Should children be left in orphanages rather than be adopted by loving single people or unmarried couples ?

Question

A proposal to ban unmarried couples from fostering or adopting children will appear on this fall's ballot, backers of the measure say.

http://www.ktbs.com/news/Adoption-foster-ban-cleared-for-Arkansas-ballot-15796/

Answer 1

Only a fundie would think of such a proposal.  

Children need only be in a loving household, it doesn't matter what the make-up is.  I'd much rather see a child adopted with two dads than see him or her bounced from home to home all through childhood.

Answer 2

Heck, I'm as conservative as you can get but having children raised by a inefficient government agency is just plan stupid. When anyone that is screened properly by an adoption agency is available then the children should have the chance to be with the people/person that wants them.  

Answer 3

I don't think so but I don't live in Arkansas..

Answer 4

Yeah, I just recently heard about that. I live in Arkansas, and I definitely plan to vote AGAINST this proposal!

Answer 5

Absolutely not.

Answer 6

Since no more orphanages exist in the US, and haven't existed for many many years, your question is flawed and therefore not able to be answered.

Answer 7

One parent is better than having none and going back and forth between different foster homes.I was raised by a single parent and I turned out just fine

Edit:Patrick I see white couples with African American babies all the time

Answer 8

I am a foster parent myself, and i think that one one person loving and caring for a child is better than round the clock supervision from somebody that could careless as long as they get a paycheck.  but don't forget that some people foster or adopt just for the $ involved.

Answer 9

No.

I would rather a child have one parent who loves them than an abusive home life or poor foster care.  I used to work in the inner city and have seen children end up homeless rather than go back to state care agencies.  

Answer 10

Or same s*x couples. Children would be better off in any caring and supportive home.

Answer 11

Our adoption system is broken and needs to be fixed.  It's near impossible to adopt in the US.  Typical gov't red tape beurocracy.  We need to improve the system and make it functional first.  Who should adopt is a secondary question to the entire system being broken.  A child is better off being in a family environment with a Male Father, Female Mother and hopefully brothers and sisters.  Just look at any gov't statistics about single parent families.  Most children are placed in foster homes and although not perfect the vast majority are wonderful loving caring environments where the children live until being adopted or reunited with their parents.  The reunited with their parents is another problem with our system.  It's impossible to legally separate a child from the child's parent no matter how horrible of a person the parent is.  This needs to be changed.  It's also near impossible for a white person to adopt a black baby.  This is due to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton fighting to not allow this.  This needs to be changed to allow all children to be loved, taken care of and adopted by loving families reguardless of race.  Yes I would prefer a child is taken care of by anyone than abandoned though in reality the adoption problems are beuracratic and not based on a lack of people wanting to adopt.

Answer 12

I think they should be allowed to adopt if they can reasonably care for  the child.  I also think g**s should be allowed to adopt if theyre fit to do so.

Answer 13

Yes, of course. The fundies who got this on the ballot in Arkansas said they want to preserve the gold standard of raising children. Never mind that no study has ever shown negative effects on children raised by same-s*x couples. What they're saying is that, if a kid isn't going to be raised by a married man and woman (And, of course, we all know that married men and women are always great parents), the child shouldn't be raised by anyone.