No duh: It hurts kids to purposely deprive them of a mom or a dad
Posted on June 25, 2007
Of course, that wasn’t the conclusion of the CNN “report,” but you needn’t read between any lines to see. It’s unfathomably tragic that we’re even having this common sense-defying discussion.
CNN: Gay adoption: A new take on the American family
Roach and his longtime partner, Ken Manford, adopted Jackson from Guatemala in 2001 and say he is not overly bothered by the non-traditional character of their family. (Audio slide show: One family’s experience)
“We worry about it more than he does,” Roach said, although the “two fathers” acknowledged that Jackson had been asking about “mom” lately.
“We’re pretty upfront about it,” Manford said. “You just …say, ‘If you had a mommy, then you wouldn’t have two daddies. Is that what you want?’ And he says, ‘No I want two daddies and a mommy.’”
“Well, there’s not a mommy, you’ve got grandma, and granny and Aunt Jennifer. And he’ll say, ‘OK.’”
Not only is this passage self-contradictory (it doesn’t bother the child, but, oh wait, yes it does), it offers a dark look into the emotional manipulation of an innocent child thrust into a life without the mom he obviously longs for. Classic guilt trip pyschology — “so I guess you want me to die, huh?” As a matter of fact in the “Audio Slide Show” associated with the story, one of the men tell a “funny story” about how when one of them fell ill with the flu and said something along the lines of “I’m so sick I’m going to die,” the kid immediately asked, “If you die does that mean I get a mommy?” No…this kid doesn’t want a mom, does he? But these guys tell the kid: “You have grandmas and an aunt. Suck it up.”
It’s so bloody obvious that kids long for what they deserve — a loving mother and father. Sadly, in our narcissistic age, “It’s all about me.” Adults have become juveniles seeking their own self-fulfillment, often, as is the case with same-sex couples and women who choose to exclude the fathers of their children from their lives, at the expense of innocent children. Don’t get crazy folks, this doesn’t mean that a single mom can’t be a good parent. (I’m the product of a single parent home and honor my mom’s successful efforts to keep it together after my father took off when I was young.) This also doesn’t mean that same-sex couples who adopt mean to do harm. This also doesn’t mean that every marriage is perfect and that all kids from married homes turn out well.
What it means is that we shouldn’t, as a society get into the business of making it acceptable to treat kids as nothing more than a socially-affirming, self-satisfying tool for perpetually adolescent adults to feel “validated.” Kids should be treated as the blessing they are and not like lab rats in a radical social experiment.
» Filed Under ACLU, Child Exploitation, Homosexual Agenda, News
Trackback URL
Comments
30 Responses to “No duh: It hurts kids to purposely deprive them of a mom or a dad”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Great analysis. The gay marriage thing is going down the same path as easy divorce - a lie based on the assumption that adults are vulnerable while kids are resilient.
Impressive, Glib. You weren’t reading between the lines, yet somehow you managed to avoid reading the lines.
No less than five respected and unbiased organizations stated for the record “that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.”
You’re not actually saying that the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics aren’t in a good position to analyze the situation, are you?
As a side note, you know full well that Jackson was asking about having a mom because the children at school were asking him about it.
Given:
- Society is currently less than fully accepting of homosexual parents
- Children will question, tease, and taunt each other over any differences
We don’t want children to be teased, so therefore we should become less accepting? Doesn’t sound right to me.
You know the kid who doesn’t have the latest designer clothes is going to get teased. Is it immoral for lower-middle class parents to have a child, knowing he’ll end up getting teased at some point by his wealthier peers?
Even more important than the family is the ability to keep the government off of the internet. For example, the big government wants to keep people from freely playing poker on the internet. No other issue is as important to freedom as internet freedom.
Well Glib you seem to have a fairly firm grasp on what you are talking about. Jeff you say “You’re not actually saying that the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics aren’t in a good position to analyze the situation, are you?”. Well yes I suppose ordinarly that they would be but the problem is all the maditory political correctness of today. If they were to come out and say: It is completly traumatizing to a child to live with a gay couple, do you understand what kind of a “[edited] storm” would come down on them? Gays would protest intolerance and sure enough people like Jesse Jackson would come to their aid as well and it would end in some kind of lawsuit that the gays would in turn win because if they didn’t it again would be discrimination against them. So yes I would say those organizations are biased or at least afraid. And if you think it is natural to be gay, think of it from a non-religious perspective. If everything was gay, how do you suppose they would reproduce? Species and races would die out. That seems very unnatural to me. And no having two dads and no mom is not the same as having a mom and dad and one of them not being around. Ed I don’t really see what your post had to do with this one but even so lets go with it anyway. If internet freedom is the most important (seemingly only important,the way you talk) freedom then I suppose if all your other rights, such as owning property, owning guns, driving, having actual cash in your possession, drinking, smoking, hunting, or whatever other things you can relate to were outlawed, so long as you could sit at your computer and gamble or do whatever else you felt like then all would be well. Did I get that all right? And that’s not to say I don’t believe in internet freedom because I do, I just think there are far more important things to worry about. Such as remaining in a democracy, which we are moving farther from every day. Well farewell.
Yes, because it’s better for the kid to grow up being passed along from one foster home to the next and live within the system having no mothers or fathers than to have two mothers or two fathers. Use some common sense.
I tend to agree with you Ed, but what does that have to do with depriving kids of a mom or a dad?
MSC:
Here is where you buy into the myth. Most homosexuals attempt to adopt healthy newborns. Either that or they go for alternate methods to have BABIES. These BABIES that homosexuals seek will purposely deprive The foster argument is a distraction, as are the arguments about disabled children, crack babies and infants infected with HIV. You may har anecdotally about homosexuals adopting such children, but the fact is, most homosexuals seek the very same, in-demand, easy to place children as married couples. There is even a huge increase of homosexuals turning to international adoption of BABIES. There actually IS a legitimate argument on the foster issue. I don’t think there is a legitimate argument in favor of allowing homosexuals to adopt babies.
Jeff–
Those “professional” associations are political organs. You know that as well as I do. You’re too smart to allow thought and common sense to be replaced by “irrefutable” pronouncements From on High by radical politically Leftist “experts.”
If you deny that it is natural for children to want a Mom and a Dad, you display a chillingly thought-free adherence to a radical social restructuring agenda at the expense of innocent children.
Of course, I readily acknowledge that “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy. Something is not true simply because an “authority” says it is. However, if someone is to approach the discussion with an open mind, they will surely have to give the benefit of the doubt to the handful of well-funded organizations that have independently studied the issue from different angles and arrived at the same conclusion. Mr. Glib Fortuna, to my knowledge, has not earned the same benefit of the doubt and therefore bears the burden of disproving their assertions. You’ll notice that I didn’t use words like “irrefutable”; I just pointed out that you skated completely around your opponents’ strongest evidence, which does not speak well of your argument.
You and your assumptions again. For all you know, I have at least as much experience and have put at least as much thought into the subject as you have. Yet, because I haven’t reached your conclusion, you assume I’m ignorant or malicious.
Oh, how I missed these chats.
First off, there has been no “independent studies” that prove anything close to the bizarre idea that just any old arrangement is as good for children as being raised by a married mom and dad. The studies chronicling the tragic impact on children from “non-traditional” homes are legion. Check out what fatherlessness, divorce, “blanded” families and other configurations where children are not raised by a married mom and dad generally lead to. It’s so obvious and so disturbing I find it hard to believe that as a father yourself you’d reject both the wisdom of nature (if you reject God) and the undeniable weight of the stats regarding kids brought up in “non-traditional family structures.” The truth is, the “studies” you mention from those associations have not been conducted, rather what you call studies are nothing more than political proclamations from Leftist groups with a very definite political agenda.
See Jeff, there you go again, abandoning thought and common sense. Just because Leftist groups declare it to be so, doesn’t make it so. I have a general rule: if the “experts” say something that absolutely defies common sense (in this case that it doesn’t matter who raises children, anyone will do, especially if the group we’re endorsing wields an enormous amount of power), shared experience and clear data, I raise the BS flag.
Jeff, I don’t assume you are ignorant or malicious. I don’t think you are either and you shouldn’t be treated as if you are. What I meant is that you allow your political position on this topic to cloud “That which you can’t not know.” In this case, that thing that you can’t not know is that it is not generally a good idea to create a situation in which an innocent child will be purposely robbed of either a mom or a dad. I understand there are host of issues on which you and I disagree and we both have legitimate arguments, but on this one, you will never persuade me because I just don’t see how you think it is OK to play with the lives of kids by what is, in effect, treating them like lab rats in a radical social experiment. These are the real lives of real kids, not some tangential economic theory or geo-political diplomatic strategy discussion.
One more thing I have to ask. Let me preface this by saying that the only reason I even posted about this was because of this one contemptible line in the story:
‘If you had a mommy, then you wouldn’t have two daddies. Is that what you want?’
This emotional manipulation of a small child is outrageous. It’s many degrees worse than the Great Santini bouncing the basketball off his son’s head. Jeff, you can see how disgusting this is, no? I am guessing you wouldn’t toy with your little girl in this way would you?
This may not speak for the mindset of homosexuals who adopt children in general, but in the larger public debate, this is exactly what they are trying to do. Manipulate the publics’ emotions with talk of their OWN “rights” and “validation,” never considering that they might, just might be harming the children involved, and casting anyone who opposing them as seething bigots or “homophobes” (What do you mean a boy can’t have two daddies? To the social death camp with you!)
“If you tell any one about our special slumber parties, your daddies will go to jail. You don’t want that, do you?”
I didn’t say “prove” or anything like it. I just said they’re big organizations with an interest in the topic (and it’s worth repeating that they all have different interests in the topic, yet they reach the same conclusion), so I’m more inclined to believe them than I am to believe you.
My mind isn’t closed, though. I never said you couldn’t make your case, I just said you hadn’t. If you think their studies are flawed, find the studies and point out the flaws. If you don’t want to take the time to do that, I understand, but know that you won’t convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with you.
Ummm, I agree. In fact, I have already said as much.
Comment 6, sentence 2: “Something is not true simply because an ‘authority’ says it is.”
Ok. You’ll notice that I haven’t criticized your position. I just said you haven’t made a thorough, convincing argument.
If you ever find that you don’t understand my reasoning on a topic, try using the question mark key.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think you’re overlooking one possibility. Those words, with a certain tone and/or demeanor can most definitely amount to emotional manipulation. However, with different tone and demeanor, those words amount to a perfectly factual explanation. I can’t imagine you support polygamy, so the child’s mom literally has been traded for an extra dad.
Without witnessing the actual conversation, we can’t possibly know if there was any coercion.
Those that make such weak arguments can rightfully be dismissed. I can assure you that I do consider the effects on the children (though the rights of the adults can’t be ignored either) and I won’t resort to name-calling.
If you wish to support your assertions, go right ahead; I’ll listen. I would suggest, though, that you amend your main post rather than burying a good argument in the comments.
The bottom line is two men or two women can raise a child just as well as a man and a woman. Not a single valid study (i.e. not those twisted abominations that Focus of the Family etc. produce) shows anything negative, only neutral and positive results.
You say that I buy into a “myth” but you have zero proof to refute the numerous adoption agencies and organizations that show that gays and lesbians generally adopt children that heterosexual couples do not want. Not only that, but you totally ignore the fact that some of these kids are gay or lesbian themselves and would benefit greatly from being raised by parents they can relate to rather than feel alienated from.
What you should be concerned about is if the people adopting children (as individuals) are fit to be parents, gay or straight does not matter, it’s the quality of the person(s).
Just how does one determine for a fact that a baby, toddler or young child is gay or lesbian?
Who said anything about baby, toddler, or a young child? Teenagers are also kids that are in the foster care system, yet you list every type of child except teenagers. How would you know? If you can’t tell by interacting with them, ask them. Do you know many heterosexuals (outside of the movies) that would say they are gay?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14723445
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=2920801063
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_02_11.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html
http://www.zenit.org/article-11455?l=english (Part I)
http://www.zenit.org/article-11466?l=english (Part II)
You have a Certified Gaydar Technician testify under oath. Duhhhhh.
Welcome back, Lobo.
P.S. I love how you started with credible sources and worked your way down to the Vatican’s newsletter.
Lobo:
1. The first link, while on a government site, is not credible. It was done by FRC which is just another Focus on the Family group that distorts and misuses polling data. Even if the article were true, it does not say that the people involved were gay, and it doesn’t distinguish from gay or pedophile.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not pedophiles. Pedophiles have no interest in adult relationships and actually find adult sexually unattractive and for the most part do not care if it a male or female child they are molesting. Not defending them, just noting that Homosexuals/Heterosexuals are people attracted to other adults.
2. Yet another christian organization. Not only that, but a bible belt christian organization. Mot credible.
“Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.”
Young adults who “adopt” the homosexual lifestyle? Come on.
3. Same as #1, Family research institute. Nothing but biased misinformation.
4. What the hell is this? It’s not proof, it’s opinion from yet another christian kook.
“To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.”
LoL, that is just so inane that I don’t know where to begin.
#5: And last but not least:
ZENIT is a non-profit international news agency comprising a team of professionals and volunteers who are convinced of the extraordinary richness of the Catholic Church’s message, particularly its social doctrine. The ZENIT team sees this message as a light for understanding today’s world.
NOT CREDIBLE
Come back when, like I said, you have real, credible, unbiased proof. Not stuff from christofacist Family Research Institute, Focus on the Family, etc.
Sorry for the spelling errors, was in a rush, headed to a wedding soon. =)
LOL… Good one!
BTW; what is the techs’ oath based on?
Thanks. It’s good to be back…I think!
Thanks! A little something for everyone,huh?
You finding something credible while Michael didn’t, is interesting. But then again, you didn’t say “Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not pedophiles.” or “Even if the article were true, it does not say that the people involved were gay, and it doesn’t distinguish from gay or pedophile.” or “Young adults who “adopt†the homosexual lifestyle? Come on.”
P.S. In light of the number of hospitals and extensive Catholic involvement with the medical profession and academia in general, I consider it credible.
Michael S. Clark,
As a site admin, I don’t need to come back. I live here.
If you consider “ask them.” credible but discount professionals with a wide range of degrees, as not credible, feel free to provide “real, credible, unbiased proof” of your position.
His honor.
Don’t read too much into it. You were responding to his assertions, so I just read the domain names and gave you the benefit of the doubt. He may be right to discredit the first two sources as well.
I don’t dispute the Catholic Church’s expertise in pedophilia… (sorry, had to)
Honestly though, they’re not credible because their position on the matter has been settled for a long time. I hope we’re all honest enough to admit that you can find practically any conclusion in any set of data if you’re already convinced it’s there.
*cough* Glib, you listening? *cough*
“If you consider “ask them.†credible but discount professionals with a wide range of degrees, as not credible, feel free to provide “real, credible, unbiased proof†of your position.”
The only way your team of professionals would be able to tell who is gay and who is not would be to do exactly what I suggested. To “ask them”. I guess you think you have to have a degree to ask a question and make it credible.
-
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
-
“In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html (Conclusion)
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html (Entire study of research done in area)
-
“Children will be molested by homosexual parents.”
There is no legitimate scientific research connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. Sexual orientation (homosexual or heterosexual) is defined as an adult attraction to other adults. Pedophilia is defined as an adult sexual attraction or perversion to children.7 In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual.” 8
“Children raised in homosexual households will become gay.”
The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, “If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay”. 11
Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of “significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals”. 12
“Children will develop problems growing up in an ‘unnatural’ lifestyle.”
Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children’s development in gay and lesbian families.
The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents,” a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, “Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”
Psychiatrist Laurintine Fromm, of the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, agrees with that finding. “[The] literature…does not indicate that these children fare any worse [than those of heterosexual parents] in any area of psychological development or sexual identity formation. A parent’s capacity to be respectful and supportive of the child’s autonomy and to maintain her own intimate attachments, far outweighs the influence of the parent’s sexual orientation alone.”
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm
more -credible- unbiased information to come….
Damn you spam filter, thou art evil.
What are the characteristics of male perpetrators of child maltreatment?
* Of all reported cases in the18-State data set, slightly less than one-half of all perpetrators were male. Of these, about one-half (51%) were biological fathers, an additional one-fifth occupied some other parental role (adoptive fathers, stepfathers, mothers’ boyfriends), and about one-quarter were in nonparental relationships (including relatives, foster parents, day care providers, or friends) to their victims. In comparison, among female perpetrators, 86 percent were biological mothers.
* Male and female perpetrators were similar in terms of race. Males were slightly older than females, with an age difference of about 5 years, and men were substantially less likely to be in a caregiver status to the child than were women (60% compared with 87%).
Does not tell the sexuality of the parents, but does show that 51% were biological fathers and 86% were biological mothers.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/child%2Dmaltreat/execsum.htm
-
There are no data to suggest that children who have gay or lesbian parents are different in any aspects of psychological, social, and sexual development from children in heterosexual families. There has been fear that children raised in gay or lesbian households will grow up to be homosexual, develop improper sex-role behavior or sexual conflicts, and may be sexually abused. There has been concern that children raised by gay or lesbian parents will be stigmatized and have conflicts with their peer group, thus threatening their psychological health, self-esteem, and social relationships. These fears and concerns have not been substantiated by research. Pediatricians can facilitate the health care and development of these children by being aware of these and their own attitudes, by educating themselves about special concerns of gay or lesbian parents, and by being a resource and an advocate for children who have homosexual parents.
http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/9/354http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/9/354
-
In examining parenting styles and attitudes,
researchers have found more similarities than differences
between gay and heterosexual fathers and lesbian
and heterosexual mothers. However, gay fathers
are more likely to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines
and to be more involved in their children’s activities
(Bigner JJ, Jacobsen RB. J Homosex. 1992;23:99-
112). In addition, lesbian mothers are likely to be more
concerned about providing a male role model for their
children than are divorced heterosexual mothers
(Harris MB, Turner PH. JHomosex. 1985;12:101-113)
(Kirkpatrick M, Smith C, Roy R. AmJ Orthopsychiatry.
1981;51:545-551).
According to the technical report, “none of the 300
children studied to date have shown evidence of gender
identity confusion, wished to be the other sex, or
consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior.” In
fact, the proportion of young adults with homosexual
or heterosexual parents who report being attracted to
someone of the same sex is similar, as is the proportion
of young adults from both groups who report
being homosexual.
Finally, children of homosexual parents are more
likely to be more tolerant of diversity, more nurturing
and have higher self-esteem than children of heterosexual
parents.
http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/issue_pdf/edboard_pdf/20/2.pdf
-
There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation. It has long been established that a homosexual orientation is not related to psychopathology, and there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child.
http://aacap.org/page.ww?section=Policy+Statements&name=Gay%2C+Lesbian+and+Bisexual+Parents+Policy+Statement
-
Good article here by the Child Welfare League of America, but done in 1988. So kind of outdated.
http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm
-
We believe that every child has the right to a loving, nurturing and permanent family, and that people from a variety of life experiences offer strengths for these children.
Therefore, it is the policy of the National Adoption Center that no person should be denied consideration in the adoption process solely based on marital status, sexual orientation, lifestyle, disability, physical appearance, race, gender, age, religion and/or size of family.
http://www.adopt.org/whoweare/policy.html#Adoptive%20Parent%20Assessment
-
Philosophy
Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents.
Practice and Policy Recommendations
All prospective foster and adoptive parents, regardless of sexual orientation, should be given fair and equal consideration.
NACAC opposes rules and legislation that restrict the consideration of current or prospective foster and adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation.
http://www.nacac.org/pub_statements.html#Gay
I tried posting 2 very large posts, but Glib or someone will have to approve them it seems, flagged as spam.
Thanks for the post. Keep them coming!
Hmm, had two decent sized posts get caught in the spam filter…. that will teach me to back up before I hit submit. Hopefully an admin will approve them.
Looks like I was flagged as a spammer, none of my posts have shown up, and my requests for their approval have not been responded to.
Michael,
I’ve been offline for 2 months due to a fried computer.
I have a new one but have encountered various bugs and glitches that I am working on.
I’ll respond to your posts as soon as I’m up to snuff.
I can tell you now though, I don’t consider your sources credible either.
I’m curious, Lobo. What criteria do you use to determine if a source is credible? Keep in mind that a source can be credible without being authoritative.
If you really believe that every major psychological, pediatric, and adoption agency is not credible, I would have to say the problem more than likely lies with you and not them. The only arguments against gay adoption come from people basing their opinion on a two thousand year old book written by bronze age barbarians who thought that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.