Gay Adoption Statistics

Danny (pbuh) says this about gay adoption:

I am aware of statistics showing that children do better when their parents stay together and that marriage helps parents stay together.

But Norman Tebbit appears to have alighted on a different set of figures – ones which show that a male and female role model is required.

I\’d love to see those stats. Genuinely. Perhaps he will send them to me.

Actually, that\’s an irrelevance (although of course it\’s always fun to call someone out on such things).

The important set of statistics is that which shows that the very worst life chances, the highest probabilities of drug use, homelessness, ill-, mal- and under- education, indeed, the greatest signifier of a life that\’s going to be entirely and completely fucked up is growing up in council care.

Really, who gives a damn that Teh Gayers are changing nappies compared to that?

15 thoughts on “Gay Adoption Statistics”

  1. You guys are so ridiculous. Of course those in council care do badly. You are not comparing like with like. Just as Grammar schools do better because they have already creamed off the most academically bright kids, council care only take on kids who have already got enormous problems.

  2. Comparing kids in foster care and those who have been adopted with those in Council care is comparing like with like. If the last has the worst outcomes, then there’s something wrong with the care – as indeed there is. Hive rearing is no substitute for life-long relationships with parents. Staff turnover is unavoidable, hard for the staff as well as the kids, and thoroughly destructive.

    Of course, there are other problems with Council care, but the above alone would account for these differences. Children need parents, and while some Councils put barriers in the way of adoption – for reasons of political dogma, among others – these comparisons will remain valid.

    Grammar schools also offer a better education than do Comprehensives. More than one statement can be true at the same time. Denying an academic environment to bright but poor kids is a disgrace.

  3. “If the last has the worst outcomes, then there’s something wrong with the care – as indeed there is.”

    That doesn’t prove it in itself – I’m fairly sure that the kids with the worst problems are the ones who are least likely to be adopted. Even so, I’d be amazed if adoption didn’t, on average, produce better outcomes than orphanage-style care (although demonstrating it conclusively through blind trials might be considered rather unethical).

  4. “although demonstrating it conclusively through blind trials might be considered rather unethical”

    Well, we could always use the children of social workers.

    Assuming, that is, you can first locate a breeding pair…

  5. Jonn B: “I’d be amazed if adoption didn’t, on average, produce better outcomes than orphanage-style care.”

    So you are in fact agreeing with Tim’s article?

  6. How did they get the stats? I mean, did anyone actually say to the children, ‘Are you happy you were adopted by a gay couple or would you have preferred to stay in care?” And how was ‘happiness’ measured?

    Any gay couple who adopt – with all the hoops that have to be jumped through and with the financial sacrifices involved – *really* have to want that child. It’s obvious that having male and female role models would be the ideal, but in an imperfect situation, it seems just as obvious that being really wanted, and living in a family environment – as opposed to a relatively benign institutional environment – would be preferable from a child’s point of view.

    Perhaps the role model comparison should be made between children adopted by gay couples and children missing a parent of the opposite sex for other reasons.

  7. Neil manages to get upset with a comment supporting Gay adoption, because it criticises the state.

    God being a lefty must be difficult, choosing between all those mutually incompatible victim groups.

  8. “So you are in fact agreeing with Tim’s article?”

    Yes, as I frequently do. I was suggesting that Neil was probably wrong, but that Peter’s logic for explaining why Neil was wrong didn’t work.

  9. Because there’s such a shortage of potential adopters aren’t there? Sheesh guys, those wanting to adopt are about eleven times as numerous as babies available for adoption.

    Children in council care have been put there by the courts after things have gone wrong with the current parental arrangements. They are certainly not infants and things are already buggered up and, no doubt, will become more so.

  10. “babies available”

    …is the point, and is the problem.

    If you wait until a child is 3+ before removing it from an abusive background, then there’s a good chance it’ll never be adopted; but if the child is still a baby then it’s much harder to determine whether taking it away from its dubious parents is the right thing to do (since they haven’t had the chance to properly abuse it yet, ISYWIM).

    It’s a more-or-less impossible-to-resolve dilemma, and it’s pretty much always the social workers who try and resolve it as well as they can who get the blame, whether that’s “innocent mother has baby stolen by evil bastards” or “why didn’t these incompetent fools intervene earlier?”.

    It’s really, really, really hard to say what the best policy is here. The one with the best consequences is a policy of early intervention and adoption without much benefit-of-the-doubt for ‘high-risk’ biological parents of new babies: the adoptive parents are highly likely to do better at parenting than the biological parents. Yet it’s one where utilitarianism falls down, since most of us find that concept pretty abhorrent.

    But whatever the solution there, allowing gays, old people, people of the wrong colour (and indeed, pretty much anyone who’d pass a CRB check) to adopt kids over 3 is certainly better than keeping them in council care.

  11. The voice of sanity

    I’m sorry to go against the grain of all the apparent homo loving hippies in the world but I personally think gay adoption is a f*cking disgrace!! What better way of confusing a child than having them see two guys or women kissing? They have made their choice to sleep with same gender partners, they have given up their rights to have a child at this point and that should be the end of it. It’s all good of you being open minded but perhaps you should question if your open mindedness is a characteristic you have inherited from having non homosexual parents?!
    you people won’t stop until the normal folk are a f*cking minority!!

  12. Pingback: Probably they’re right but still….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *