Gay Parents: Less Than Optimal?by Nicki Bradley | More from this Blogger 12 Feb 2006 11:57 AM Ohio legislators are trying to make their mark with a newly proposed bill aimed at restricting homosexual or bi-sexual adults from foster parenting or adopting children. Although this bill is not likely to pass, it still gives reason to pause and consider: should homosexual adults be allowed to parent? Studies, it is said, have shown that the "optimal" environment in which to raise a child is one with a mother and a father. These studies have come under fire for their accuracy. But let's, for a moment, say they are accurate. How many children of straight parents are raised in such "optimal" environments? Divorce rates are enormous, subsequent divorce rates after the first are even higher. Many straight parents are raising their children alone. And in many situations, the children fare better from having a healthy divorced family than they did in an abusive, intact (but straight) family. Optimal is not realistic. Should we also ban single parenthood? Divorced parenthood? Of course not. The solution is not to strive for what is optimal but to alter society to accept what is realistic and provide support and resources for what we have, not what we think would be ideal. If what we have is a large number of homosexual adults who crave parenthood, let's provide resources to make that possible. If what we have are parents who are single and raising their children alone, let's provide resources to make that possible. An aspect that rarely gets mentioned in the "gay parenting" controversy is that when a homosexual adult chooses to parent it is an active choice. It is a well-researched, well-thought-out, much-planned-for and sometimes very financially costly choice. Compare that to the millions of unplanned pregnancies that occur every year to married, straight individuals that society fully embraces as "meant to be". The parents may not have the financial means to support a(nother) child, the parents may not have the emotional stability to handle a "surprise" to their family and marriage, they may not be prepared to give up what they have to undertake the gruelingly self-less job of raising a child. But they are still considered the "optimal"? Does this seem way off base to anyone else? The bottom line, here is that the children should be our first priority. Is it really more vital that a child grow up in the foster care system than grow up in a happy home with a loving parent or two, regardless of the gender? Learn more about Nicki Bradley ![]() I live in the suburbs of Detroit and I'm happily re-married with six children (3 his, 2 mine, 1 ours) ranging in age from 3.5 to 12. Relevantparenting tags User Comments Marily (836) 15 Feb 2006 07:36 AMYour viewpoint did get me thinking. Still, the facts are (I've done the research) that children do better with a mother and a father. If THAT is the goal, then we should be working towards strengthening marriage and families, and NOT expanding the definition of family. You use the same criteria when comparing straight parents to gay parents, when the fundamental difference, of course, is that the gay parents cannot have children of their own. (Actually, most children raised by homosexuals come from divorced parents--meaning the parent with custody was previously in a heterosexual marriage. Only a small percentage of homosexuals have actually adopted other children.) Whenever someone wishes to adopt, they are definitely scrutinized. You CAN and SHOULD prevent someone from adopting children if they are not deemed adequate. You CANNOT prevent someone from having a child if they physically are able to. Adoption is a totally different ballgame. A teenage girl would not be allowed to adopt a child, although no one can BAN her from getting pregnant and having a child exept herself--it's just impossible. Jody Moreen (3274) 15 Feb 2006 11:53 AMAs an adopted person I agree with Marily that children do better with a mother and father. And I also agree with her that we should be focused on strengthening families and not expanding the definition of family that God ordained. I often hear the debate of how messed up marriages are and dysfunctional and yet I have observed that homosexual unions face the same relational stresses, struggles and failed relationships. I have a brother-in-law who is gay and he has been in and out of relationships for the last 30 years- has had 4 partners.My husband and I have been married for 28 years. And many of my brother-in-laws former partners have been through a revolving door of relationships. I don't perceive stability in this for adopted children. As an adoptee there are enough emotional hurdles to climb. I was adopted into a loving family with a mom and dad who were married 55 years before my father passed away. Even in light of that I had many questions of identity and why someone would chose to place me for adoption. Adoptees, like most children, do not want to be "different" and adoption was different and at times I felt the sting of it. And to add on the stigma of being adopted and having gay parents ads more issues, confusion and judgement from outsiders (and especially if the partners separate or change -more loss issues for the adoptee) I don't care how you slice it, there is alot of prejudice against gay unions and the child is going to feel the pressure of this and confusion as they grow up- cannot be escaped in society. I am so glad I did not have that added hurdle of identity issues and sorting out issues of my parent's union or marriage! I felt so much stability in my family and no added stigma due to my parent's marriage.I also did not have to wrestle as a teen, young adult with my own sexual identity in light of my parents choices, our Christian faith and society's responses. Aimee Amodio |
Parents categories |