Utah Judge Removes Foster Child (pending adoption) From Home Because Parents are Lesbian

a reply to: Metallicus

i'm not arguing, i'm asking why you know for a fact a "Traditional" family is better?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I believe that there is an inherent advantage to the traditional male and female role models when it comes to raising a child. I am sure being gay you have a different opinion than mine.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Darth_Prime

I believe that there is an inherent advantage to the traditional male and female role models when it comes to raising a child. I am sure being gay you have a different opinion than mine.

Well, I think group marriage would be healthier for kids, but like you, it's just an opinion.

The kids don't care. They care what makes them feel safe.

a reply to: stuthealien

they have their own kids already,
so they do not actually need the other kid to make their life complete,

How could you possibly know their minds and their hearts that you could say with confidence what they need or don't need in their life??...

the child with a baronless couple would not have to compete for affection in a already extended family,so for that reason i fully support this decision,give the child to a couple who have NO children

I have 12 siblings. My family is known for our affection towards each other.

Some are Foster and adopted as well!

a reply to: Metallicus

I believe that there is an inherent advantage to the traditional male and female role models when it comes to raising a child.

As long as a child is raised with love,tollerance and compassion the gender of the parent makes absolutely no difference what so ever

a reply to: starfoxxx

Why is it everytime a lesbian or gay couple get together its always this PERFECT utopian loving parents.

Such hyperbole.

Anyone can be a terrible parent. Doesn't matter the orientation. We are all just people.

In the case of the OP that doesn't appear to be the case.

The child was being fostered it was NOT ADOPTED yet!

It's not uncommon at all for children to be fostered prior to adoption in the same family. I don't see your point there. Also the child is not an "it".

a reply to: Metallicus

I believe that there is an inherent advantage to the traditional male and female role models when it comes to raising a child.

I have a very well-off friend around my age (early thirties). Great personality, great career, caring person, and with his own loving family [he's heterosexual btw]. He was raised by his two mothers.

No one meets him and thinks he must have had bad parenting or some lack therein.

I just haven't personally experienced anything that would lead me to support what you're driving at.

I would have loved to have been taken in by anyone period that wanted a child, no matter their race, sexual orientation etc. Instead I got placed with a heterosexual christian couple, my grandparents, who felt forced to take me in. The felt they were to old, and not up for the task of raising a child. I would have rather gone to someone who wanted kids.

This couple wants to raise this child. They are going to be far better parents than someone who is just doing it for the money, or because they feel obligated.Many foster parents out there just do it for the money, but their heart isn't into it. What if a place like that is where the little girl is placed next?

Since the real issue here ought to be what is best for the child, perhaps we should be looking at he actual data, instead of assuming the judge is either right or wrong based on personal opinion. As it happens, the data supports his statement.

Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, but research draws fire from experts

Traditional Marriage is Best for Rearing Children

Adult Children of Parents in Same-Sex Relationships Report Varied Outcomes

It's also shown that a study claiming children were supposedly better off with homosexual parents is flawed.

Analysis: New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better Read more at www.christianpost.com...

So, assuming that the judge is in the wrong, simply because of personal opinion, isn't really valid. If he was citing this data, and acted based on that, then his decision is legal.

That said, the guy does seem to have some serious issues, such as are listed in the article linked in the OP. So, it is also possible that he did allow personal opinion to sway his decision.

By the same token, a lot of judges that side with opposing opinions do this all the time, and they are applauded for it. So, there is a bit of a double standard.

Maybe everyone demanding equal treatment needs to understand that equal applies to people that disagree with them as well. You can't have it both ways. If one side is told they are not entitles to their beliefs, by the same people claiming their rights are being violated, well, that would be some serious hypocrisy.

And, before you accuse me of all sorts of nasty things, I am not alone in seeing some double standards. This homosexual author sees a few himself.

I Am So Done With The Trans Outrage Brigade: Why I’m Supporting ‘Drop The T’

Not exactly related to this issue, but it shows there is disagreement in a lot of areas.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You know others can also do what you do and find links to support their own arguments. In fact this study says children of same sex couples do no worse than those in traditional marriages.

www.theage.com.au...

A December 2013 paper by Swinburne University of Technology sociologist Dr Deborah Dempsey reviewing the Australian and international literature concludes "children in same-sex parented families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families".

One hand-wringing exception to all the reassuring research was the 2012 US New Family Structures Study, which found harm for same-sex parented adults. But after family studies scholars reviewed the paper, the Australian Institute of Family Studies declared it would be "false" to say the rebel study was cause for alarm: the study defined "same-sex parenting" too loosely to be of analytical use, and the vast majority of participants were not experiencing poor wellbeing.

I've know children from supposed upstanding traditional families who have experienced trauma and abuse. I'd rather have my kid in a home where it will be loved than any archaic notion of a 'traditional' family.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Debate on whether same-sex parenting was in a child's best interest was something that was deliberated on between experts when they were coming to a decision about same-sex marriage recently. Apparently the Supreme Court decided it wasn't an issue.

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Parents

Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.Direct link to report.

The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children “indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,” Siegel and Perrin write. If you might expect parents to say that, consider their kids’ testimony: “The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.” link to study source

Siegel and Perrin’s report also cites three studies done in the United States and Europe—two involving lesbian mothers and the third one involving men and women whose adult children reported they’d had a parent involved in a same-sex relationship. Those studies similarly found no difference in outcomes for the children as compared with children of heterosexual parents.

C hildren of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows

children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.

Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population. Direct link to study

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You are missing the point. Even if there was conclusive evidence that children raised gay households did wad worse (and there isn't) that wouldn't justify the decision unless it showed that this was a factor that overwhelmed all other circumstances such stability of relationship, ability of family to financially support yhe child etc.
The decision should have bern made based on the individual circumstances (that is the point of having a court decide)
The fact that the judge citied flawed and inclusive research about general results suggests that this was not the case.
As for your last link the fact that it is possible to be gay and transphobic is neither news nor relevant.
I still feel no need to be tolerant of intolerance.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Metallicus

I believe that there is an inherent advantage to the traditional male and female role models when it comes to raising a child.

I have a very well-off friend around my age (early thirties). Great personality, great career, caring person, and with his own loving family [he's heterosexual btw]. He was raised by his two mothers.

No one meets him and thinks he must have had bad parenting or some lack therein.

I just haven't personally experienced anything that would lead me to support what you're driving at.

I am sure that there are going to be individual cases where the gay parents are good parents. Certainly there are many cases where the heterosexual parents are bad parents. Regardless I don't support this judge's position. I simply believe that traditional gender roles are the best environment for a child to grow up in, but I am sure any loving environment will do for the child.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you one of those who believe that gay parents will create gay kids?

If so..I would really love to hear why straight parents also create gay kids..

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

The child was being fostered it was NOT ADOPTED yet!

It's not uncommon at all for children to be fostered prior to adoption in the same family.

What does that have to do with ME being right?
Parents FOSTERING a CHILD (theeeee chiiiiillreeeen OMG)
DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE PARENTING rights, and can be taken away at anytime!

a reply to: starfoxxx

As I said before, I don't see your point here.

(theeeee chiiiiillreeeen OMG)

What?

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
May have to move to UTAH
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: starfoxxx

As I said before, I don't see your point here.

The point is I am right and all your other hyperbole means nothing..
A child being fostered can be taken away at ANYTIME,
AND the people fostering them gay or straight do not have full parenting rights.
So the judge had every right lawfully to take them away because HE CAN AT ANYTIME!!

a reply to: starfoxxx

You were very much being hyperbolic. Which was concerning the other half of your post. I know how foster care works. I was raised in that environment.

As for the lawfulness. The Governor of Utah disagrees.

“I’m a little puzzled by the action down there, personally,” Herbert said during his monthly KUED news conference, according to the Tribune. “[The judge] may not like the law, but he should follow the law. … We don’t want to have activism on the bench in any way, shape or form.” source

We shall see how it plays out.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Think you may need to research Mark Regnerus and who funded his research, which was funded to the tune of nearly $800,000 by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

COMPROMISED PEER REVIEW

Regnerus submitted his study for review in February 2012. He told the Social Science Research Editor James D. Wright he was looking for a speedy review in order to beat a report from the funders detailing the study’s results. At Wright’s request, Regnerus submitted a list of potential reviewers, which is commonplace at many sociology journals. Wright, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida, then went to scholars and asked for a two- to three-week turnaround, which is largely unheard of in the world of scholarly peer review; because scholars are often university professors or have busy schedules, they are given several months to review the paper. Wright secured the reviews that came in quickly and the paper was accepted for publication within six weeks, published just a few months later. The other articles published in that same issue of Social Science Research were submitted, on average, at least a year before.

But it turns out that two out of the three peer reviewers who green-lighted the paper for publication were connected to the study.

Records also show that Wilcox, who also sits on Social Science Research’s editorial advisory board, had the idea to pitch Regnerus’ paper to Wright because he was a friend of the late Steven Nock, a sociologist out of the University of Virginia, who testified against legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada in 2001. In his written testimony, Nock criticized the standing, mostly favorable, research on same-sex marriage. He described it as fatally flawed because most of the studies used small, convenience sampling, rather than a large national random sample study measuring the outcomes of the children of gay couple parents – which is what the New Family Structures Study had claimed to be.

Why is the New Family Structures Study controversial?

The study is controversial because of its methodological flaws, how it was financed, its clear anti-same-sex-marriage motivations, and the suspiciously fast and sloppy way it was published in a peer review journal.

Who has spoken out against this study?

Many journalists criticized Regnerus’s study when it was first published – journalists from mainstream, liberal, and conservative publications. For example, while The Weekly Standard ran a cover story depicting the heavy criticism against Regnerus’ study as a witch hunt, senior editor Andrew Ferguson still criticized the study for its sampling weaknesses and acknowledged that the study has been misrepresented by allies to the Witherspoon Institute. Criticisms from the sociology community have similarly abounded. Shortly after the study was published, Gary J. Gates, a distinguished scholar at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute, organized an open letter signed by more than 200 researchers, excoriating Regnerus’ paper and asking that Social Science Research invite scholars with an expertise in LGBT family research to submit a detailed critique of the paper in the subsequent issue of Social Science Research. In the fall, Laurie Essig, an associate professor of sociology and women’s and gender studies at Middlebury College in Vermont launched a Facebook group called Sociology for the Public Good and organized about 80 sociologists to demand that Social Science Research retract the study. Both the American Sociological Association and the American Psychological Association have condemned Regnerus’ study for its flaws.

Who has defended this study?

The major religious right groups in the U.S. – many of which are have ties to the Witherspoon Institute – immediately promoted and defended the study, including the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, NOM’s Ruth Institute, the Liberty Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, and, of course, the Witherspoon Institute. On June 20, 2012, 18 social scientists posted a defense of Regnerus’ study at the website for Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion. That list has since grown to 27 and includes socially conservative scholars, including some who worked on the study or wrote positive critiques alongside it in Social Science Research.

What has Mark Regnerus said about this study in response to criticism?

Right after his study was published, Regnerus defended his research and claimed he had no position on same-sex marriage or LGBT parenting. Since then, Regnerus has spoken out against legalizing same-sex marriage, citing his own study to bolster his argument. Since then, he has admitted – but defended – the methodological flaws of his study, arguing he did compare apples to oranges but only because it sex-sex relationships are inherently unstable, implying it would be impossible to find enough stably couples same-sex couple parents.

And finally a letter from Witherspoon Institute fundraising letter to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in which it states"This is a question that must now be answered - in a scientifically serious way - BY THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOUR OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE No bias there then.

All in all the study you refer to has been debunked, it was a bias study that aimed at appeasing the right wing religious fanatics that paid for the study. Probably not the best start to any study really!!

Want to read more about the study and its obvious bias? Then read more here at The Human Rights Campaign Its amazing the lengths that the Christian Right now stoop to in the US