Arkansas high court backs gay foster parents

[Guest]

Arkansas high court backs gay foster parents

http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2006/06/29/1

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Arkansas cannot ban gay men and lesbians from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.

The court also said testimony in the case showed that the ban was based on one group's view of morality.

The state's child welfare board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.

Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against gay men and lesbians who otherwise qualified as foster parents.

The justices, upholding a lower-court finding, agreed with the plaintiffs.

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.

In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

The court also said that being raised by gay men and lesbians doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.

Posted June 29, 2006

 

[matriarch]

*swoon*

Good heavens!!
Common Sense?
When did that happen? But thank goddess it has. Now lets just wait for the backlash.

 

[Guest]

*swoon*

Good heavens!!
Common Sense?
When did that happen? But thank goddess it has. Now lets just wait for the backlash.

Which state will battle next, I wonder?

But still, it's good news.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

And Arkansas, of all places. I love it. This is wonderful news.

 

[minsue]

Wonderful news, Sarah

 

[lucky-E-leven]

What? There's research that says my being gay isn't going to fuck up my kids?

Damn. I guess I'll have to become a therapist.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Good new...but, do you think the state will appeal to the SC? And will they hear it?

I do hope not as much research has been done on the subject. A report, forgot where I saw it, says that the youngest son of three or more brothers is more likely to be gay than any of the older sons. So it's not related to upbring.

 

[rgraham666]

Woot!

Cool news, sarahh. Thanks

 

[3113]

And Arkansas, of all places. I love it. This is wonderful news.

That was my first thought. I think I'm as pleased to see such a state be so sensible in its ruling as I am with the ruling. I won't hold my breath, but there might be some hope for real facts succeeding over mindless bias, at least in the courts.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Arkansas high court backs gay foster parents

http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2006/06/29/1

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Arkansas cannot ban gay men and lesbians from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.

The court also said testimony in the case showed that the ban was based on one group's view of morality.

The state's child welfare board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.

Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against gay men and lesbians who otherwise qualified as foster parents.

The justices, upholding a lower-court finding, agreed with the plaintiffs.

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.

In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

The court also said that being raised by gay men and lesbians doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.

Posted June 29, 2006

Good stuff.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Good new...but, do you think the state will appeal to the SC? And will they hear it?

I do hope not as much research has been done on the subject. A report, forgot where I saw it, says that the youngest son of three or more brothers is more likely to be gay than any of the older sons. So it's not related to upbring.

Here's where we just look at that conclusion differently... if the youngest of a group of siblings is more likely to be homosexual--then its directly tied into upbringing. Now, if the report had said "no significance between younger, older, or otherwise treated siblings", then it might hint at a lack of nurture-effects. But the number of studies that talk about the trends of difference in differently aged siblings are staggering and if another study is to show a congruence between "youngest" and "gay"... that's a correlation that implies heavy things for how youngest children are raised.

Example:

1) Youngest of three are statistically more likely to be "driven for attention", "resentful of norms handed down from siblings", and "most likely to adopt erratic behavior" (and there are a plethora of studies on that, how upbringing in that role affects a child).
2) Youngest of three are statistically more likely to be "homosexual".
C) There might be a correlation equating to "driving for attention/resentment of norms seen in others/erratic behaviors" grants a likelihood of homosexual activity.

 

[3113]

Here's where we just look at that conclusion differently... if the youngest of a group of siblings is more likely to be homosexual--then its directly tied into upbringing. .

Dude, it doesn't work that way. The report was that the more boys a woman had the more statically likely it was that the next boy would be homosexual. This doesn't mean that the eldest won't be homosexual, or that you'll have just one gay son at the end, or that every youngest son will be homosexual. Just that if you up your chances of having a homosexual with every boy.

To say that this is upbringing is nonsense, because it could be the youngest boy--but not the youngest child. Hence, said boy may not be treated the same in every family or even in most families. He might not be the spoilt darling of the family, just another middle kid.

Or for that matter, just another BOY in a family that so wants a girl that when she arrives she's adored and the boys, all of them are equally ignored. Or he could be the last boy with a bunch of girls inbetween him and his older brothers and therefore, yes, be the spoilt darling of his elder sisters.

You see the point. The percentage chance goes up with each boy--but that doesn't say anything about where he'll be in the sibling chain, and, therefore, what his upbringing or position will be like--hence, no chance of relating it conclusively to upbringing.

Besides, the article related it to hormons--that is, they found that mom has hormonal changes in the womb with each boy. And this seems to be why you get a higher liklihood of a gay boy with each male sibling...though, once again, that doesn't mean that you won't get a gay eldest son or a gay middle son.

And yes, the study also investaged upbringing. They were pretty thorough.

 

[Boota]

Common sense is good. It's just not all that common. Good to see it prevailed for once.

My cousin and his boyfriend have been raising his great-niece since the girl's mother has been out of the picture. I really couldn't imagine better parents for this kid than those two. They didn't expect, or even want, to ever raise children, but they've taken to it as well as any traditional parents could have. Truth be told, probably better than most.

 

[Tom Collins]

Dude, it doesn't work that way.

You tell'im, 3.

Common sense is good. It's just not all that common. Good to see it prevailed for once.

My cousin and his boyfriend have been raising his great-niece since the girl's mother has been out of the picture. I really couldn't imagine better parents for this kid than those two. They didn't expect, or even want, to ever raise children, but they've taken to it as well as any traditional parents could have. Truth be told, probably better than most.

Boota, I swear to God (in whom I do not actually believe) that I saw your father the other day! He looked exactly like you, only about 20 years older.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Dude, it doesn't work that way. The report was that the more boys a woman had the more statically likely it was that the next boy would be homosexual. This doesn't mean that the eldest won't be homosexual, or that you'll have just one gay son at the end, or that every youngest son will be homosexual. Just that if you up your chances of having a homosexual with every boy.

So, you know about the report that Zeb is talking about? And does it effectively say "that the youngest son of three or more brothers is more likely to be gay than any of the older sons. So it's not related to upbringing"?

To say that this is upbringing is nonsense, because it could be the youngest boy--but not the youngest child. Hence, said boy may not be treated the same in every family or even in most families. He might not be the spoilt darling of the family, just another middle kid.

To say that it is upbringing is "nonsense"... because the boy in question may not have been treated the same? How is does this equate to "upbringing" as a possible factor being "nonsense"?

Or for that matter, just another BOY in a family that so wants a girl that when she arrives she's adored and the boys, all of them are equally ignored. Or he could be the last boy with a bunch of girls inbetween him and his older brothers and therefore, yes, be the spoilt darling of his elder sisters.

...I have no idea where you're going with this. It would help if you would more accurately address what either Zeb or then I had said--because I'm thoroughly lost as to how this relates.

You see the point. The percentage chance goes up with each boy--but that doesn't say anything about where he'll be in the sibling chain, and, therefore, what his upbringing or position will be like--hence, no chance of relating it conclusively to upbringing.

I don't think I said anything about relating anything conclusively to anything else. What are you reading?

Besides, the article related it to hormons--that is, they found that mom has hormonal changes in the womb with each boy. And this seems to be why you get a higher liklihood of a gay boy with each male sibling...though, once again, that doesn't mean that you won't get a gay eldest son or a gay middle son.

What article are you talking about? The one Zeb is talking about? Some other article? There is a divergeance of points here that screams of "losing the matter".

And yes, the study also investaged upbringing. They were pretty thorough.

So... in a nutshell. /Some/ article that Zeb is talking about that shows that upbringing has /nothing to do with/ the resulting child being homosexual in a situation where that child is the youngest boy of several boys does so by referencing both his possible sisters or the liking of one girl in particular and hormones in a womb along with how these boys are brought up? And this shows that the youngest son of three or more brothers is more likely to be gay than any of the older sons in such a way as to factor out positioning and gender as functions of behavior?

Is that about it?

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

Here is something I think people fail to consider when they think of homosexuals having children.

HOMOSEXUALS HAVE TO ACTIVELY TRY TO HAVE CHILDREN AND THEY MUST BY CIRCUMSTANCE PUT A LOT INTO THINKING IT THROUGH.

No "oops" children for these folks. No kids being thrown to the side because the condom broke. Homosexuals actually have to decide they WANT children and then try to make their dream come true. Of all the homosexuals I know with children - they are the most thoughful about the mental challenges their children face and tend to be extraodinarily attentive to their children's wants and needs. Why? Because they faced parenthood as a serious choice - not the outcome of a bad one-night stand (not to say this is how all heterosexual parents come to be parents - I certainly had to put a lot of work into it).

And who the F cares if the offspring of homosexuals are more likely to raise homosexual children (which I don't think is true). If there isn't anything wrong with being homosexual (and there isn't) then there is nothing wrong with raising a child who turns out to be homosexual.

I'm straight (I just love men too much - an dI have my own equipment and am rather unthrilled about how it works so I'm not anxious to play iwth someone who has the same) but I am all for LOVE. There ain't nuttin wrong with love. Full stop.

~WOK (polishing her soapbox)

 

[Tom Collins]

Or for that matter, just another BOY in a family that so wants a girl that when she arrives she's adored and the boys, all of them are equally ignored. Or he could be the last boy with a bunch of girls inbetween him and his older brothers and therefore, yes, be the spoilt darling of his elder sisters.

...I have no idea where you're going with this. It would help if you would more accurately address what either Zeb or then I had said--because I'm thoroughly lost as to how this relates.

What she's saying here is that there are so many different ways that a youngest boy child can be raised and so many different possible family dynamics that you can't say that the boy being the 3rd son in a family has anything to do with his being gay beyond the biological ones that they study that she read found. There are entirely too many variables to be able to declare that a younger, male sibling is gay because he was treated differently. Especially when no two children are treated exactly the same. Even if you could be 100% certain that they had been raised identically, hypothetically speaking of course, the two children, being individuals, would precieve the treatment differently. Therefore, would not, in point of fact, have been treated exactly the same.

At least, that's what I got from what 3 said. Am I right or wrong, 3?

 

[Huckleman2000]

...
So... in a nutshell. /Some/ article that Zeb is talking about that shows that upbringing has /nothing to do with/ the resulting child being homosexual in a situation where that child is the youngest boy of several boys does so by referencing both his possible sisters or the liking of one girl in particular and hormones in a womb along with how these boys are brought up? And this shows that the youngest son of three or more brothers is more likely to be gay than any of the older sons in such a way as to factor out positioning and gender as functions of behavior?

Is that about it?

The study reaches the conclusion that it's a biological condition, not behavioural. Here's an article about it.

The tendency is not seen in step-brothers, and is independent of whether the boys were raised with their siblings or not. This rules out environmental factors as the likely cause, and instead points toward something happening in utero.

 

[carsonshepherd]

=
C) There might be a correlation equating to "driving for attention/resentment of norms seen in others/erratic behaviors" grants a likelihood of homosexual activity.

I don't get involved in these discussions, but may I just say, you don't know what you're talking about.

Carry on.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't get involved in these discussions, but may I just say, you don't know what you're talking about.

Carry on.

Sure I do. I laid out the Possible Idea #1 and the Possible Idea #2 and showed the Possible Relation #3--while neither advocating or denouncing it.

You, however, seem to have no idea what I was talking about--poor show, hoss.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Sure I do. I laid out the Possible Idea #1 and the Possible Idea #2 and showed the Possible Relation #3--while neither advocating or denouncing it.

You, however, seem to have no idea what I was talking about--poor show, hoss.

I'm not trying to show anything. I don't denounce you or your ideas. Hell, logic is logic, right?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

What she's saying here is that there are so many different ways that a youngest boy child can be raised and so many different possible family dynamics that you can't say that the boy being the 3rd son in a family has anything to do with his being gay beyond the biological ones that they study that she read found. There are entirely too many variables to be able to declare that a younger, male sibling is gay because he was treated differently. Especially when no two children are treated exactly the same. Even if you could be 100% certain that they had been raised identically, hypothetically speaking of course, the two children, being individuals, would precieve the treatment differently. Therefore, would not, in point of fact, have been treated exactly the same.

At least, that's what I got from what 3 said. Am I right or wrong, 3?

OOOOOOOooohhh, o.k. I was really kind of lost, before.

The study reaches the conclusion that it's a biological condition, not behavioural. Here's an article about it.

The tendency is not seen in step-brothers, and is independent of whether the boys were raised with their siblings or not. This rules out environmental factors as the likely cause, and instead points toward something happening in utero.

Now that's really clever. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual study, though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm not trying to show anything. I don't denounce you or your ideas. Hell, logic is logic, right?

You have a funny way of showing "I don't denounce your ideas".

 

[Guest]

OOOOOOOooohhh, o.k. I was really kind of lost, before.


Now that's really clever. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual study, though.

Here's another article. I would also be interested in seeing the actual study.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...n27,0,6963279.story?track=mostviewed-homepage

Study Links Male Gays, Birth of Older Brothers
A mother's antibodies may change with each boy, raising chances the next will be homosexual.
By Karen Kaplan, Times Staff Writer
June 27, 2006

Having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay — an effect due not to social factors, but biological events that occur in their mother's womb, according to a study published today.

In an analysis of 905 men and their siblings, Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight.

The only significant factor was the number of times a mother had previously given birth to boys, according to the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The so-called fraternal birth order effect is small: Each older brother increases the chances by 33%. Assuming the base rate of homosexuality among men is 2%, it would take 11 older brothers to give the next son about a 50-50 chance of being gay.

But at a time when, according to one survey, 42% of Americans consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice, the study provides more evidence of biology's role in determining sexuality.

"People are coming to realize that biology — in a broad sense of the word — does play an important role," said neurobiologist Simon LeVay, who has documented anatomical differences in the brains of gay and straight men. He is not connected with the study.

A 2003 survey found that 30% of Americans believed sexual orientation was innate and 14% said it was determined by upbringing, besides the 42% who considered it a lifestyle choice. That survey was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Polls show that people who believe sexual orientation is governed by biology tend to support gay rights, whereas those who consider it a choice don't, said Dr. Jack Drescher, who chaired the American Psychiatric Assn.'s Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues for six years.

"The question of whether it's biological is playing a large role in the culture wars," said Drescher, who was not involved in the study. "Decisions about civil rights and marriage are all argued around this issue."

In a previous study, Bogaert and his colleagues estimated that about one in seven gay men in North America — roughly 1 million people — could attribute their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order.

Bogaert, a professor of community health sciences and psychology at Brock University in Ontario, said he didn't know what biological mechanism was behind the fraternal effect, which he and a colleague first identified 10 years ago.

The leading theory is that women's bodies react to male fetuses' proteins as foreign, making antibodies to fight them, Bogaert said.

Such antibodies could affect the developing fetus, and the more times a woman has carried boys, the stronger the antibody response would be.

This theory, dubbed the maternal immunization hypothesis, was originally proposed in 1985 to explain why boys are more likely than girls to develop conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and dyslexia.

"We thought it might be an interesting explanation for this," Bogaert said.

Scientists have not found any antibodies that may be responsible, but Michigan State University neuroscientist Marc Breedlove is trying to identify them in pregnant mice.

"We would love to identify the protein that she is targeting, or find out which brain regions are being affected," said Breedlove, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the study. "Right now, it's the only plausible mechanism we can think of."

Scientists have found other genetic links to sexual orientation. For example, if one identical twin is gay, there is a 52% chance that the other twin — who has the same DNA — is gay, according to a 1991 report in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Among fraternal twins, who share about half their DNA, the figure drops to 22%, and for other brothers it is 9%, according to the study.

Bogaert first reported a link between sexual orientation and older brothers in a 1996 study conducted with Ray Blanchard, who runs the Clinical Sexology Program at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. That finding has been replicated since then in other data on men in the U.S., Canada and Europe, as well as in data collected by the pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s and 1950s.

In the new study, Bogaert's aim was to figure out whether older brothers influence the sexuality of younger ones through nature or nurture.

If the influence were due to social factors as the boys were growing up, he reasoned, then older brothers would have an impact as long as they were reared together. On the other hand, if the explanation hinged on prenatal biological factors, the physical presence of older brothers during childhood would be irrelevant.

Bogaert collected biodemographic data on gay and straight men raised in families with various combinations of older and younger brothers and sisters. Some were full siblings, some shared only a mother or a father, some were step siblings, and some siblings were adopted.

"It doesn't seem to be that having an older brother around, regardless of whether that brother is a biological brother or a nonbiological brother, seems to have an effect on a man's sexual orientation," he said. "Biological older brothers, even ones they are not reared with, seem to be increasing the likelihood of male homosexuality."

Previous studies have looked at the impact of older sisters on the chances of a girl growing up to be a lesbian, but they found no correlation. That result bolsters the maternal immunization theory, because female fetuses do not produce proteins that would be unfamiliar to pregnant women and thus prompt the production of antibodies.

 

[Tom Collins]

OOOOOOOooohhh, o.k. I was really kind of lost, before.


Now that's really clever. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual study, though.

You're quite welcome, Joe. Glad I could be of help, but I can't be certain that's exactly what she meant.