Adoption of children by gay couples

[Rorschach]

Unfortunately we have to wait for the results of this stupidity to be statistically significant in the West before we will know and accept the truth... if we are actually allowed to say it of course by then... even now progressives and activist gays seek to silence the vast majority.

How many Australians have taken up the right to "marry"? How many ever will? yet we sought to change thousands of years of tradition to enable a vocal minority to have their way with our society.

here's a short article then from the US that has had SSM longer than we have.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/ano ... -for-kids/

[Nicole]

@ Raw Sack

oh and Nicole another quote from a researcher you have ignored that is on topic...

I'm simply saying don't be lazy or cast aspertions on my honesty.

I provided quotes...

Here's another more closely aligned with the actual topic... they aren't hard to find.

Schumm found that children with homosexual parents are 12-15 times more likely than children of heterosexual parents to be homosexual as adults. This is the strongest environmental influence ever reported for the development of homosexuality, and it involves very close family members, the parent-child relationship.

I tell you things, I find stuff and you just live in denial.

Attachment? Irrelevent. It only supports this quote.

Explain why, using your own words.

The opening post I made for this topic was:

I work in an allied health field where I see many children who can't, for various reasons, live with their parents. Gay couples should be allowed to care for these children, or adopt other children. All children need to thrive is secure attachment (which is the template for trust). The sexual orientation of their primary caregivers is irrelevant.

Discuss.

If you don't understand attachment, which you clearly don't, you can't dispute the OP.

[Rorschach]

Apparently YOU are the one who doesn't understand Nicole... I'm sure everyone else gets it.
I studied child and educational psychology over 40 years ago, so no more appeals to authoritah eh. You have none. Almost anyone can work in allied health, I've had a great deal to do with them over the last decade and even longer with social services.

[Nicole]

To return to the opening post:

I work in an allied health field where I see many children who can't, for various reasons, live with their parents. Gay couples should be allowed to care for these children, or adopt other children. All children need to thrive is secure attachment (which is the template for trust). The sexual orientation of their primary caregivers is irrelevant.

Discuss.

Some of us appear to need educating on attachment. It's complex, but it's stood the test of time for 50 years. Here's an extract which explains it well

Child Attachment
According to Bowlby (1969), attachment is based on the child’s early experiences with the primary caregivers (usually the mother). Those early and recurring experiences with the primary attachment figure form the child’s internal working models (mental representations or templates of thought, emotion, and behavior) concerning expectations and beliefs about the attachment figure’s accessibility and responsiveness. Those expectations and beliefs are transferred to other individuals, ensuring continuity over time and settings in relationships with others. They also shape the internal working model of the self (i.e., the individual’s sense of self-worth). Internal working models of self and other as positive or negative are forged early in life.

Attachment patterns arise from the exchange between the child and primary caregiver and affect the way the child regulates emotional arousal and copes with stress. As proposed by Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969, 1973, 1980) and demonstrated by Ainsworth’s experimental paradigm, the Strange Situation Procedure (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), the “securely” attached child has an accessible and responsive caregiver who is available when needed by the child. The sense of security engendered by such a caregiver allows the child to regulate emotion, explore the environment, become self-reliant in an age-appropriate manner, and feel positive about both the self and caregiver. The opposite characterizes the relationship of the “insecurely” attached child to the caregiver. Such a child has a caregiver who is inaccessible, unresponsive, intrusive, abusive, or erratic to such an extent that the child follows one of two insecure attachment patterns. First, the child avoids/dismisses the caregiver, maintaining the caregiver at a distance, becoming “compulsively” (Bowlby, 1973) self-reliant, and regulating emotion even when contraindicated. The child depends on the self, given the unavailable caregiver. Thus, the child has positive feelings about the self, but negative feelings about the caregiver. Second, the child is preoccupied with the caregiver in an anxious, but resistant (i.e., distressed or aroused) manner. The child is vigilant about the caregiver and seeks out the caregiver. However, ambivalence toward the caregiver is evident by the distress experienced when reunited with the caregiver. The anxious/resistant/ambivalent child has strong positive feelings about the caregiver, but negative feelings about the self. There is a final and, unlike the previous three consistent patterns, an inconsistent attachment pattern. The caregiver is experienced as so erratic, traumatic, or neglectful that the child’s attachment becomes disorganized at times. This occurs when the caregiver can neither be avoided/dismissed nor approached in the ambivalent way of the child whose attachment is anxious/resistant. The child’s confusion and disorientation are manifest at such times. He or she is fearful, freezes, and may even dissociate (Carlson, 1998; Main & Solomon, 1990).

The patterns of attachment extend into the future as indicated by several long-term, prospective longitudinal studies (Grossmann, Grossmann, & Waters, 2005) and a meta-analysis of the literature (Fraley, 2002). However, stability over time is not perfect given potential intervening factors, such as stress and a caregiver who becomes less sensitively responsive to the child (Booth-LaForce et al, 2014). The child-caregiver relationship may change and the formation of other relationships, such as those with a spouse, also may affect attachment. Nevertheless, current patterns are informed by past patterns, given internal working models (Bowlby, 1969) and other potential mechanisms (Weinfield, Stroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2008).

Adult Attachment
Attachment is transferred from caregivers to others as development continues (path b, Figure 1). As with child attachment (described above), the adult attachment figure is the other with whom the individual wants to maintain proximity and who serves as the individual’s secure base and safe haven (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Such a figure is usually the romantic partner, although not all romantic partners are attachment figures and non-romantic partners (e.g., friends) may be attachment figures.

Adult attachment is often assessed by two dimensions: avoidant and anxious. Each dimension captures degree of insecurity to security. The dimensions can be analyzed separately or combined to assess attachment as dismissing avoidant (high on the avoidant and low on the anxious dimensions), anxious (low on the avoidant and high on the anxious dimensions), secure (low on both dimensions), and fearful or fearfully avoidant (high on both dimensions). Being high only on the avoidant dimension describes an individual who is self-reliant and independent of others. Being high on both the avoidant and anxious dimensions describes an individual who avoids others to minimize the possibility of being hurt or rejected (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley & Bonanno, 2004).1

Followed by (same article)

Child Attachment
Poor health and adaptation have been found among those with insecure child attachment (path f, Figure 1), particularly those with ambivalent attachment, as found in narrative and meta-analytic reviews of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Becoña Iglesias, Fernández del Río, Calafat, & Fernández-Hermida, 2014; Brumariu & Kerns, 2010; Colonnesi et al., 2011; Hoeve et al., 2012). As to physical health, a prospective longitudinal study found that individuals with insecure attachment during childhood were twice as likely to report poor physical health as adults, including inflammation-related symptoms, even after adjusting for various covariates, such as sex, SES, stress, and social support (Puig, Englund, Simpson, & Collins, 2013). Still another meta-analysis found that secure attachment was related to various adaptational outcomes among college students, such as academic competence, social competence, and developmental advances (r’s ranged from 0.22 to 0.26: Mattanah, Lopez, & Govern, 2011).

Fewer studies are available on the role of child attachment in stress, coping, and their health and adaptational effects (path d, e, f, h, j, dj, dh, dhij, and dhl, Figure 1). A prospective, longitudinal study (Seiffge-Krenke, 2006) found that adolescents with preoccupied attachment during childhood reported more parent-related stressors in adolescence than peers with secure or avoidant attachment. Significant differences existed in coping with parent-related stress: Youths with secure or avoidant attachment were more likely than those with preoccupied attachment to use problem-focused coping (referred to by the author as “internal coping”); those with secure attachment were more likely than those with avoidant attachment to use social supports (referred to by the author as “active coping”); and, those with preoccupied attachment were more likely than those with secure attachment to avoid the problem and engage in emotion-focused coping (referred to by the author as “withdrawal”). In addition, psychological distress at age 21 years was predicted by having a preoccupied rather than secure attachment style, experiencing more stress, and using emotion-focused coping, after adjusting for sex and SES. No significant difference in distress was found between those with secure and avoidant attachment.

Adult Attachment
Poor health has been found among those with insecure adult attachment (path f, Figure 1). A representative sample of the United States population found disparities by adult attachment in mental disorders and various physical health conditions (McWilliams & Bailey, 2010). For example, individuals with avoidant or anxious attachment were approximately 50% more likely to have major depression or dysthymia and 50% more likely to have an alcohol or substance use disorder. In addition, those with avoidant attachment were more likely than those with secure or anxious attachment to report a lifetime history of arthritis, back or neck pain, headaches, and other chronic pain, after adjusting here and below for sex, marital status, race, age, and educational level. Those with anxious versus secure and avoidant attachment reported an elevated lifetime history of headaches and chronic pain, as well as having suffered stroke, myocardial infarction, high blood pressure, or ulcers.

Attachment also has implications for sexual risk behaviors and romantic relationships (path f, Figure 1). In an international study involving multiple countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America, and Oceania (Schmitt & Jonason, 2015), men with dismissive/avoidant versus those with secure or other insecure attachment patterns scored higher on sociosexuality, a marker of unrestricted sexuality as assessed, for example, by numbers of sexual partners and attitudes toward casual sex. For the women, those with fearful attachment scored higher than those with secure or other insecure attachment patterns. Both the women and men with dismissive/avoidant or fearful attachment also scored higher on relationship infidelity than those with secure or preoccupied attachment. A meta-analytic review (Hadden, Smith, & Webster, 2014) found that women and men with anxious and avoidant attachment were less satisfied with their romantic relationship (r = −0.29 and −0.43 for both sexes, respectively), but those with secure attachment were more satisfied (r = 0.41 for both sexes).

The attachment system is theoretically activated during times of stress; thus, the study of attachment in the midst of severe stress is of interest. Such studies attest to the resiliency of those with secure attachment and the vulnerability of those with insecure attachment (paths dj and dhij, Figure 1). For example, friends and family members evaluated the adjustment of individuals who were within a few blocks of the World Trade Center during the September 11th attack (Fraley, Fazzari, Bonanno, & Dekel, 2006). Change in adjustment was modeled prior to and two times subsequent to the 911 attack. Securely attached individuals were rated as most adjusted before and after 911 and preoccupied as least well adjusted; dismissive individuals did not differ from the measurement standard of functioning as well as “most people.” This study attests to the consistency of attachment despite severe stress and to attachment’s implications for adjustment even in the face of such stress.

Another study of severe stress concerned prisoners of war (POWs) during the 1973 Yom Kippur War who were followed over 17 years at 18, 30, and 35 years after the war (Mikulincer, Solomon, Shaver, & Ein-Dor, 2014). The study examined the associations of group (three trajectories of PTSD and a control group of non-POW veterans) with cognitive tasks activating attachment during war-related (i.e., stressful) or neutral primes in the laboratory. The totality of the findings indicated that the attachment figure was not as cognitively available to ex-POWs with a stable PTSD trajectory over time as it was for other veterans. For the authors, the findings suggested that the calming and soothing effects of the attachment figure were less accessible to those with a stable PTSD trajectory.

Studies of adult attachment have supported theoretical hypotheses concerning coping styles (paths dhi and dhij, Figure 1). Even after adjusting for covariates (e.g., the Big Five), individuals with anxious attachment were found to be more vigilant when confronted with a threatening laboratory situation, whereas those with avoidant attachment endorsed the flight response in fight-or-flight (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011). A study of adult attachment at the beginning of combat training and coping with the training near its end (4 months later) found that securely attached Israeli soldiers appraised their training experience as a challenge, whereas the avoidant and anxious/ambivalent soldiers perceived it as a threat (Mikulincer & Florian, 1995). With respect to coping, those with secure and avoidant attachment did not differ significantly on their perceived ability to cope with the training (secondary appraisal) or their use of emotion-focused strategies, but those with ambivalent attachment felt significantly less capable of coping and used more emotion-focused strategies. Soldiers with avoidant attachment relied more heavily on distancing coping strategies and they were less likely to use social support than securely or ambivalently attached soldiers. Unexpectedly, no significant difference emerged in problem-focused coping, but this may be a function of the unique experience of soldiers (e.g., repeated drills on how to handle combat situations). Finally, peer nomination by soldiers in the combat unit found that individuals with secure and avoidant attachment received more nominations to serve in leadership roles than those with anxious/ambivalent attachment. This last finding has implications for adaptation with respect to career functioning and advancement.

Here, I'll even be polite and reference it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756588/

My premise, simply, is provided they have secure attachment in childhood, people will thrive. Therefore the sexuality of the adult they form a secure relationship with, is irrelevant.

In addition, should the child turn out to be gay, they can still thrive, provided they were securely attached to an available adult during childhood.

Discuss.

[Nicole]

@ Rorschach

If you continue to yell at me and use dunces caps and be generally obnoxious, I will continue to call you "Raw Sack". Your choice good buddy.

[Gordon]

I wish Elton John would adopt me

[Nicole]

I wish Elton John would adopt me

[mellie]

The real issue that Nicole highlights is that there are not enough people willing to provide a safe and stable home for children and youth in need of same. As a consequence, Child Protection Services are widening their range of options to include various gender identifiers.

If it proves successful for the minor and carer, and if open adoption is an option, then it should be allowed.

The problem is that there are not enough people to take on certain types of children and youth

True, and another problem is the department only allowing "fostering" in so many cases. I believe where substance or serious criminal or mental illness is a factor for the bio parent's, we should be adopting these kids out to couples who desperately want children, but are afraid to foster in case the bio parent suddenly decides to put down the bottle or stop using meth and thinks they might like another crack at playing mummy or daddy again.


Less fostering and more adopting required.

Sooner the better, when these kids first go into care.

[Malcolm_hates_your_kids]

@ Rorschach

Schumm and the research agree with me

Who is Schumm? What is her background? Was it a latitudinal or longitudinal study? What is the sample size? What journal was her research published in? What are the limitations of the study? When was it published?

Would you ever answer so many questions?

You're full of it Nicole!

[Malcolm_hates_your_kids]

@ Raw Sack

oh and Nicole another quote from a researcher you have ignored that is on topic...

I'm simply saying don't be lazy or cast aspertions on my honesty.

I provided quotes...

Here's another more closely aligned with the actual topic... they aren't hard to find.

Schumm found that children with homosexual parents are 12-15 times more likely than children of heterosexual parents to be homosexual as adults. This is the strongest environmental influence ever reported for the development of homosexuality, and it involves very close family members, the parent-child relationship.

I tell you things, I find stuff and you just live in denial.

Attachment? Irrelevent. It only supports this quote.

Explain why, using your own words.

The opening post I made for this topic was:

I work in an allied health field where I see many children who can't, for various reasons, live with their parents. Gay couples should be allowed to care for these children, or adopt other children. All children need to thrive is secure attachment (which is the template for trust). The sexual orientation of their primary caregivers is irrelevant.

Discuss.

If you don't understand attachment, which you clearly don't, you can't dispute the OP.

You can't just rewrite dictionary definitions and pretend you rule the world with your insanity!

You wonder why people get so pissed off at the unversities teaching absolute crap to generations of perfectly good people sent off to babble incoherently about every topic under the sun for a wage from the health sector... fascism is not democracy: you can't just expect everyone to lay down at the foot of your latest textbook that was written by the same breed of flunkie who has to read it!