DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Gee, every couple that I know who adopted was on an extended waiting list. Maybe they have to be gay to be routed to the head of the line?
Gay Adoption banned in Arkansas - Kids get ripped from foster homes
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
C
Cancel3
Guest
Did the people you know take the sick kids, the abused kids or the black kids?
Or did they want the infants with blonde hair & blue eyes?
Because there are kids who need homes and parents.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, they took whatever they could get. Nice try withe the race baiting though.
Until there is a shortage of married, stable, heterosexual couples with financial means, then the kids should go to these parents. Set up a ranking system and put the best scores at the head of the waiting list. Give the kids the best parents available; they deserve it.
What criteria would you use?
What if there were, say, a homosexual couple who were rich enough to send the kids to any college they were able to get into, and were going to pass on millions to them. We'd compare them to a mid-range hetero couple who could afford many colleges but not ivy leagues and elites... whose 401K would run out just as they were dying.
Which would you send the kids to?
C
Cancel3
Guest
I was not race baiting, I was repeating what child advocates and children's services people have reported many, many times. Black kids are difficult to get adopted. And children with health issues are even tougher.
According to the US Dept of Human Resources, there are 129,000 kids awaiting placement. So unless they are lying about the numbers, now is NOT the time to cut back on people who can adopt.
C
Cancel3
Guest
The facts I found showed that 129,000 kids are awaiting placement. In FY 2006 there were 51,000 kids placed with families.
So more than half the kids don't get placed.
So more than half the kids don't get placed.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I listed four criteria in order of my preference. If I thought about it some more I could come up with more. Put some family councilors together and comb through data on what types of parents turn kids into happy, successful adults. Compare that with the ones that make Ted Bundys. Make a weighted spreadsheet. Its not rocket science.
C
Cancel3
Guest
What you said was "Until there is a shortage of married, stable, heterosexual couples with financial means, then the kids should go to these parents".
Married is good, but a stable COUPLE is just as good, regardless of marital status. And the heterosexual part is not proven out by research to be any part of good parenting. There have been numerous studies that showed gay parents raised their kids just as well.
Financial means? Are you saying only rich people can adopt or are you saying they have to be able to support the child?
And just in case you missed the numbers, in 2006 there were 129,000 kids waiting for a home. In 2006 51,000 were placed. So 78,000 kids were still waiting.
There is already a shortage of parents for these kids. If the person wants to adopt and is a stable person, let them adopt.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'd like to see the data, and how much of the delay is caused by bureaucracy. I suppose a lot of it is simply due to background checks, required study, testing, and to simply avoid couples "impulse buying". Shit, it took me something like 12 weeks just to get a permit to carry a handgun concealed.
I'm advocating that the best suited parents get placed at the head of the line. If a kid can't get picked and someone who's stable and can provide is near the end of the line wants him, then so be it.
It sounds very arbitrary and strict. Like the "zero tolerance" rules at schools where the kid who accidentally grabs his mother's bag lunch instead of his own gets expelled because it had a paring knife.
C
Cancel3
Guest
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm
Yes, it takes a long time to adopt a child. There are things that MUST be checked out, after all this is a child's life.
But we are not talking about minor delays. We are talking about tens of thousands of children who have no real home. Taking potential parents out of the mix simply because of marital status or because they are gay is damn sure not protecting the child.
This was done to make people feel better, not to actually help the kids.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Marriage is a sign of stability.
I'm sure there have been studies showing just about everything. It depends who paid for the study, doesn't it. When little Sally's having girl problems, either one of her dad's ain't gonna be able to handle the situation. Same with little Johnnie and his two Mom's. That's just plain common sense.
I'll give you some examples. My wife is a very intelligent person. Her IQ is nearly as high as mine, but she has a memory that I can't begin to match. She's got professional training and experience in Psych. Sometimes my son does something that she can't figure out at all, but when she tells me about it, I instantly know how to handle it. The difference is that I've lived through it- I've been there. Sometimes my daughter does something that completely stumps me, and I hand her over to my wife, who has a completely different perspective.
These kids deserve the best that society can give them. And the best always involves a stable, married, heterosexual couple.
I think your stats ignore the fact that there are kids going into the system and coming out at the same time.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What's arbitrary about it? The existing system that lets gays adopt ahead of a straight couple seems to be arbitrary.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
From your link:
Only 23% were actually looking for adoption. No wonder there are so many kids "looking for adoption", as you put it.
If we're going to have a discussion please keep it rational and above-board.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Plenty of single fathers handle their daughter girl problems.
My kids were 8, 9, and 11 when my wife and I divorced. I raised them as a single Dad for 2 years. My wife and I worked out her having custody from the time they were 10, 11, & 13. Those 3 kids all graduated with honors. They all went straight to college. And none of them ever had any displinary problems in school. And the last 8, 7, & 5 years they lived at home they were raised by a lesbian couple.
The sexuality of the parents has not been shown to have ANY effect, negative or positive, on the children. It is the love shown that makes or breaks a kid.
As far as ignoring the kids going in and out, how can that make it any better?
In 2006 there were 129,000 kids waiting to be placed. 51,000 were placed. The fact that 51k went out of the system doesn't help the 78,000 kids left get placed. And more kids are brought in all the time.
C
Cancel3
Guest
From the same site.
"How many children were waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2006? 129,000
NOTES: Waiting children are identified as children who have a goal of adoption and/or whose parental rights have been terminated. Children 16 years old and older whose parental rights have been terminated and who have a goal of emancipation have been excluded from the estimate."
How about getting all the info before you accuse someone of playing false with the numbers.
There were 129,000 kids awaiting placement.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Of the 51k kids that were adopted, here is some interesting info:
What is the family structure of the child’s adoptive family?
Married Couple
69%
35,278
Unmarried Couple
2%
857
Single Female
26%
13,370
Single Male
3%
1,496
So in 2006, of that 51,000 that were adopted, 15,723 of them were adopted by unmarried couples, single women or single men.
In other words, 30% of those adopted in 2006 wouldn't have been adopted under Arkansas' new rules.
Which means instead of 51,000 being adopted, there would have been only 35,278 adopted. And instead of 78,000 left, there would have been almost 94,000 kids waiting for adoption.
What is the family structure of the child’s adoptive family?
Married Couple
69%
35,278
Unmarried Couple
2%
857
Single Female
26%
13,370
Single Male
3%
1,496
So in 2006, of that 51,000 that were adopted, 15,723 of them were adopted by unmarried couples, single women or single men.
In other words, 30% of those adopted in 2006 wouldn't have been adopted under Arkansas' new rules.
Which means instead of 51,000 being adopted, there would have been only 35,278 adopted. And instead of 78,000 left, there would have been almost 94,000 kids waiting for adoption.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But its not the ideal, is it?