This is Puzzling

Dr. Patrick Fagan writes:

Adoption is life-alteringly beneficial for children. Such is the general conclusion from a review of the literature.

Adoption in the first 12 months of the child’s life produces the best outcomes, but all children will benefit, regardless of their age at placement. Adopted children outperform their non-adopted peers and non-adopted siblings.

What’s so puzzling?  Fagan is writing for our opponents, the Family Research Council.  And this study is being promoted by The Ruth Institute — NOM’s youth outreach program.

You’ve heard of NOM, right?  And its founder, Maggie Gallagher?  You know, the lady who misuses research to argue that children do best when raised by both biological parents.  Maggie goes on interview after interview claiming  traditional marriage must be protected because it’s how children can “love and be loved by their own mother and father” — meaning their biological mother and father. 

That’s kind of a shot at adoptive parents, but Maggie needs to take that shot.  It’s the only way she can argue against marriage equality.   If adoptive parents count as real and valuable parents, then their families deserve the protections and stabilizing effects of marriage, too — and that includes families headed up by gay or lesbian couples.

Yet here we have NOM pushing a study that says adoption is valuable.  That adopted children outperform their non-adopted peers and non-adopted siblings.  That the sooner kids are adopted the better.

NOM is unintentionally highlighting the danger of letting kids languish in foster care or institutions instead being adopted by loving, same-sex parents who enjoy all the family protections that marriage equality makes possible.

A commenter on the Ruth Institute’s website asked about this.  I’ll be watching closely to see what they reply.

Share:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

5 comments to This is Puzzling

  • 1
    Kenny says:

    “Not only do the adopted children do better; so, too, do their birth mothers who give them up for adoption. They have higher educational aspirations, are more likely to finish school, and are less likely to live in poverty or to receive public assistance than mothers who keep their out-of-wedlock children.”

    That’s an interesting tidbit from the study.  So, gays are destroying the family & harming children, even though it’s heterosexuals who’ve created a situation where 4 out of 10 children are born to unwed mothers?  Would seem to me that the folks harming children are heterosexuals since they’re putting kids in a situation where they will grow up in poverty and on public assistance.  We’re so afraid of gays harming children and destroying families that we’ve passed laws preventing gays from marrying.  Huh.  Where are our laws protecting children & families by making it a criminal offense for men & women to create illegitimate children?

  • 2

    I wonder if Dr. Morse ran that bit about the damage done by mothers keeping their out-of-wedlock children past “former unwed mother” Maggie G?

  • 3
    Regan DuCasse says:

    Hee hee, as always, the anti gay are either stupid or think the people they are addressing are stupid. It’s bad enough the insult that’s inplied that non baby making adults and couples are chopped liver and have no contribution to make otherwise. So therefore are worthy of discrimination in areas outside of child care.
    Making babies ain’t no thing, it’s PARENTING that’s the real job. And being a naturally good parent isn’t bestowed on GROUPS. Heterosexuality obviously doesn’t bestow that talent any more than homosexuality denies it.
    But le’ts also point something out about NOM and TRI’s expectiations for IDEAL parents. Sometimes those parents want IDEAL children to adopt too.
    The want children that are infants, who share their ethnicity and who aren’t sick or have other needs. Gay adults who have adopted, tend to adopt children who are the toughest to place. The kinds of children who aren’t wanted in Morse’s, Gallagher’s or Brown’s house.
    These people aren’t saving the drowning children they won’t let or don’t want gay people to save.
    There is a another kind of heroism among gay adoptive parents that outclasses what Morse isn’t doing. Much like those people who don’t want gay people to serve openly in uniform, who wouldn’t serve nor would have  THEIR children serve either.
    They’d never admit that there are gay people more heroic and morally grounded than they are. But reality isn’t their strong suit.

  • 4

    [...] to adoptive parents.  Just recently, the Family Research Council (never eager to do gays a favor) published a literature review on the effects of adoption: Adoption is life-alteringly beneficial for [...]

  • 5

    [...] to adoptive parents.  Just recently, the Family Research Council (never eager to do gays a favor) published a literature review on the effects of adoption: Adoption is life-alteringly beneficial for [...]

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>