In God We Must

[Neil]

Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating.

Then you should improve yourself.

Okay Mr. Haggard.

Merle Haggard?  Or did you do a typo while typing Mike Haggar?

[Jacob]

Not sure I grasp the distinction between red flags raised about their potential as parents and deciding that large abstract categories are de facto less suitable. 

Let me start with some examples:

Large abstract politically charged categories: Republican, Muslim, gay, Black, immigrant et. al.

Individually assessed red flags: history of violence and losing your temper, unstable personal economy, personal history of drug use, demonstrated ability to not take care of a animals in their care, criminal record, hostile or no ties with rest of family

Basically the large abstract categories are the ones that are part of the "culture war" in the US. The red flags are based on individual assessment of the potential adopter and are concerned with personal circumstances and qualities that I believe everyone, whatever their political inclination, agree would make someone more or less suitable as a parent.

[Admiral Yi]

So because it's poltically charged we rule it out as a red flag?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  I say we look at the science and let the chips fall as they may.

[Ed Anger]

Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.

[Barrister]

Not sure I grasp the distinction between red flags raised about their potential as parents and deciding that large abstract categories are de facto less suitable. 

Let me start with some examples:

Large abstract politically charged categories: Republican, Muslim, gay, Black, immigrant et. al.

Individually assessed red flags: history of violence and losing your temper, unstable personal economy, personal history of drug use, demonstrated ability to not take care of a animals in their care, criminal record, hostile or no ties with rest of family

Basically the large abstract categories are the ones that are part of the "culture war" in the US. The red flags are based on individual assessment of the potential adopter and are concerned with personal circumstances and qualities that I believe everyone, whatever their political inclination, agree would make someone more or less suitable as a parent.

It seems to me that you're the one trying to draw a bright line around certain politically charged categories and say "these can never be discussed or considered", when in fact some of them probably should.

Lets take race.  Right now social services takes race as a very big consideration, and tries to place children with families of similar background.  This has been a big topic around aboriginal children, because aboriginal communities (which unfortunately have very disproportinately large involvement from child welfare agencies) see it as an attempt to 'steal their children'.

Or politics - I doubt you could draw any real distinction between republic and democratic parents, but someone with radical militant politics (say a violent anarchist or white supremacist)?  Yeah I think that's a mark against them.

[PDH]

Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.

Don't even try, these guys are just ignoring the sensible options.

[Eddie Teach]

I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:

- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.

I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.

*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".

I think the main disadvantage for single parents has always been the time crunch, especially for lower income workers.

[Ed Anger]

Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.

Don't even try, these guys are just ignoring the sensible options.

I guess I'll save my 'turn them into potted meat' idea then.

[crazy canuck]

I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:

- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.

I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.

*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".

I think the main disadvantage for single parents has always been the time crunch, especially for lower income workers.

In my experience the parents most absent are the ones busy with successful careers.  The parents that show up most of the time are the poorer parents who work more of a 9-5 type job.  Anecdotal yes, but the only parent that comes and stays at every single practice and comes to every single game of our club basketball team is a single mother.

[Ideologue]

Gups made the point that right now people are killing themselves and others in the name of religion while no one is doing so in the name of atheism. If your best counter is something that happened almost a century ago in an entirely different context then that's not much of a counter at all.

Falun Gong?

[Malthus]

I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:

- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.

I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.

*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".

There is a reasonable literature on the subject.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x/full

Recent debates have emerged about the advantage of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson, 2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001).

Obviously this is a generality, not a rule. But it does make intuitive sense. Two-parent families are more likely to be stable, they will on average have more resources in terms of both money and time.

[Eddie Teach]

And what if they can't get a 9 to 5 job, or the one they can get isn't enough? That's when the second parent would come in especially handy.

[Barrister]

I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:

- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.

I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.

*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".

There is a reasonable literature on the subject.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x/full

Recent debates have emerged about the advantage of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson, 2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001).

Obviously this is a generality, not a rule. But it does make intuitive sense. Two-parent families are more likely to be stable, they will on average have more resources in terms of both money and time.

Interesting.

Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".

[crazy canuck]

And what if they can't get a 9 to 5 job, or the one they can get isn't enough? That's when the second parent would come in especially handy.

Certainly, all kinds of people have all kinds of problems which makes generalizations difficult.

[Malthus]

Interesting.

Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".

Fair enough.  I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.