett, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber, Kate Chambers
Other Availability: PDF | Printer-Friendly Page
Posted to Web: March 27, 2007
Permanent Link:
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411437The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Abstract
Discussion and debate about adoption and foster care by gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) parents occurs frequently among policymakers, social service agencies, and social workers. Three states currently restrict GLB people from adopting and more are considering similar policies. This report provides new information on GLB adoption and foster care from several government data sources. It offers a demographic portrait of the estimated 65,500 adopted children and 14,100 foster children living with gay and lesbian parents. It also assesses the costs to child welfare systems of proposed bans on allowing GLB people to foster.
The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.
Executive Summary
Discussion and debate about adoption and foster care by gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) parents occurs frequently among child welfare policymakers, social service agencies, and social workers. They all need better information about GLB adoptive and foster parents and their children as they make individual and policy-level decisions about placement of children with GLB parents. This report provides new information on GLB adoption and foster care from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004).
Currently half a million children live in foster care in the United States and more than 100,000 foster children await adoption. States must recruit parents who are interested and able to foster and adopt children. Three states currently restrict GLB individuals or couples from adopting. Several states have or are considering policies that would restrict GLB people from fostering.
Recent government surveys demonstrate that many lesbians and gay men are already raising children, and many more GLB people would like to have children at some point. We estimate that two million GLB people have considered adoption. Since prior research shows that less than one-fifth of adoption agencies attempt to recruit adoptive parents from the GLB community, our findings suggest that GLB people are an underutilized pool of potential adoptive parents.
The report provides estimates of the number of adopted and fostered children of lesbians and gay men and describes the demographic characteristics of parents and children. We compare gay and lesbian parents and their adopted and fostered children to parents and children in other family arrangements, including married and unmarried different-sex couples and single parents (who might be heterosexual or GLB). While GLB parents are similar in many ways to other kinds of parents, we identify several differences in the key findings below.
The report concludes with an assessment of how proposed bans on allowing GLB individuals and couples to foster might affect foster care systems and fostered children. We estimate the possible financial cost to states if they were to limit or deny GLB people the ability to foster, which could displace 9,000 to 14,000 children if pursued nationally. And while we cannot measure costs to children directly, we explore prior research suggesting that displacing children from their current foster homes may have harmful effects on the children’s development and well-being. The report closes with implications of this research for policymakers.
Key Findings
· More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
· More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
· An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
· An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
· More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
· Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
· Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
· Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
· An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
· Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
· A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
· Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million.
