BS: 'Gay' parents?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 07:47 PM

It appears that Ake is not interested in facts, only in airing his fears. Ake, please don't get all self righteous here. We - every single one of us - wants to keep children safe as much as you do - yours is not the only view in how to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 08:58 PM

Exactly Ebbie. Well said.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John P
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 11:52 PM

flamenco ted,
When you talk about two heterosexual men being foster parents to a young girl, are you talking about a real-world situation or are you making up a hypothetical question? If the later, why bother? We'll deal with it when it happens. If the former, are you supposing that these two guys are forming a single economic and social unit? Being a family, in other words? Or are they roommates? Are they both signing the adoption papers, or what? Really, your question has too many possible variables to be talked about coherently.

Akenaton,
Sorry, dude, it's you that's obsessed with the homosexual act. I don't think about it at all unless someone like you starts spreading your uninformed opinions around and I get sucked into a conversation about it before I figure out they're too set in their ways to even bother defending their posts. If you think you're not obsessed with the homosexual act, why did you start a thread about people who are only different than you in that they sleep with members of the same sex? How about another substitution game: everywhere you said "homosexual" in your first post, just say "people who sleep with members of the same sex".

I ask you yet again, how is this whole thread not about the homosexual act?

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:11 AM

John P,
       Nice smokescreen sir! You deflected my question rather well there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 04:40 AM

Apologies to all..

"As I've said before, I hope I am wrong, but I think before too long most of you will have cause to eat your words"

Should have read

As I've said before, I hope I am wrong, but I think before too long most of you will have FURTHER cause to eat your words...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 04:56 AM

Ebbie...It appears by what has been written here, that those employed in the "Social services" are more concerned in keeping their JOBS safe than CHILDREN.

Its a case of "dont rock the boat we may fall in the water"

Here in the UK we see daily examples of Social services abdicating responsibility. Children abused murdered tortured while under "care" and when the truth finally surfaces no one is ever to blame, just sent away for another spot of re-training.

Money does not seem to be a problem here as New Labour have opened the purse strings for political reasons, but has seemed to compound the problem in that no one wants to lose a lucrative job by rocking the PC boat....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 05:12 AM

What this whole thread comes down to is the simple question:

Are homosexuals more likely to be actively paedophile than heterosexuals?

That's answerable only by study of the evidence- proper study, not swapping of anecdotes or linking to fundamentalist hate sites. Until someone comes up with at least a search of the respectable academic literature, the thread is worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 06:47 AM

I agree with the bit about study of evidence, Paul, but I am not sure that it is the whole point of the thread. Ake may have started it with that in mind but it does open up other issues.

We all know that there are no rules to becoming natural parents apart from the usual biological ones so we do get all sorts of unfit people becoming natural parents. What we can do is make very tight and stringent rules about who gets to adopt or foster children.

It has been said over and over again that what we should be doing is making sure that the fostering or adoption is in the childs best interest. I am pretty sure that the social services do their best to make sure that anyone wanting to be involved in childcare undergoes a stringent screening before beeing allowed to. What does strike me as odd about this though, and it is here that I realise I may be opening myself up to accusations of homophobia, is that by the most basic premise a same sex couple simply cannot be best suited.

I don't think that anyone will dispute the statement that the best environment to bring up a child in a stable family environment with input from both a mother and a father. Equaly, to ensure that the child does not encounter problems when at school or in later life, as much as possible should be done to protect them from discrimination and bullying. Putting them in an envornment where they are missing one of the major forces in their life and where they may become the subject of scorn or ridicule is not a good idea. And if you want to see examples of how they will become examples of scorn or ridicule you only need to look at some of the posts in this thread.

OK - So the child with same sex parents will not grow up homophobic. There are better ways to teach him that. The child may get as much love as from a hetrosexual couple. But will she ever have the pleasure of sharing a biology with Mum?

We must always have the best interests of the child at heart. We cannot do much about the thousands of children who are born into loveless or disfunctional families. We can make sure that those who are put up for adoption or fostering go into the best pssible environment. That means putting them into an environemnt that is considered right by the majority of people. Not one that is only considered right by a handful. Please don't use children in experiments!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:12 AM

Ake,

   I take it you are in the UK. Are the workers overloaded with cases? Do you know anything about that? I think that your thoughts about social services are unrealistic at best but I am in the US and can only speak for how the services are here. I don't know one social worker here who would knowingly put a child in harm's way, EVER. I do know that the red tape the courts have is PHENOMINAL and sometimes there is nothing a social worker can do except to present information to the judge and she is then bound by law to see it carried through. I once had a case of a little boy who was not yet school age who had been placed in foster care and was thriving. His mother was given a list of parenting courses she must attend and certain goals to meet before her son would be returned to her. As the case worker, I had to transport and supervise all visits this woman had with the young child. She was mean, neglectful and had very little interest in actually taking care of the child. She wanted him at home because she received child support for him and didn't receive it while the child was a ward of the state. I also had the chance to observe his foster home environment on MANY, MANY occassions (think almost daily). The woman completed the list of things the judge mandated that she do and a placement hearing was held. I presented my findings. The judge overlooked the fact that she let the child sleep in a pee soaked bed, that her attentions were elsewhere and a bunch of other things that I can't go into and he returned the child to her care.

Let me tell you, that tore me up. I was sick with worry about this boy and eventually quit my job because I couldn't live with knowingly having placed a child somewhere where I felt he wasn't safe.

Don't talk about social workers not caring or shutting up to not rock the boat...that's not how it is. And making big bucks? Not in the US pal. I could have made more money working at a factory job without the responsibility of someone's life in my hands. As a social worker, I've worked in beyond disgusting conditions, have been given thanks from my clients with offers of homemade tatoos and tickets to an all male review, have had iron grates from a gas stove thrown at me, been kicked, bitten, hit, spit on, snotted on, hair ripped out of my head and had a gun drawn. All but the gun were done by children...don't talk to me about social workers not caring. Just how long would YOU stick it out? What would YOU do to help the children?

None of that matters....I didn't leave my job because of the things in the last paragraph but rather of heartbreak and frustration about having to see a child go somewhere that wasn't safe. Maybe you raise a different breed of social worker in the UK.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:18 AM

DtG,

You wrote:

"OK - So the child with same sex parents will not grow up homophobic. There are better ways to teach him that. The child may get as much love as from a hetrosexual couple."

If it's a loving, safe environment, what's the issue? If indeed there are so many folks out there who have issues with same sex couples fostering a child, why aren't they volunteering to be foster parents? The child may have been placed with a same sex couple (which is sure to get a lot of whining from some) because they were an approved foster home...simple as that. This particular placement was a bad one, I'll give you that BUT it's bad due to the behaviors on individuals, not due to the behaviors of the labelled group.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:52 AM

If it's a loving, safe environment, what's the issue?

None at all from me, Michelle. But a lot of people do have issues with it. Why place a child in any controversial environment if you don't have to? In 30 or 40 or 50 years maybe attitudes will have changed enough for everyone to accept gay partnerships. Maybe technology will give us a way for the child to have a real mum and dad. Until then, as I said before, why experiment with children?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:59 AM

Like I said, perhaps there are not enough "straight" foster homes. Would you rather a child be in a dangerous situation with biologial parents or in a same sex home where the child is safe? It's a no brainer. I don't think it's experimental at all.

I know a family of 2 lesbians and a child. I asked one day, rather boldly, now that Jessie was in daycare and was more active with children who had a mommy and a daddy, how did they explain their living situation to her? What they said made perfect sense to me. They told Jessie that some families have a mommy and a daddy, some families only have a mommy, some only have a daddy, some have 2 mommies and some have 2 daddies...and all of them love their children just the same. What else needs to be said?

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:15 AM

you know - this would have been far less of an issue a couple generations ago when extended families were far more common. It wasn't unusual to find several generations or several couples of one generation sharing a household and responsibility for the young. so the "nuclear family" was less defined.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:30 AM

Like I said, perhaps there are not enough "straight" foster homes.

If you could convince me that was true then I may agree. But I would need a lot of convincing. I know for certain that childcare, in the UK anyway, is under the control of governmental authorities who are obliged to possitively discriminate towards minority groups. The reasons behind possitive discrimination are all very laudable but the reverse of the coin is negative discrimination against the majority. Maybe the reason that there are not enough 'straight' foster homes is that they feel discouraged from participating by that discrimination? I know whenever I get a job application form asking for my race, colour, creed or sexual disposition I always write straight across it "WHAT DOES IT MATTER". Funny thing is I have never had an interview for any of those jobs.

Back to the subject in hand though. I cannot agree strongly enough that same sex couples can be every bit as loving and caring as anyone else. I agree completely with the sentiments of your friends in your last post. Until the majority of people accept and agree that standpoint though we cannot afford to risk moving our children from an environment with one set of problems just to put them in an environment with another. It will come. Only 50 years ago the black people in both our countries did not have the same rights as the white population. In another 50 years, hopefuly less, people will stop being predudicial towards people with a different sexual orientation.

Until that time though I say, once again, that children should not be placed in a situation that can be deemed, by a lot of people, to be anything other than perfectly normal.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:31 AM

good point, MMario.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:44 AM

DtG

".. perhaps there are not enough "straight" foster homes. ..If you could convince me that was true then I may agree."

The Dept of Community Services website in Sydney says: Currently, there is a national shortage of foster carers.

FosterClub USA comments: Between 1984 and 1993, the number of children in foster care has increased by 61 percent, while the number of non-relative foster parents available to care for children steadily declined. The result has been a shortage of foster parents to care for these youth.

This recent article from the Independent says:
Shortage of foster parents leaves children unsettled
By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent; 08 May 2006

A chronic shortage of foster parents means that some children in care are being forced to move up to three times a year, research has shown.
An extra 10,000 foster carers are needed to plug gaps in the service, campaigners say.

Are you convinced, DtG?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:47 AM

Not convinced at all, Freda. Did you read what I said about possitive discrimination?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:08 AM

Sorry - didn't mean to be as dismissive as that last remark came across on a re-read!

I should realy explain how possitive discrimination works. Lets put some figures to it. If, for instance, a representative area of 1 million people has 50% hetrosexual white couples, 30% hetrosexual black couples, 15% homosexual white couples and 5% homosexial black couples then governmental guidlines say that this proporton MUST be reflected in the number of foster parents being 'taken on'. There are very strict rules on this and heaven help the departmental head who breaks them!

So, say we need 100 foster homes. It means that 50 of them must be hetrosexual white. 30 of them must be hetrosexual black. 15 0f them must be homosexual white and 5 must be homosexual black. So far so good?

OK - we have now had the full allocation of 50 hetro white couples. But only 12 hetro white, only 3 homo white and only 1 homo black have applied. Where do we get the rest from? The rules say that, even if there are another 50 hetro white couples waiting they cannot be taken on.

All governments are full of these ridiculous policies. They impose these restrictions for the best of reasons but they seldom work. Before saying that there are not enough people fostering we need a realy hard look at these ludicrous rules.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:10 AM

Sorry again - the 12 hetro white should read 12 hetro black.

Mea culpa.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:12 AM

you can take a horse to water..

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM

No probs, DtG, but here is some more info on the shortage of carers:

(".. perhaps there are not enough "straight" foster homes. ..If you could convince me that was true then I may agree.")


The Borough of Telford & Wrekin held two information days in the town centre to raise awareness of the desperate shortage of foster carers both locally and nationally as part of the celebrations to mark Foster Care Fortnight 2005 (9th May to 22nd May). There is a national shortage of almost 10,000 foster carers, which means that the lives of looked after children are unnecessarily disrupted by moving from home to home. A wider pool of carers would increase the chance of finding the right foster family for the 50,000 children who need fostering on any one day. (from the Telford council website)

Foster Care Fortnight is taking place this year from 8-21 May 2006. It is organised by the National charity, the Fostering Network. The aim is to highlight the shortage of foster carers in the UK. The charity estimates that almost 50,000 children live with foster families on any given day in the UK and that a further 10,000 foster carers are needed. (from the Bristol City Council website)

A chronic shortage of foster parents means that some children in care are being forced to move up to three times a year, research has shown.
An extra 10,000 foster carers are needed to plug gaps in the service, campaigners say. The Fostering Network is calling on the Government to invest an extra £750m in the service to recruit, train and retain more carers. (from the Child Rights Information Network)

The Fostering Network in Scotland is launching Foster Care Fortnight today with news of a shortfall of almost 1,700 foster families across Scotland. ..The survey of 32 local authorities shows that almost one in three (30%) of children and young people in foster care in Scotland are moved more than three times in their first year in foster care. In England the figure is almost one in eight (13%). The survey also shows that one in every four children going into foster care in Scotland will be in a foster family which already cares for four or more children. Six per cent of children will be going into a foster family caring for six or more. This extraordinary situation occurs in Scotland because legislation is not in place to regulate the number of foster placements.

Bryan Ritchie, Director of the Fostering Network in Scotland said:
'These are our most needy children and whilst the foster care service is working miracles everyday we desperately need more people to come forward.'

..Emma Davies, FCA placement officer for the Cymru region, comments; "There is a national shortage of 10,000 foster carers across the UK, with around 750 of these being needed throughout Wales. ..

THE FOSTERING NETWORK IS CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO INVEST AN EXTRA £750M IN THE SERVICE TO RECRUIT, TRAIN AND RETAIN MORE CARERS.

DtG, I think this info demonstrates there is a huge shortage of foster carers in the UK. Looking after kids is a difficult task even with your own children, let alone anyone else's. Social workers dealing with placements are the meat in the sandwich between the needs of the children and the lack of government funding for carers. It's a hard burden to bear.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:37 AM

There aren't enough foster homes in the US at all. There are children being placed in residential centers for lack of foster homes or worse yet, being left at home.

What I find ironic is that children are being placed in foster homes in many situations when the best thing in the world would be to remove the offending adult. Why move the child away from his/her family, home, friends and everything they know and love (when they have done nothing)so abusive daddy can sit at home in his recliner having a beer and watching football? Why not ship the abuser elsewhere, let his/her world be upheaved. It's almost like the kids are being punished twice.

Of course, in some situations, it is a one adult home or maybe both the adults (or more...as I have seen) are the offenders and the child would be left at home alone...that won't work. Still, the offending parties should be moved out too.

Kudos to the UK if there is not a shortage of foster homes....it's not that way here.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:43 AM

Dave,

   I think you are mistaken. Here is a link to the Child Rights Information Network from the UK and an article that states quite the opposite of what you have posted, foster homes are not abundant.

Child Rights Information Network


Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:47 AM

Michelle

my post of 09:34 AM had a quote from that site, and several others, all confirming the huge shortage of foster carers in the UK.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:53 AM

Another thing we're contending with here is that 'Good news is no News'

The Children with foster carers of any ilk who grow up normal won't make the headlines. We wiill only hear about those when either they or their carers do something vile.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST,RB
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:54 AM

Having read this whole discussion, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's much actual consideration of other views (on either side of the discussion) going on, but I feel I should put in my two cents anyway...
1)I was raised by two heterosexuals, but had quite a few gay friends in school (I'm female, and they were lesbians). They never made a pass at me once. They knew I wasn't interested, and frankly, they weren't interested in me that way either. Just as a heterosexual person is not required to make a pass at every person of the opposite gender they see, neither is a homosexual person required to make a pass at every person of the same gender they see. That's just common sense, and I've seen plenty of proof to uphold it.

2)My husband and I were accused by some very bigoted firefighters of harming our child because they happened to see some swords hanging on the walls and candles in the basement. They assumed that we were satanists, and that this naturally meant we were bad parents. Luckily, not only did the social worker follow up on these claims, as absurd as they were, but she had the common sense not to follow the same faulty logic. At least in the US, I think social workers for the most part do as they are supposed to by law, and that is follow up every claim of child molestation or abuse, and investigate it thoroughly, and make a decision based on those observations.
Apparently in this case, those observations were wrong, but as has been mentioned above, pedophiles, like other repeat criminals, are good at covering their tracks.

3)I know a pair of homosexuals who are currently raising a foster child. They are very good and very loving parents with no thought in their heads of ever abusing the child in question (who is the same gender as they are), and in fact ARE a better choice than the biological parents (who are very much unable to raise the child, and uninterested in doing so properly). However, because the court is more interested in the child being with biological relatives than being in a good home, the child will probably end up with the biological parents after all, and will probably be abused and neglected, given their current track record.

4) In response to a much earlier post, Yes, there is a difference between biological parents and foster parents, but I suspect that what you meant was that biological is better. It entirely depends on the situation. Sometimes foster parents are better, no matter what their sexual orientation is. Sometimes they aren't. But I wouldn't make any kind of generalization regarding foster/biological, gay/straight, color of skin, religion, or gender, because it simply isn't something you can generalize about. Every family is different, and every family has its own problems.

5)sure, it's hard to explain to the child or for the child to explain to other children how they come to have two mothers or two fathers instead of the "normal" one of each, but these days it's just as hard to explain how one comes to have two of each or two of one and one of another, or no parents at all but a grandparent. Any of these situations is becoming more and more prevalent, so someday it may be harder for the kid with one of each to explain why that's the case.

Just for clarification, when I say "you", I'm referring to those who don't agree with my viewpoint, of which there seem to be a few.

And I do agree that it's a little silly to complain that people aren't agreeing with you, when you post something this bigoted to a list that is predominantly made up of relatively liberal people. Libertarian is not, in fact, synonymous with Liberal, as I think most of us know.
It's even sillier to say something like that when most of the people here seem to be doing their best to be open-minded and to have a good discussion, rather than a bitch session, despite you occasionally responding in an argumentative rather than discussionary way.
My two cents (or more like 20).
-RB

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:05 AM

I agree - there is a shortage of foster homes. What I am saying is that it is a self imposed shortage. Let the authorities remove the ridiculous quotas they impose and let us see if there is a shortage then. Do you have any figures for how many 'majority' couples are being turned down because the quotas for 'minorities' are not being filled? I doubt that the authorities in question would admit to any but when asked if their quota of minorities is filled they will gleefuly tell you they are!

Let us not move too far from the point though - and it is me that is most guilty of that at the moment! What we need to concentrate on is putting these unfortunate children in consistant, good-quality care. I simply want to point out that while allowing gay couples to adopt and foster can be an option it is, at the moment, far from ideal. You have seen yourselves on this very page peoples attitudes to gay couples.

Imagine that attitude being passed on to the foster children. "Oh, the poor little mites. Fancy them being under the care of those perverts..." Can't you just see it? Sorry, by all means let us try and change this attitude, but don't see gay adoption as the only solution. I believe the system as it stands is very flawed and can easily be mended to find many more carers.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: John P
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:51 AM

Dave,
You seem to be saying that we should make social policy that will protect the closed world view of negatively judgmental people. Should we also prevent black folks from being foster parents to non-black kids? I can easily imagine as much negative feedback from many communities. What about allowing pagans to be foster parents? Don't you think there are many places where most of the community would find that reprehensible?

Did you notice that discrimination against black folks went way down and mostly underground when we finally got some laws passed that made it illegal, and were able to integrate the military? We were suddenly able to raise a generation of kids who didn't find it acceptable to be openly racially bigoted. What would happen if gays were allowed in the military (so potential dads were able to get to know them), were given the full rights of citizenship, and there were laws enforcing equal treatment?

My personal belief is that they should test potential foster and adoptive parents for bigotry. Lets stop raising new ones.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:54 AM

Dave,

Cast your mind back 25 years or so, to the time when the only people allowed to adopt or foster were hetero couples in stable relationships.

Indeed, the time when there were no officially recognised same sex couples, as it was illegal.

There were massive shortages of foster parents, with thousands of children in institutional care all over the country.

Do you really believe that the relaxation of strictures to allow fostering by previously banned individuals brought, in its wake, a sudden huge increase in the number of hetero couples wanting to foster.

I think your (perhaps understandable) misgivings about same sex couples fostering is blinding you to the truth that there have never been enough foster parents available, and what you see as positive discrimination is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 11:17 AM

John and Don. Nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested

- we should make social policy that will protect the closed world view of negatively judgmental people

- that the relaxation of strictures to allow fostering by previously banned individuals

All I said was that I am not convinced by Michelles comment Like I said, perhaps there are not enough "straight" foster homes.

I accept fully that there are not enough foster homes available. What I am saying is that the shortage of "straight foster homes" is down to possitive discrimination and quota restrictions by authorities. If these policies were lifted there may, and I only go as far as may, be more carers available. To use a self imposed shortage as an excuse to explore other avenues is not, in my book, playing fair.

I must say I realy do like the idea of testing for bigotry:-) Perhaps we could expand it as well. As I said earier a child needs a mother and a father. I would not exclude female fathers or male mothers from this! Perhaps we can test for maternal and paternal instincts as well. As long as the child gets a balanced view on life does it realy matter what parent does what? I'm sure there are many mothers out there who are better footballers than their husbands. And plenty of fathers who would love to play with dolls. No, not that sort!

I am still convinced that while homophobia is as rife as it seems to be it is unfair on the child to place them in that situation though:-( Would you be happy to send a child to live on a white farm in Zimbabwe? Or to an Arab settlement in Israel? A bit extreme I know but if you would not subject them to one type of attack why subject them to any?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 11:56 AM

I still think you are missing the point Dave.

Do you agree that children are no more likely to be abused by homosexual carers than by heterosexual, as homosexuals are no more likely to be active paedophiles than straights?

I will certainly agree that children should be given the best possible environment; indeed, I blame my own parents for the inadequate family situatuion, as it didn't leave me sufficient financial independence. I have to work. But there are too few potential carers for all to be perfect. Therefore all we should ask is that they are about as good as the population at large. All the evidence suggests that they are, on the whole, considerably better.

Yes, placing children in care puts them at risk of abuse. That's the way our society is. Leaving other children in their "natural" home also puts them at risk of abuse. Not to mention cases in which physical or sexual abuse is swapped for emotional abuse- remember that there are other ways of damaging a child, just as destructive.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 12:04 PM

Do you agree that children are no more likely to be abused by homosexual carers than by heterosexual

No, not at all, Paul. In fact I said in my opening post that I wasn't sure if this was why the thread was started but it did, to me, open up other questions - Like the ones I have raised. I do however think it is more likely that children brought up by gay parents will be subject to more abuse from other people than those brought up in 'straight' families. Simply because of the fact that their parents are gay. I don't think it fair to place that burden on a child un-necessarily.

And I blame my parents as well. If they had only let me be born rich I am sure I would be doing something better with my time;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 12:10 PM

Sorry - I'm having a bad day aren't I! I missed the 'no' in your question. Which means, yes I do agree. I think. :-~ I'm confused now! What I mean is I believe that there are child abusers on both buses! No more on one than on the other, percentage wise, I would guess.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 12:11 PM

As far as abuse from peers - kids who want to abuse other kids find something to pick on others about regardless of the situation - I've seen kids picked on for:

both following and not following fashion trends;
being a single child,
for NOT being a single child,
for being the youngest in the family,
for being the oldest in the family,
for being the single girl in a family of boys,
for being the child of a single mom,
for being the child of parents who have NEVER been divorced or seperated
for having moved too many times
for having NEVER moved
colour of hair
colour of eyes
colour of their PET!
having a pet
not having a pet

face it - many kids are cruel, vicious beasts. I think they get it from their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 01:04 PM

How about there aren't enough foster homes for the amount of children who need placement? I'm not happy with my "there aren't enough straight homes" comment...because what my point is, is that perhaps a safe placement is a safe placement is a safe placement...I don't agree with your comment about there being a shortage on purpose or the like...homes are sought for children and when they are found, it's a big sigh of relief for everyone involved...foster homes are hard to come by (for many reasons), period. I don't believe and have never run across a situation where a child is being beaten by his biological parents and social services says, Hmmm...sure would be nice to place that kid in a home...too bad we'll have to wait for one of the homosexual placements to open up...it's not a quota kind of thing. If a family has passed all clearances, they are approved to be a foster parent...single, married, living together, gay, straight...whatever...a safe placement of the child is the most important thing.

Michelle

PS. I absolutely agree with Mmario.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 01:26 PM

I thoughtI had made it clear that I don't subscribe to your idea that positive discrimination is the reason for allowing fostering by same sex couples, Dave.

I repeat, the shortage existed before single sex fostering was legal, and I see no evidence to suggest that the removal of single sex households would suddenly bring forth more hetero foster parents. It would IMHO put many children back into institutional care, which has its own history of systematic abuse, as a visit to any newspaper archive will easily confirm.

Children have suffered abuse at times in every conceivable environment, and it is wrong to seize on one case and extrapolate from that the kind of general conclusion you are asking us to accept.

Sorry mate, it just doesn't wash for me.

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 01:49 PM

Aye Dave...You and I have had a few battles in the past, but you've got my point exactly....Just put it over much better than I could.

The Phrase you used was "why experiment with children" and thats what same sex parenting is ...an experiment.
Well I wouldn't have wanted my boys to be part of such an experiment,
and I bet none of the lynch mob would either.

Regarding whether male homosexuals are more likely to abuse children than hetro sexual males, there must be statistics somewhere which takes percentages into account.
Further up the thread some dumbo said that "as there are more "straight" abusers than "gay", straight people should by banned from fostering. As i would guess the ratio of "straight" foster parents to "gay" ones will be in the hundreds to one, this piece of "wisdom" is quite worthless

The fact that homosexual couple, in a very small pool of homosexual foster parents abused children so vilely must say something statistically....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST,Jim
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:01 PM

As DtG said,"I do however think it is more likely that children brought up by gay parents will be subject to more abuse from other people than those brought up in 'straight' families. Simply because of the fact that their parents are gay. I don't think it fair to place that burden on a child un-necessarily."

We could use the same argument for not allowing those with cleft pallets or other disabilities to foster. Do you feel that little people or obese peopleshould be allowed to foster? I feel that because something about foster parents is more likely to subject the child to abuse from bigots is no reason to prevent them from fostering or adopting.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:03 PM

Aaaaarrrgggg! Must be me coz everyone else seems to be reading things into my posts that aren't there! I apologise and assume I am indeed having a bad English day!

Michelle I neither said nor implied that anyone waits for a gay household to become available. The quota thing isn't about placements its about having the same proportions represented as there are sections in the community. Because they do not have enough of one part they cannot recruit any more carers. From any quarter of the community.

Don. My idea isn't that possitive discrimination is the reason for allowing fostering by same sex couples. What I am trying, obviously badly, to get across is that possitive discrimination could be the reason for the shortage in the first place. Like you said yourself, 25 years ago these barriers stopped whole sections of the community becoming carers altogether. When they dropped them what they should have done was encouraged recruitment of carers from the entire gammut of society. What did they do instead? Decide to recruit from specific sections to redress the balance. It just doesn't work does it? Surely this is proven by the shortage. In this day and age of mass marketing and multi media surely they can get the message across that fostering is for everyone. Yet have you ever seen the forms required for fostering?

Yep, you have guessed it. Whole swathes of questions about race, colour, religion and sexual orientation. You know, the type I write "WHAT DOES IT MATTER?" across. It was enough to put me off. I am sure I am not the only one either.

I hope I have made clear what I am saying - If not I think i will have a rest and start again with a new head tomorrow!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:20 PM

Being gay has nothing to do with the propensity to abuse children
A child in a straight foster home with an adult male is much more likely to be abused.
"Sexual abuse of children is almost always committed by men"
Logic dictates then that men should not be allowed to care for children.
the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males.....

Such a display of statistical illiteracy in one thread (though in TIA's case the error may have been made tongue in cheek to expose it).

(1) You should make clear if you speak about absolute numbers or percentages. Absolute numbers are often very misleading. Of course, trivially the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males because there are so much more of them than homosexual males. Trivially true but completely irrelevant (no wonder, Ake didn't feel like pointing out the obvious reasoning error implicit in that statement).

(2) You should not mix up relative risk increase and absolute risk increase. Relative risk increase can be extremely high on a very low absolute level. That error is made (pointed out?) by TIA ("logic dictates then..."). The probability that a child is abused by a male (foster) parent is much higher than it being abuse by a female (foster) parent. That's a relative risk increase by a factor of ten or more. But this alone is not a good basis for a policy if the absolute risk increase is extremely low. In other words, the probability given that a child was abused that the perpetrator was male, is very high. The probability that given a person was male that he'll abuse children is very low.

I see some disputing numbers because they fear if they don't dispute them that a policy they would not wish for would be adopted. These are two extremely different things. One is an argument on the basis of facts and the other is an argument about what should we do knowing facts. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that male homosexual couples are relatively more likely to abuse children (assumed fact). Should follow from that assumed fact that we should generally disallow male homosexual foster parents. Not at all, if the absolute risk increase is still very low.

For instance we still allow males as teachers though we know that the relative risk increase is very high compared to female teachers for the absolute risk increase is still low. By far, most teacher perpetrators (sexual abuse) are males but also by far most male teachers are not perpetrators.

So even a higher relative risk alone is usually not used as a basis for discrimination (in this example, of male teachers). I have seen no good argument from Ake why it should be used in this particular case (male foster couples). But some of the counter argumenters have assumed without good (or any) reason that there is no relative risk increase (Being gay has nothing to do with the propensity to abuse children) at all. The motivation I see for such statements is the fear that if that was wrong a wrong policy would necessarily follow.

There is no good basis for LilyFestre's claim. I link to a fairly recent abstract here. There are several similar data of that kind. But keep in mind that this is on a very low level of absolute risk increase.

There is one counter argument to such data which may or may not convince you: Being homosexual is defined as being attracted to same sex adults. A male abuser of a male child is quite often not interested in adult males. Therefore he is not a homosexual (in the above definition). People using this definition of homosexuality of course can make the statistical claims repeated by Lilyfestre. But such statements are not very helpful in this context. If one would define heterosexuality in a similar way (attracted to other sex adults), some of the statements in this thread also would have to be considered as completely wrong for male heterosexual (in the broader sense) child abusers are often not interested in sex with mature women.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:28 PM

The experimenting with children bit...if you think about it, if you have children, your first child was an experiment...putting a child in a safe home with a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman...whatever, it might not be conventional BUT it doesn't mean it's wrong or those in a same sex relationship can't be good parents. It's not an experiment, it's an alternative to a rotten home...someplace where they can be safe.

So let's try and balance this out....DTG...would you rather see a child who is being beaten, sexually abused or severely neglected stay in such a situation or take the "risk" of putting them in a same sex partnership home? You people are talking in circles and making no sense whatsoever.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:56 PM

would you rather see a child who is being beaten, sexually abused or severely neglected stay in such a situation or take the "risk" of putting them in a same sex partnership home?

That's a complete no brainer - neither. I want to put them into a completely safe environment with no un-nesessary risks at all. Why should the only choices be risky ones? Surely it's that that makes no sense isn't it? It's a bit like saying do you like your children fried or boiled! Give me a real choice and I will be happy to make it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:07 PM

Karen and I have fostered about 40 kids and were at it for about 12 years. We, like many active foster parents eventually suffered from burn-out. We would be back at it again now were it not for health issues, but as those resolve we may start again. We are also adoptive parents and in '96 our family was named as one of the six Outstanding Adoptive/Foster Families in Ohio.....That was nice, but it didn't matter but it was pleasant to be noticed for a good job.   Like social workers, there are far too few foster parents and the best work hard at it and many of them, like Karen and I, burnout.

The foster parents that rarely do well are the ones who believe that love and/or a better home environment with more $$$ will conquer all. Most kids in the system want to go home, even when the home is abusive/filthy/etc.,etc. We loved our kids and some we were sorry to see move on.....others, well, it was party time. I was a foster parent trainer doing training in FDAS and Attachment Disorders, a subject we were all too familiar with. I say all this to offer up that I do know of what I speak and I have put my money where my mouth is.

Foster parents undergo background screening and checks that include things most of us would not normally agree to. We have days and days of initial training and are required 12-36 hours a year to retain a license. All of this can vary from state to state and from agency to agency so some people slip through the cracks....a sad and many times tragic thing. But I never knew people in charge of foster care programs who didn't try to do all within their means to insure good homes/parents.

In my first post I sarcastically suggested that we license biological parents, but were it in my power I would do so. While no amount of testing, screening, and training, would make everyone a competent parent of any sort, the real problems start at the level of the biologic family. Yet our laws still include (even after great changes/advances made in recent years regarding the best interest of the child) lines like, "Parents are entitled to their children as they are their other property." Other property.......Kids and dishware are equals in every state! Isn't that nice now? Christalmighty............

Sadly, it does seem to take an entire village to raise a child but it wouldn't if so many in the village weren't assholes. Ask any social worker though....A great foster placement will not harm a child will it? They will tell you that even if they remove a child for the best of reasons including physical safety, damage is done as soon as the child goes into care. They are now different and we are a herd species. One of our kids was told they could not date a classmate because the clasmate's parent said no....they were a "foster kid." Ain't that some crappola?

But knowing that we try to do our best for the children in care and that means trying to find the best possible home the first time. Kids who move between homes do worse....statistical fact. The real questions are can the home provide the structure and understanding (and discipline and love) for that particular child. And now you come to that point where you do the best with what you have. Sometimes that means a home that is not perfect. But no one that I have ever known places kids in situations where they think the odds for failure are high (forget about abuse)......The best interest of the child is first. For awhile we operated an emergency home to have kids for a few days until the best possible placemment was made.

Sorry.....I'm off topic here.................But this entire topic is ridiculous.   We don't have enough foster families. We don't have enough minority foster families of any sort We don't have enough adoptive families of any sort. What we do have are kids in trouble and in danger and laws that still remain archaic at best. We have a social service system that is overloaded and underfunded and a jackass in Washington who knows zip about it. At the state and municipal level we have some good people but still too many local judges and other politicos interpreting what they think is in the best interest. Most of them have never seen the trenches from the trench level and are of no real help.........four juvenile judges in my county, only one worth a damn.

Gay/Striaght/African/Asian/Indian/Blue Eyed/Brown Eyed........I don't care. Can they do the job?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:16 PM

bravo! Bravo! bravissimo!

Molto bravissimo!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:24 PM

Nice to know the poltico's of all nations have one thing in common, spaw. They are all idiots!

And I cannot fault a word you say. The cause of the shortage is political - Perhaps not exactly in the way I suggest, though I still say that is part of it, but political all the same.

Thanks for injecting a modicum of common sense. Now will you bugger of and do some farting like usual:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:01 PM

Onya 'Spaw.
The cause of the shortage is political, it's also because its a demanding, burnout job, and it has nothing to do with positive discrimination.

There is no evidence that a policy of positive discrimination has anything to do with the shortage of foster parents.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:52 PM

On the nosey Wolfgang!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 01:08 AM

Bush's pet "Head Start" is slowly in decline bacause it hasn't received any budget increases, I believe for a couple years running now. So as the cost go up so don't the cuts. So much for underfunding "No Child Left Behind". It's not just about child education, it's not just about child welfare & it's not just about child protection, it's about not putting the freeze on children now & thawing them out later.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 03:48 AM

Dave : "The cause of the shortage is political ".

Disagree. The shortage is because most parents know that foster care is a very difficult task in many cases. I never even considered it, as I lack the necessary skills, and would have feared the possible harm to my own children. Children needing fostering are often badly damaged, and their behaviour can be almost intolerable.

It's not surprising that there is a shortage, and that only strongly- motivated people will apply to do it. It's the job of the agencies to decide whether that motivation is truly parental love, or whether other motivations like financial gain or sexual predation are involved.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' parents?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 04:47 AM

I am still convinced that the politics of the situation, both lack of support and possitive discrimination, are adding to the shortage but I will also accept Paul's point. One thing we can all agree on though. There is a shortage. Remember that I started on this road originaly saying that I would need some convincing that there is not enough 'straight' foster homes? Well, I am duly convinced that there are not enough foster homes. I am still not convinced however that the word 'straight' has anything to do with it. I still also know that positive discrimination plays a big part in deciding who is employed by government agencies. I have been there, done that and bought the T-shirt. It is one of the reasons I left local governmnet in 1976. I have seen no evidence that anything has got any better since.

Cheers

DtG