abused adoptees
abuse in foster care
adoptees
adoption
adoption agencies
adoption industry
child abuse
child placement
Child Protective Services
children
child trafficking
China
family
foster care
Guatemala
humorous
international adoption
love
money
orphanages
orphans
parents
Russia
search and reunion
sexual abuse
social workers
United Kingdom
United States of America
Can someone please explain to me the rights being pushed in this GLBT platform?
I was reading yet another article on the rights being denied the GLBT community, simply because Pro-Family groups don't want non-married couples (homosexuals) to adopt. I'm biased only in the sense that I'm not a huge advocate for adoption, in the first-place. (Personally, I believe legal guardianship seems much more sound to me, since it does not strip away a child's legal name or family identity, but I know that does not sit well with those who want the full-credit and title that goes with the word "parent".) I'm also biased against married pedophiles adopting or fostering children, too. Truthfully, I'm a bit confused when it comes to "rights" and terms when it comes to "positive adoption language" and the child services that make private adoptions possible.
In any case, today I read David Ambroz's article, "The Exploitation of Children By The "Pro-Family" Agenda In Arkansas". It states:
Arkansas, this November, banned foster parenting and adoption by "unmarried" people, thus excluding gay parents. The state joins Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, and Colorado.
I'm confused by these states, calling themselves pro-family, yet allowing foster youth to bounce from foster home to foster home in a downward spiral until less than 47% of foster youth graduate high school, and less than 4% go to college. How is keeping youth out of loving homes pro-family or pro-child? And, what sort of message does this send to GLBT youth in foster care?
So, who's rights are the GLBT community defending: Gay rights, in general; a homosexual's right to become a parent (through adoption); a child's right to safety and stability; or the human right each child has not to be trafficked and abused by a very misleading industry?
- Add new comment
- 150 reads
Comments
Equal rights to raise children
That's the rights they are defending - at all levels.
In the US and in Europe there is a very strong lobby to have equal rights to have children. The GLBT part of the adoption lobby is enormous...
In Europe there is hardly any national adoption, so the GLBT have to turn to intercountry adoptions.
Only country that facilitates babies for GLBT is the UNITED STATES...
Role-and-word-play
I'm still not understanding why a person requires the legal parent-title to care for a kid, but it seems "ownership" is the only way some people are willing to help a "needy child". [How DID adoption become the permanent solution to foster-care failures, anyway?]
Now Adam Pertman is adding his well-paid 2-cent opinion to the heating debate -- should the GLBT community become the next group of well-recognized (and therefore, "respected") "good people" in society who would indeed make great (paying) parents, and should they be awarded the blessing of parenthood through adoption services? Yes, as expected, Pertman has been making his rounds:
Yes, GOD FORBID someone creates a good quality group-home system, for children removed from their families. GOD FORBID we remove third or fourth-party interest in child placement/protective services. Instead, let's get more hands involved this very dirty business of new-family making, and let's see how we can get more expensive private therapy for everyone, too.
So basically, what I see is this: the adoption industry wants to "help" foster-care by ridding the expensive burden foster-care puts on the American people. How? By removing tons of kids from poor state care, (that's funded through our taxes), and allowing yet another demographic group of our society to buy these poor displaced children. <Hmmm....> One can only imagine how private adoption agencies and private family services can benefit from this new maneuver! Yes, I can hear the plaintiff wails in the offices of the Adoption Institute now: "Oh in a struggling economy fraught with all sorts of internal corruptions, if only our private American adoption agencies could find MORE buyers to keep a good thriving business scheme afloat! GLBT adoptions, a growing public demand suggests? Why yes! Full-steam ahead!" [Spoofing the early days of child migration and orphan trains, of course.]
<choking> Pertman's sense of non-partisan interest really gets to me.
All in all, I'm still not seeing how this "open" philosophy fixes the problems that affects so many families hurt through adoption: mass corruption within ALL child services and adoption practices.
Rather than adding MORE adoption placement opportunities, shouldn't there be an adamant stand against child trafficking, one that states ALL children within child-services will be given SAFE placement that lasts long-term, regardless of adoption status? Call me laced-with-stupidity, but isn't long-term safety something ALL children deserve in a civilized society? After all, if we look at child abuse cases within foster and adoptive families, how well is this current system doing in terms of preventing future child abuse? Truth is, I don't think child placement services have ever worked-out very well for everyone. But then, considering the fact I was adopted by a married couple with a long, strong history of child abuse, on both sides of each family, I tend to think lots of people keep lots of secret skeletons in their closets...