Bush: Ideal for children is a married family with a man and a woman

[Pookie]

Human Rights Campaign Challenges Statement by President Regarding Gay Parenting

(Washington, D.C.) - Challenging comments made by President Bush in an interview with the New York Times, the Human Rights Campaign stressed today that all major research studies show sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting ability.

"Every credible study has shown that sexual orientation has no effect on parenting ability," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. "Adoption should be about what's best for the child, not appealing to a political base. The nation's leading child welfare, psychological and children's health organizations agree that gay parents make just as good parents as straight ones. With so many children in foster care in need of permanently nurturing homes, it's critically important that we put science before ideology when making family policy decisions."

According to the Times, President Bush avoided answering a question on Florida's ban denying gay and lesbian individuals the right to adopt, saying he was unaware of it. The President said that while "children can receive love from gay couples... studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

However, a 2001 meta-analysis of two decades of studies on the topic, show that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.

Further, the consensus among leading professional organizations - as stated through policy and position statements - is that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. These groups include the: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Anthropological Association, American Medical Association, American Bar Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers and North American Council on Adoptable Children. To read their policies and others, visit: www.hrc.org

Many organizations also have condemned discrimination based on sexual orientation in adoption, custody and other parenting situations and called for equal rights for all parents and children. Further, several of these organizations also have issued statements declaring that a parent's gender identity and/or physical appearance is irrelevant to his or her abilities as a parent.

"Lawmakers need to look at the evidence when they're making policy," added Stachelberg. "Myths should not dominate discussions about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families."

http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1775&snippetset=yes

Ignorance and stupidity breeds bigotry.

 

[Little Bird]

The last time someone said, that a man could probably be not all the things to a child that a woman would, so gay couples should not raise children, I said, that there are MANY children (at least here) growing up without a mother or a father and sometimes even both.
Maybe a father and a mother would be ideal, but better to have to fathers than no parents at all.

In germany one of three mariages lasts only a few years. In such times things like that got totaly irrelevant.

 

[Jander1]

It seems Bush makes all his decisions based on what the "religious right" would think about an issue. Is this not the major group that got him his second term? Many of the pressing social issues today really come down to separation of church and state. There are so many rediculous things about taking an anti-gay parent adoption stance that the only thing that can explain it is keeping your voter base up or the blind faith that religion can bring. I'm not saying that anyone who is Christian agrees with Bush on this, just that I think this is where he is coming from.
....I think if I were in an adopted home where my "dad" beat my brains in everynight I would prefer to have two moms.

Whatever it takes!

 

[Pookie]

It seems Bush makes all his decisions based on what the "religious right" would think about an issue. ...

God talks to Bush. Sometimes I wish I had the same drugs.

 

[Jander1]

God talks to Bush. Sometimes I wish I had the same drugs.

I believe Bush did say something on the show with Pat Robertson about God wantind him to be president.....onward Christian soldiers!

 

[Regis2001]

AIEEEEE!

I'm not intending to bitch, but could we please go more than ten minutes without mentioning the 'religious right'? The phrase may be accurate sometimes, but it is criminally overused.

And I seriously think that Bush believes what he's saying. He isn't playing the populist to get more votes - he doesn't need more votes! He's not playing to his core voting base, he's not attempting to pander to the desires of special interest groups - I think that he truly believes every word he sais on the subject. He really doesn't believe that gay couples can raise children effectively.

And that, to me, is more scary than him being in the pocket of the fanatics.

 

[69forever]

God talks to Bush. Sometimes I wish I had the same drugs.

God did talk to me once....told me I shouldn't have eaten so many of those mushrooms. If ignorance is bliss, Bush is extatic 24 hours a day.

The whole premise that gay or lesbian couples are unfit to be parents is based on "their" assertion that we're incabable of love. Not stable. Promiscuous. Damned in the sight of God. What hypocritical nonsense.

It's perfectly acceptable to kill over a 100,000 Iraq civilians, 75% of which have been children....but God forbid homosexuals adopt and raise a child here.

 

[Pookie]

AIEEEEE!

I'm not intending to bitch, but could we please go more than ten minutes without mentioning the 'religious right'? The phrase may be accurate sometimes, but it is criminally overused.

And I seriously think that Bush believes what he's saying. He isn't playing the populist to get more votes - he doesn't need more votes! He's not playing to his core voting base, he's not attempting to pander to the desires of special interest groups - I think that he truly believes every word he sais on the subject. He really doesn't believe that gay couples can raise children effectively.

And that, to me, is more scary than him being in the pocket of the fanatics.

What then would you recommend be an appropriate time interval between mentioning the "religious right" in posts? Why shouldn't the religious right be mentioned even more often when discussing Bush's views of morality and family? Bush is very much a part of the religious right, or so he led us to believe up till now. He isn't in the pocket of the fanatics; he is one of them. Or has something changed about that?

 

[69forever]

What then would you recommend be an appropriate time interval between mentioning the "religious right" in posts? Why shouldn't the religious right be mentioned even more often when discussing Bush's views of morality and family? Bush is very much a part of the religious right, or so he led us to believe up till now. He isn't in the pocket of the fanatics; he is one of them. Or has something changed about that?

Amen. His world view is based on "divine guidence". He'd take us to the brink of the four horsemen "knowing" the rightous will go to heaven. "Damn the sinners....full speed ahead".

 

[stingray61]

While I disapprove of people being gay and I don't believe it's just "something you are", or genetic, I have to say with all the children growing up without parents these days I thank God someone wants to be their parents. As long as the child has a good home, parents that love them, and allow them to make their own decisions about who and what they become, then I'm all for gays raising children.

 

[deezire1900]

If a gay couple and a lesbian couple live in the same house, and raise the children together...does that count?

What about the women and men that have had their US soldier spouses killed in Iraq..oh no, now they are a one gender parenting family. Should those children be taken away?

 

[Jander1]

AIEEEEE!

I'm not intending to bitch, but could we please go more than ten minutes without mentioning the 'religious right'? The phrase may be accurate sometimes, but it is criminally overused.

And I seriously think that Bush believes what he's saying. He isn't playing the populist to get more votes - he doesn't need more votes! He's not playing to his core voting base, he's not attempting to pander to the desires of special interest groups - I think that he truly believes every word he sais on the subject. He really doesn't believe that gay couples can raise children effectively.

And that, to me, is more scary than him being in the pocket of the fanatics.

As has already been restated Bush is part of the "religious right" so why not say it, maybe the phrase "I'm not intending to bitch" is overused to some?
Anyway in my post I also stated, "There are so many rediculous things about taking an anti-gay parent adoption stance that the only thing that can explain it is keeping your voter base up or the blind faith that religion can bring."
I also think that Bush probably does believe every word he says, though I don't know him personally so I chose to keep the two options open. The point to the post was separation of chuch and state no matter the motivation.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I'm with Pookie on this one...

* As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)
* There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.
* People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)
* Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)
* Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)
* Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)
* On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)
* Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

The great majority of studies published in the past 20 years conclude that there are no notable developmental differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by lesbian and gay parents. Along the same lines, several medical and mental health professional associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association have issued formal statements generally supporting equal access to parenting and adoption for gay men and lesbians.

~

Most of the information I've seen has had this same message. I've seen others, of course, but upon searching the research company or funding group, discovered that it left much to be desired in the area of trustworthiness and slanted agendas.

~lucky

 

[Regis2001]

What then would you recommend be an appropriate time interval between mentioning the "religious right" in posts? Why shouldn't the religious right be mentioned even more often when discussing Bush's views of morality and family? Bush is very much a part of the religious right, or so he led us to believe up till now. He isn't in the pocket of the fanatics; he is one of them. Or has something changed about that?

No need to get sarcastic. I was only saying.

The reason I object to the use of the phrase 'religious right' whenever Bush's morality comes up is that it seems like the automatic response is to blame this group. It's like word association - 'Homosexuality?' 'Religious Right.' 'Abortion?' 'Religious Right.' 'Economy?' 'Big Business.' And so on and so forth.

I don't want to be confrontational. Please don't think I want a fight, because if you do I'll just run away. I just want to put forward what I believe: Bush is not just the puppet of special interest groups. He has his own personal agenda, and goes with whatever special interest groups are pushing in the same direction. I don't think he is anti-homosexual because 'God told him so', I think it's because he believes the scientific studies, believes the moral arguments, and his instinct tells him that he's right. He's not a ventriloquist's dummy, a mindless mouthpiece for his followers. He's working this out for himself.

And it's this particular realisation that scares me. He's not as stupid as people make him out to be. He's not a mindless populist, doing whatever he needs to in order to keep his voting base happy. If his party turn against him, he won't be stopped. He'll keep on with his agenda. The man is dedicated, and that's what scares me.

Incidentally, I think that one use of the phrase 'religious right' per thread per two days should be okay. Sound reasonable?

 

[Vixandra]

Even if Bush is speaking for himself and writting all of what he says, I still think the man's a few crayons short of a box and none to sharp at that.

And I completely disagree with him on the "ideal" family make up.
A family should, idealy, consist of a pretty well balanced parent or parents that love thier children and teach them to be good people with a healthy dose of morals.

Gender and sexual orientation don't play a part in this unless there is abuse going on and that's a different subject all together.

I would rather see a child in a situation where's they're being raised by a GLBT couple that gets along and loves them then a disfunctional straight couple who argue constantly and beat them.
Why the latter situation is preferable to the former by our president is beyond me.

 

[PanosGreece]

...I have a little question...
What does this guy do?...
Cause only drugs can make a person THAT stupid and out of this world...
America,america...*sigh*
Why did this guy get re-elected....he is full of crap...
Not that I know much about politics over there but certainly this idiot should have taken the boot....
Anyway, Ideal for children is only one...a family that loves them...
Be it married, divorced but on good terms, same-sex or one member(only father or mother) family..
Why should sex make difference if the children is raised with care?
--Really if this guy remains president for long I fear that the Earth will selfdestruct to save the pure souls of people yet to come...

 

[John Doe]

* As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)
* There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.
* People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)
* Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)
* Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)
* Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)
* On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)
* Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

The great majority of studies published in the past 20 years conclude that there are no notable developmental differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by lesbian and gay parents. Along the same lines, several medical and mental health professional associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association have issued formal statements generally supporting equal access to parenting and adoption for gay men and lesbians.

~

Most of the information I've seen has had this same message. I've seen others, of course, but upon searching the research company or funding group, discovered that it left much to be desired in the area of trustworthiness and slanted agendas.

~lucky

Three of those items are backed by studies 10 or 20 years old.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Three of those items are backed by studies 10 or 20 years old.

And?

The information is out there and most of it carries the same message (as stated in my post.) Perhaps if you wanted to take issue with any of them I'd be a little more motivated to find something more current. Not that it really needs to be said, but old information does not implicitly indicate false information.

~lucky

 

[Pookie]

No need to get sarcastic. I was only saying.

The reason I object to the use of the phrase 'religious right' whenever Bush's morality comes up is that it seems like the automatic response is to blame this group. It's like word association - 'Homosexuality?' 'Religious Right.' 'Abortion?' 'Religious Right.' 'Economy?' 'Big Business.' And so on and so forth.

I don't want to be confrontational. Please don't think I want a fight, because if you do I'll just run away. I just want to put forward what I believe: Bush is not just the puppet of special interest groups. He has his own personal agenda, and goes with whatever special interest groups are pushing in the same direction. I don't think he is anti-homosexual because 'God told him so', I think it's because he believes the scientific studies, believes the moral arguments, and his instinct tells him that he's right. He's not a ventriloquist's dummy, a mindless mouthpiece for his followers. He's working this out for himself.

And it's this particular realisation that scares me. He's not as stupid as people make him out to be. He's not a mindless populist, doing whatever he needs to in order to keep his voting base happy. If his party turn against him, he won't be stopped. He'll keep on with his agenda. The man is dedicated, and that's what scares me.

Incidentally, I think that one use of the phrase 'religious right' per thread per two days should be okay. Sound reasonable?

Bush and the Republicans have the Presidency and Congress because of the religious right. It's ludicrous to think they aren't directly influenced by them. Bush's positions mirror those of the religious right, especially when it comes to morality and family issues. To deny this is to wear blinders. Without the support of the religious right, Bush wouldn't have stood a chance against Gore or Kerry. I don't believe Bush is a puppet of the religious right; he is an integral part of the religious right. Republicans have learned the fine art of luring the bigot's vote without alienating their moderate base. Bush has used this art quite well to blend religion with politics. While Democrats were trying to essentially be everything to everybody, Bush was energizing the religious right with his slams against gays and others that don't fit their idea of moral and right in the eyes of God. When you've got people like Bob Jones and Pat Robertson advising you, how can others not view you as part of these religious fanatics?

Here are some quotes from a letter from Bob Jones to Bush congratulating him on his victory ...

... You have been given a mandate. ... Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ ...

... have the opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, ...

These guys truely believe Bush owes them something. And the reality is, he does. Their agenda are one and the same. Without Bush's promises to the religious right, he never would've gotten the electoral support to beat Gore or Kerry. RNC Chairman and Bush Campaign Manager, Ken Mehlman, openly admits evangelicals played a major role in 2004. He attributed the election results to a two-pronged Republican strategy of 1) stressing the need for strong leadership to fight terrorism and 2) mobilizing millions of evangelicals that were upset about gay marriage, abortion, and other threats to traditional values. Kerry certainly helped Bush by not energizing his own base. But without the solid support of the religious right, Bush wouldn't be President today.

To minimize during discussions of policies the tremendous influence that the religious right has inside the Bush White House would be foolish. So, don't expect liberals to stop linking the two together, especially when it comes to issues related to morality and family. They are one and the same. And, the religious right will still be around even after Bush's term ends.

 

[Regis2001]

Alright Pookie, that's fair enough. I think we're on the same wavelength now, and I agree with you.

And don't start talking about 'liberals' as something separate to myself. Although I don't like the word (I'm a left-winger) I'm sure I qualify as a 'liberal' under most standards.

Have a nice day, and don't forget to destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sacred status of the family at least twice before breakfast!

 

[John Doe]

And?

The information is out there and most of it carries the same message (as stated in my post.) Perhaps if you wanted to take issue with any of them I'd be a little more motivated to find something more current. Not that it really needs to be said, but old information does not implicitly indicate false information.

~lucky

No, but it can be less reliable. And of course, it's just not as current as it could be. Anyway, of course I take issue with some of them, why else would I mention it? Items four, five and six to be specific. I see nothing wrong with asserting that children of GLBT parents are in no way disadvantaged, but turning around and saying they're actually better off, or GLBT parents are better parents is just hypocritical.

 

[Pookie]

And?

The information is out there and most of it carries the same message (as stated in my post.) Perhaps if you wanted to take issue with any of them I'd be a little more motivated to find something more current. Not that it really needs to be said, but old information does not implicitly indicate false information.

~lucky

There's some good info available from this link ...

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...EMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

 

[John Doe]

There's some good info available from this link ...

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...EMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

2004 isn't recent enough...

Kidding! anyway, thank you, although I guess you're not talking to me.

 

[deezire1900]

I have to say...

I don't like it when GLBT couples decide to have children and then live in a small community. I know I will take some heat for that, but I truely believe that if you want to have/or are raising children, give them a chance to be a little anonomous. (all the work on these boards and still no spell check?)

It is hard enough growing up in a small town, i know, but to then stick out like a sore thumb...thats not fair. I understand wanting to teach the world about peace and love...but don't use a child to do that. Eating lunch alone while the other kids trip you, make fun of you, just because your family is out of the norm...that's tough.

please give me some feedback on this...

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I have to say...

I don't like it when GLBT couples decide to have children and then live in a small community. I know I will take some heat for that, but I truely believe that if you want to have/or are raising children, give them a chance to be a little anonomous. (all the work on these boards and still no spell check?)

It is hard enough growing up in a small town, i know, but to then stick out like a sore thumb...thats not fair. I understand wanting to teach the world about peace and love...but don't use a child to do that. Eating lunch alone while the other kids trip you, make fun of you, just because your family is out of the norm...that's tough.

please give me some feedback on this...

I understand what you're saying and think it's admirable, however, it's not always as cut and dried as that. I currently live about 19 miles up the road from Crawford, TX, home of our not-so-illustrious leader. (read - the buckle of the Bible belt)

I'm a lesbian with one child and also a student in college right now. Due to my location and other circumstances, I'm pretty much stuck here. The college I attend happens to be a Baptist College where it would be unwise for me to be open about my sexuality. My child is not yet of school-age, but it won't be long. My partner is moving here from out of state soon and she has 2 children. Now we've a dilemma. The bottom line is that it is more beneficial for our children in the long-run if we are together. No doubt there will be obstacles and issues as time passes. If we had the option to be elsewhere, we definitely would. As we don't, we will have to keep a close eye on the situation and attempt a low-profile. Sad, but true.

One thing you can be sure of, however, is that we're not on a mission to spread peace/love/happiness to the rest of the world via our children. They will have to deal with certain things that other children won't, but I got teased for having parents that were divorced. At the time, it wasn't typical. My folks were still friends and maintained a solid family foundation for my siblings and I, though there were two households. We all turned out fine. I think much of how children handle things can be attributed to how their support network assists them. *shrugs* Anonymity isn't something easily obtained by any minority, methinks.

~lucky