tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post2831018058672539131..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Benefits of Adoptive Parents: AP's Slanted AgendaJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40286900809592794042007-03-02T06:52:00.000-06:002007-03-02T06:52:00.000-06:00MJF, I like what you've been doing over at Opine E...MJF, I like what you've been doing over at Opine Editorials, and have added you to my blogroll. Thanks!Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59181077781260982102007-02-28T09:54:00.000-06:002007-02-28T09:54:00.000-06:00Jeff----Using the scripture as example how many st...Jeff----<BR/><BR/>Using the scripture as example how many step parent situations are there? Even Joseph, the husband of Mary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22381528507966267492007-02-20T14:41:00.000-06:002007-02-20T14:41:00.000-06:00It’s absurd the way the AP spins the story and the...It’s absurd the way the AP spins the story and the cultural left uses what validity the study has to promote gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>Under this logic all children should be offered up to adoption because “adopted children get more money & attention.”<BR/><BR/>Its important that people understand that a unwanted child represents a failure of society in promoting childbearing within stable marriages. Once that unfortunate event has occurred, then and only then do try to place the child in the best possible environment. <BR/><BR/>Within this understanding we correctly see that society must be as/more concerned with upholding marriage as the proper venue for sex and procreation as it is concerned with how children fare in adopted homes.Fitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13309743585009080434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74039554318904022982007-02-20T12:39:00.000-06:002007-02-20T12:39:00.000-06:00Thanks Jeff,I've added some thoughts over at Opine...Thanks Jeff,<BR/><BR/>I've added some thoughts <A HREF="http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/02/jeff-lindsay-benefits-of-adoptive.html" REL="nofollow">over at Opine Editorials</A>.On Lawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10016822063573312097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91550819630688068902007-02-20T11:01:00.000-06:002007-02-20T11:01:00.000-06:00I wonder what the difference would be between a si...I wonder what the difference would be between a single parent household and a stepparent household. If there are significant differences in having two adults vs one if it is a stepparent role.....<BR/>--Single mother of 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43185368090777570792007-02-19T16:10:00.000-06:002007-02-19T16:10:00.000-06:00"...this seems to strongly support arguments in fa..."...this seems to strongly support arguments in favor of adoption as a preferred alternative to either abortion, or single teen motherhood (the approach the Church favors)."<BR/><BR/>I may be reading it wrong, but it looks like you wrote that the Church favors single teen motherhood over adoption. I just wanted to point out that at the last LDS Family Services presentation I attended (they usually do one once a year), their preferred suggestions in counseling those dealing with pregnancy out of wedlock are, in order:<BR/>1. Marriage<BR/>2. Adoption<BR/>3. Single parenthood<BR/>4. AbortionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37667454055421381122007-02-18T17:24:00.000-06:002007-02-18T17:24:00.000-06:00The study was funded by a gay adoption advocacy gr...The study was funded by a gay adoption advocacy group, which I don't recall at the time. The story has made its way through the conservative blogs. Yes, there are important elements missing considering who funded the study. The agenda being to show that adoptive parents are good parents, therefor gay adoptive parents will be good parents too. However, the study did not include gay adoptive parents in their study.<BR/><BR/>The fact that other news organizations picked it up is rather meaningless, unless they conveniently left out who funded the study.<BR/><BR/>>"OF COURSE adoptive parents are going to score higher on average than the rest of us."<BR/><BR/>In the income catagory, they probably do score quite well. The screening process is rough and very expensive and very time consuming.<BR/><BR/>>But they don't really; at least not according to this study. Adoptive parents are only marginally better than biological parents when age and income are corrected for, despite the stringent screening process that adoptive parents go through. <BR/><BR/>This is because the phase of life many of these people are at. They generally late in the game at parenting, having tried many years on their own. Usually older people have more money. <BR/><BR/>I've adopted 3 children. The cost is approx $80000 for them. I can't say mine was typical as we wanted to take some children out of poor countries and that is MUCH more expensive than domestic, which I really never have figured out.<BR/><BR/>We homeschool. That is added expense. I don't know if we put more time in than other couples now that we have them, but we certainly did before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52759080205271934442007-02-15T23:43:00.000-06:002007-02-15T23:43:00.000-06:00what business is it of the governments what commit...<I>what business is it of the governments what commitments [people] want to make?</I><BR/><BR/>Marriage involves a lot more than just consenting adults (that's a different legal category). There are significant legal and societal rights that come with it, and (gasp) responsibilities that the participants need to be held accountable for.<BR/><BR/>The government needs to regulate who those rights are given to for them to mean anything, as well as provide recourse (like alimony) for those who lose when those commitments are broken. Especially once you throw in the social issue of how it affects the next generation of citizens.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean we have to agree with how the government chooses to regulate marriage, but it does need to be done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13785360450559736022007-02-15T20:55:00.000-06:002007-02-15T20:55:00.000-06:00Right - it was AP that was the source of the story...Right - it was AP that was the source of the story. It's just that ABC News and every other major organ of the media seemed to have jumped right on board the "science supports same sex marriage" bandwagon - making this a story more about a political agenda than about real news.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86647970566253030142007-02-15T17:12:00.000-06:002007-02-15T17:12:00.000-06:00I would be curious to see more about the parameter...I would be curious to see more about the parameters they used to gauge a "good parent" myself. As far as gay marriage goes, I look at it the same as I look at all marriage; why do we need the government to regulate and define it? Isn't marriage something that is sacred to the individuals involved? Why do we need laws that endorse some specific definition of someone's commitment to someone else?<BR/><BR/>The government just needs to keep it's nose out of marriage except in extreme cases of childhood marriage or forced marriage. If people are 18 and consenting adults what business is it of the governments what commitments they want to make?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66899177487520790662007-02-15T15:35:00.000-06:002007-02-15T15:35:00.000-06:00I think Jeff is ascribing an agenda (which in this...I think Jeff is ascribing an agenda (which in this context means having a politically motivated desire to present selective facts--not a paper agenda presented at a meeting) to the story ABC presented, not to the study itself. So I gather from his writingRusstafarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07575287678616776636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52286452759448877962007-02-15T14:58:00.000-06:002007-02-15T14:58:00.000-06:00Funny, but my first thought is that this seems to ...Funny, but my first thought is that this seems to strongly support arguments in favor of adoption as a preferred alternative to either abortion, or single teen motherhood (the approach the Church favors). From an overarching "agenda" viewpoint, the study seems to me to say a lot more about single parenthood and alternatives to abortion than it does about gay marriage. Since there were apparently no gay parent couples considered (as would have to be the case in order to control for their primary variable - natural vs. adoptive parents), logically the study does not say anything about how good or bad gay parents are compared to hetero parents - unless it is suggesting that two lesbians who adopt a child will be better parents than two lesbians who have a child through artificial insemination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28487138781844953802007-02-15T10:19:00.000-06:002007-02-15T10:19:00.000-06:00It's right there in the first paragraph quoted in ...It's right there in the first paragraph quoted in the blog entry:<BR/><BR/>"Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, <B>according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.</B>"<BR/><BR/>Their agenda was pro same-sex marriage. They were trying to use this data as evidence to oppose arguments against gay adoption. Except none of the adoptive parents in the study were gay. So I'm not really sure what they're getting at.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70204243711649421372007-02-15T08:22:00.000-06:002007-02-15T08:22:00.000-06:00This was not an "agenda story" (whatever that mean...This was not an "agenda story" (whatever that means) from ABC News - they were printing an Associated Press story. Please do not ascribe any motives to ABC News for publishing this story. Google news reveals that this story was published in at least 20 different publications, including such well known conservative publications as Forbes and the Dallas Morning News.<BR/><BR/>I still want to know what this so-called "agenda" is. Where do they meet? Why don't conservative Christians attend the meetings of these agenda-planners and foil whatever plot is supposedly being hatched up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com