You really need to add a third category called “opposite sex adopted” to get a fair understanding whether the difference is adoption or same sex parents.

Jordan Peterson talked about the Jing and the Jang of the two sexes and how it is important for child development.

However, the disparate outcomes for adopted and natural parents cannot be ignored.

And finally, statistics ignore individual cases. You could argue that it is better to be in a same sex household with loving parents than to be in an orphanage with no parent figure.

Especially for lesbians, it is rather harsh to deny them motherhood just because of some statistics and at the same time deny children adoption opportunities.

Since parenthood is the ultimate maturation experience for any human being, so long as the same-sex couple are mentally sound and prepared for the trouble and responsibility, they ought to be allowed to adopt. However, realize that the outcomes in the graph above are for all households in those respective categories and that many same-sex couples are dis-functional too, just as opposite-sex couples are often enough. So my opinion is that the level of maturity and willingness to face the responsibility are the criteria for good parenting, not so much the sexual preferences of the parents. Commitment to the family is paramount.

Adoption is more successful than longterm care with 2 differences, a clean break and anonymity. The latter is a way of avoiding stigma of growing up in care as adopted children take their parents name so there is no visual sign of familial failure. This is lost with same sex adoption as the question will always be asked "Have you ever met your real mother/father?" this is compounded by the "controversy" of having parents of the same sex.

Another reason is God. If 2 single parent women fall in love with kids this can be considered an act of God, for similar reasons could be given for a lack of a father, bereavement for example. Same sex adoption involves a third party making a conscious decision to deny a child a father. This is a major headfuck to lay on a vulnerable stigmatize child.

They cannot anticipate some of the problems the child may have from this kind of family(same sex) as the family is unlikely to have its own experiences of gay adoption to draw from as they were raised by heterosexual couples.

It is wrong in a way to compare straight and gay couples adopting, more accurate to compare gay couples adopting with heterosexual foster parents.

Considering that amount of research that one can find looking into the WHO and other international studies that point again and again towards the best outcome being a mother and father in a married state raising the children and that this not only aids the children but also adds to the longevity of both parents is interesting to say the least.

The arguments being made by a section of society that is less than 7% of global society and yet demanding that social norms change for their benefit is startling to say the least as it is actually being taken seriously by many groups. Mostly for being able to reshape society as they wish (as they don't like the current rule book and are sure they can do better). History has pointed to other times when this type of actions have happened and they never end well. Apparently there is enough hard wiring that overcoming it runs into the issue of those who refuse to adapt to the new "norm". As everytime in history that this has happened the "new norm" has breed itself out of existence. Which is rather interesting indeed.

I would like to find out just how much of this greater depression is from a RESULT of society discouraging these sorts of family structures. Furthermore, the kids in these studies will have inevitably gone through their upbringing decades before present day...and given the rapid pace of changing of society's views on homosexuality, I'd think it would be pretty tough to accurately judge how miserable modern children of homosexual couples are, and why they are more depressed.

Examples:
The more society disapproves of one's parents the more depressed one is likely to be
The more likely your parents were to not support your relationship, the less help you'll get raising the kid, which may lead to more depression
*The less priority same sex couples are given for adoptions, the more problems the kid they adopt may have naturally had or the older the kid they adopt may be...this increasing the odds of the kid's depression, not through the parents, but through the kid's circumstances

Other potential explanations:
I would imagine the lack of both sexes is disadvantageous for similar reasons that single parents are...you don't get two perspectives, which can be especially disadvantageous if the parents are not the sex of the kid
If the kid is not gay, the gay parents may not be ask skilled at relationship advice.

There do seem to be reasons to put same sex couples as lower priority for adoptions than 2 sex couples...but I'm betting they're still better off than with single parents.

Bruh what is "The Public Discourse" ? Religion is lies. It's all lies.

"Considerable debate has arisen in the professional literature regarding the possibility of increased psychological risk in adopted children compared with nonadopted children. A selective review of the literature indicates that, although most adoptees are well within the normal range of functioning, as a group they are more vulnerable to various emotional, behavioral, and academic problems than their nonadopted peers living in intact homes with their biological parents. Methodological problems associated with adoption research are discussed, and a new conceptual model of adoption adjustment is offered."

[researchgate.net]

Even as a child I noticed adopted children were not in general as happy as non adopted children. It is something hard to understand as an outsider. When children are adopted by same sex couples there is an additional stress factor.

Some of the same problems we see in same sex couples adopted children are seen in single parent households. It could be that difference in parenting style between the sexes are optimal for psychological development.

The Counseling psychologist
Author Manuscript
HHS Public Access
The Transracial Adoption Paradox
History, Research, and Counseling Implications of Cultural Socialization
Richard M. Lee

Additional article information

Abstract
The number of transracial adoptions in the United States, particularly international adoptions, is increasing annually. Counseling psychology as a profession, however, is a relatively silent voice in the research on and practice of transracial adoption. This article presents an overview of the history and research on transracial adoption to inform counseling psychologists of the set of racial and ethnic challenges and opportunities that transracial adoptive families face in everyday living. Particular attention is given to emergent theory and research on the cultural socialization process within these families.

The older I get, the more I realize I can’t avoid being Korean. Every time I look into the mirror, I am Korean. When I look at family pictures, I feel that I stand out. I guess it shouldn’t bother me, but sometimes it does. Even though I may seem very American ...I want to be distinctly Korean. I know I’m not in terms of having all the Korean traditions, but I don’t want people to see me and say, “Because she grew up in a Caucasian family, and because she is very Americanized, she’s white.” That’s not what I want anymore.

Janine Bishop (1996, p. 309)
The opening passage by Janine Bishop (1996), a 20-year-old Korean adoptee college student, illustrates the transracial adoption paradox that confronts racial/ethnic minority children who are adopted by White parents. Namely, adoptees are racial/ethnic minorities in society, but they are perceived and treated by others, and sometimes themselves, as if they are members of the majority culture (i.e., racially White and ethnically European) due to adoption into a White family. This set of contradictory experiences that are nevertheless true has been of particular interest to adoptive families, adoption professionals, and researchers in the United States and Europe over the past 50 years (Fanshel, 1972; McRoy & Zurcher, 1983; Simon & Altstein, 2000; Tizard, 1991).

The purpose of this article is to address some of the psychological and cultural questions raised by the transracial adoption paradox: What are the psychological consequences of growing up in a transracial adoptive family? How do the unique experiences of transracial adoptees shape racial/ethnic identity development? Do parents’ and children’s efforts to overcome racial and ethnic differences relate to psychological adjustment? A brief review of the history and controversies surrounding transracial adoption in the United States is presented and followed by a selective review of the empirical literature on transracial adoption. Drawing on the reviewed research, a cultural socialization framework is proposed to understand the psychological and cultural dynamics pertinent to transracial adoptive families. The article concludes with ways in which counseling psychology can contribute to the improvement of transracial adoption research and practice.

MODERN HISTORY OF TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION
Transracial adoption is defined as “the joining of racially different parents and children together in adoptive families” (Silverman, 1993, p. 104) and occurs through various forms of domestic adoption (e.g., foster care, private, and stepchildren in interracial marriages) and international adoption (i.e., children adopted from another country). It is considered the most visible of all forms of adoption because the physical differences between adoptive parents and adoptee are more apparent and immutable (Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Esau, 2000). In the majority of the adoptions, White parents adopt children who are considered racial/ethnic minorities in this country. These racial/ethnic differences between parents and children have led to social and political controversies and to changes in the processes of domestic and international adoption of racial/ethnic minority children (Chimezie, 1975; Simon & Altstein, 2000; Zamostny, O’Brien, Baden, & O’Leary Wiley, 2003 [this issue]).

Domestic transracial adoption
Among the earliest examples of intentional domestic transracial adoption was the Indian Adoption Project, which occurred between 1958 and 1967. The project was a collaboration between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and was designed to remove Indian children from their families on reservations in an effort to assimilate them into mainstream society (Fanshel, 1972). By the 1960s, child advocacy groups in the United States and Canada initiated other programs to find adoptive families for orphaned African American children. These types of programs, however, were soon met with resistance from the racial/ethnic minority communities. The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW), for example, argued that transracial adoption was, in essence, a form of race and cultural genocide (i.e., children will not develop proper skills to survive in a racist society), and the NABSW passed a resolution in 1972 calling for an end to the transracial adoption of African American children. Native American opposition to the Indian Adoption Project on similar grounds led to its eventual dissolution with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 (Simon & Altstein, 2000). Social service agencies and organizations, including the CWLA, responded quickly by revising their standards for adoption to a preference for same-race families. The policy change led to a sharp decrease in the number of Black-White adoptions from 2,574 in 1971 to an estimated 1,400 in 1987 (Bachrach, Adams, Sambrano, & London, 1990; Simon & Altstein, 2000). There are no reliable past or present estimates for the number of domestic transracial adoptions that are not Black-White.

Today, national surveys suggest that Whites and African Americans have mixed feelings regarding domestic transracial adoption. Using data from a CBS News public opinion poll, for example, Hollingsworth (2000) found that African American women (84%) and Caucasian/White men (72%) were less likely to approve of transracial adoption than African American men who served as the reference group in the logistic regression analyses. The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that among ever-married women who were considering or planning to adopt, 51% of White women preferred to adopt a White child, but 73% to 87% were willing to accept adopting a non-White child (i.e., Black or other race). Similarly, 52% of Black women preferred to adopt a Black child, but 86% to 89% were willing to accept adopting a non-Black child (i.e., White or other race). Interestingly, a minority of White (9%) and Black (12%) women preferred to adopt a non-White/non-Black child, presumably either a child of another race or from another country (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999). Much less, if anything, is known about the attitudes and opinions of Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics regarding domestic transracial adoption.

A current public policy concern is the overrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority children in the foster care system. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001), for instance, found that African American, Hispanic, Asian American, and Native American children represented 60% (75,722 out of 127,000) of the children in foster care waiting to be adopted in 1999. To facilitate the adoption of these children in need, a series of federal legislative acts were passed in the last decade that reject the use of racial preferences in adoption among adoption agencies that receive federal assistance (viz., Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996). It is now estimated that 15% of all foster care adoptions can be considered transracial adoptions or approximately 5,400 out of 36,000 in 1998, according to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (2003).

International adoption
International transracial adoption in the United States reflects a convergence of social and political factors at home and abroad. In particular, wars, poverty, lack of social welfare, and social upheaval in other countries have played a large part in the availability of children for overseas adoption. For example, thousands of war-orphaned Korean children and biracial children whose mothers were Korean and fathers were American military personnel were adopted shortly after the Korean War. It is estimated that there were more than 110,000 children adopted from South Korea to the United States between 1955 and 2001 (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2002), which is approximately 10% of the present-day Korean American population. By the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, White couples, who were usually older and infertile, began to consider international adoption as more feasible than domestic same-race adoption and less controversial than domestic transracial adoption. Today, Americans, still predominantly White, are adopting more than ever before infants and young children from more than 40 countries worldwide. Annual adoption rates, for instance, have risen dramatically from 8,102 in 1989 to 19,237 in 2001 with the majority of adoptions from Asian countries (U.S. State Department, 2001). International adoptions also account for approximately 85% of all transracial adoptions based on estimates of past and present adoption figures of nonrelated racial/ethnic minority children (Bachrach et al., 1990; Simon & Altstein, 2000; U.S. State Department, 2001).

International adoption, however, is not without controversy (Tizard, 1991). A recent public opinion survey of 1,416 people, for example, found that 47% of respondents believed international adoptees have more medical and behavioral problems than domestically adopted children (Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, 2002). International concerns about baby selling, kidnapping, and forced labor also have led some countries to discontinue overseas adoptions and, at other times, have led the United States to disallow adoption from specific countries. Third-world advocates similarly have argued that international adoption is a new form of colonialism and cultural imperialism that treats children as economic commodities (see Tessler, Gamache, & Liu, 1999, for a brief review). These public concerns and protests resulted in the establishment of international rules for adoption (e.g., Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption of 1993) and federal legislative policies (i.e., Intercountry Adoption Act and Child Citizenship Act of 2000) that make international adoption more standardized.

TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION RESEARCH
Empirical research on transracial adoption, in large measure, began as a response to the social and political controversies surrounding domestic transracial adoption in the late 1960s and 1970s. Later, the research expanded to include children adopted from other countries, as the rate of domestic adoption declined and the popularity of international adoption increased. The bulk of transracial adoption research, which emerged from these controversies and trends, occurred in the fields of social work and sociology between the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Fanshel, 1972; Feigelman & Silverman, 1983; Grow & Shaprio, 1974; Kim, 1977; McRoy, Zurcher, Lauderdale, & Anderson, 1982; Simon & Altstein, 1977). Four integrative reviews were published in the 1990s that summarized much of this earlier research on transracial adoption. Alexander and Curtis (1996), for example, exclusively critiqued the research on African American transracial adoptees. Tizard (1991), likewise, exclusively reviewed the intercountry adoption research literature in the United States and Great Britain. Rushton and Minnis (1997) and Friedlander (1999) reviewed both domestic and international transracial adoption research that was conducted in the United States and Great Britain.

The present review of transracial adoption research focuses on empirical studies from 1990 until the present in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, social work, and sociology that address the racial and ethnic issues faced by transracial adoptees and their families. Studies initially were identified from computer searches on PsycINFO, an electronic database of materials in psychology and related fields. The search terms included all variants of transracial adoption (e.g., Black-White), international adoption (e.g., intercountry), and racial and ethnic minority groups (e.g., African American, Korean). Additional studies were located in the reference lists of the articles identified through the computer searches and through online adoption-related websites. I also included pre-1990 research studies that are considered seminal to the field of transracial adoption, as well as recent research from Europe, where there is a high prevalence of international adoption. When possible, I compared and contrasted the racial, ethnic, and psychological experiences of domestic and international transracial adoptees. In some instances, however, domestic and international transracial adoptees were aggregated together in studies and, as such, group comparisons were not possible.

Nearly all of the reviewed research on transracial adoption can be classified as descriptive field studies on either the psychological outcomes or the racial/ethnic identity development of transracial adoptees. Outcome studies focus specifically on the psychological problems and adjustment of transracial adoptees without direct consideration of racial and ethnic experiences. Racial/ethnic identity studies focus on the relationship between the racial and the ethnic experiences of transracial adoptees and identity development. More recently, efforts have been made to bring the two types of research together in the form of empirical studies on cultural socialization. Collectively, these different types of research studies attempt to answer the questions raised earlier: What are the psychological consequences of growing up in a transracial adoptive family (outcome studies)? How do the unique experiences of transracial adoptees shape racial/ethnic identity development (racial/ethnic identity studies)? Do parents’ and children’s efforts to overcome racial and ethnic differences relate to psychological adjustment (cultural socialization studies)? The appendix provides a selective summary of transracial adoption research published between 1990 and 2003.

"Outcome-based studies typically compare transracial adoptees with either same-race adoptees or nonadoptees on measures of psychological adjustment. An underlying assumption of the research is that the transracial adoption paradox is not a problem for transracial adoptees if there are no significant group differences on psychological adjustment (e.g., Verhulst & Versluis-den Bieman, 1995; Versluis-den Bieman, & Verhulst, 1995). Across a wide range of studies on domestic and international adoption, the research demonstrates that transracial adoption itself does not necessarily place a child at higher risk for emotional and behavioral problems. Specifically, approximately 70% to 80% of transracial adoptees had few serious behavioral and emotional problems, a rate that was comparable to same-race adopted and nonadopted children (Benson, Sharma, & Roehlkepartain, 1994; Bimmel, Juffer, van Ijzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2003; Lindblad, Hjern, & Vinnerljung, 2003; Versluis-den Bieman, & Verhulst, 1995). Transracial adoptees also did not differ dramatically from same-race adoptees and nonadoptees in levels of self-esteem and social adjustment (Bagley, 1993a; Benson et al., 1994). In studies where transracial adoptees had more serious and long-term behavioral and emotional problems, researchers found the effect sizes to be small and also identified mitigating factors, such as birth country of origin, age at adoption, gender (with boys at greater risk), adverse preadoption"

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Psychology and sociology are pretty questionable as reliable sources of information but the transracial studies indicate that the problem is not adoption itself. You would expect the same kind of social pressure would effect trans racial adoptees as same sex adoptees.

Is it possible we are instinctively wired to want a mommy and daddy? I'm not going to do a deep dive into the literature but it's easy to access if you are interested.

Sad data, is sad. Poor kids.
(what's the source).

I don’t know... when I was a kid I thought everyone had a vagina, and when I saw my cousin get his diaper changed once I just figured all babies were born with penises, and it must become a vagina over time.. I came up with explanations all the time for things I didn’t understand, And it always made sense to me. Little kids normally don’t know the difference between straight and gay because they have 0 concept of sexuality and sexual preferences. It’s hard to say exactly what causes these kids to have more depression related outcomes. I don’t know if there is enough evidence to say having gay parents caused this.

I don't think that they should be discouraged from adopting children. However, all things being equal, straight couples should be a higher priority for adoption than couples in the lgb alphabet soup category. Men are fundamentally equal but different from women, meaning that both genders are equal, but they each have strengths and weaknesses that differ from each other. A mother provides different things to a child than a father, and these two different roles are both equally important but are not interchangeable. For example, a mother is usually more caring and lenient than a father, and a father is typically more strict and better at maintaining discipline than a mother.

It should be forbiden and against the law. They should be punished för childabuse, cause that is, what that is Seen over longterm. (Thx "strong-single-mother is a similar fucked up starting point, cause the Male role-models are completly missing, too. For different reasons, but that is not relevant, the point is, they are missing. With a little badluck the Boys will Meet the first adult Male, as teacher, with 14-15. (And this process had Not stopped, Male teachers diminishiing, while new female teachers are created)

Just , that we even disscussing and thinking about the possibility is a clear Warnung sign, how weak our culture became. How effektive the social engineered stracks against the family as the last Ressort against "their" totalitarian World domination were and are. (This is, of course , a totally dumb conspiracy theory. I mean , as if the Elites would Analyse marxism för use- and weaponisable tactics , they could use för their reign , f.e. as disscussionpoint at a bilderberger Meeting "inventing communism, new" and it was 2008 i think...

And within one or twp decades the question will Change into:
"Should pedophilie be allowed?"

And again one or two decades later:
"Should Child sacrifices be allowed?"

And i am pretty sure the answer will be the same as with pedophilie:" if ist your Child, fuck it, sacrifice it, it is yours...."

There's too many other factors...

• Many have a set view point that DNA = family, which causes depression in itself.
• Other set viewpoints like "all men are bad" or "all women are bad" causes depression as well, but not all same-sex/trans couples might think that.
• Depression from watching extreme TV/pop culture, and whether same-sex/trans are more extreme in personality, creating an unstable home.
• Depression from "declaring love then walking away" and other attitudes centered around impatience or easily giving up.

Same sex couples are already exhibiting traits of a serious mental illness. To enter innocent children into their environment is condemning them to a life of depravity. That simply makes no sense whatsoever...

People have less attachment to children not their own. This by itself makes adoption, generally speaking, a worse proposition for children than being raised by both natural parents. How many children face abuse at the hands of stepparents!

Because being in the "wrong body", or having to assimilate the fact that you are not "right"... Is not a good trajectory to raise another human being... You need to navigate you. Straight parents are eff'd up enough... TRY to be mindful of our children.

With the number of depressed and damaged people (myself included) that I know from conventional households, and the happy people I know from same-sex households, I find these statistics very hard to believe. Admittedly, I don't know nearly as many people from same-sex households, but every one I do know is happy and close with their parents. I know very few people from conventional households that I can say the same about.

Correlation isn't enough to draw conclusions for me. There are countless, unthought of factors that may be influencing outcomes. One that comes to mind is how the behavior of a child can be influenced by stresses outside the home- like constant ridicule for having same-sex parents. It could explain everything from overeating, to wanting to be distant from parents later in life. There's not enough here to know.

I think a fair comparison would be to see these statistics for people who don't have any parents, and also single parent households. I would be interested to see how it all compares. Two natural parents would be ideal, I think it could be the case that a same sex couple might have some advantage over a single parent household, and I could see that it would still be better than not having any parents at all. Seeing statistics for opposite sex adopted parents would also add to the conversation. In order to make the appropriate value judgment, we would require all these different statistical comparisons, because if it turns out that it is better to be adopted into a same sex family than to not have any parents, which I assume to be the case, that changes everything.

As others have pointed out, this could largely be a matter of being adopted. Adopted children generally have worse outcomes than children raised by their birth parents.

Another thing to consider is that though not all LGBT people are leftist, a much higher percentage of them are leftist than anything else (thanks partially to things like others' comments here). Leftism interferes with raising a child to be mentally healthy. "Body positivity" could be the cause of the obesity stats, cancel culture the "Distant from parents" bars, victimhood attitude the cause of depression and suicidal ideation. Leftism also explains why in adolescence they're actually somewhat less depressed; adolescents tend to be leftist.

And lastly, keep in mind that since this includes "as an adult" questions and same-sex marriage hasn't been legal for 18 years yet, this data must include people who were raised by unmarried parents in a culture that rejects their family structure. That could also be a significant part of the problem.

P.S. GTFO auths who want to ban adoption. This data is still largely better than the damn foster system and orphanages. Besides, set the precedent that government should have a say in who can be parents and next time leftists get in power you'll find that CPS considers it abuse worthy of having your kids taken away if you tell them there are only two genders. There's already a chance of that, but setting the precedent would greatly increase it.

As someone who was adopted as a baby by a wonderful, although very religious couple (yes a MAN and a WOMAN), I say that adoptees have their own bag of worms to contend with without having the onus of having gay/lesbian/trannie parents. The depression, suicidal ideation and obesity can emanate from other sources ie: genetics rather than the alternative lifestyle household - but why add fuel to the fire. NO I do not applaud gay/lesbians/trans adopting children - but then is it better that the child be in foster care, orphanage situation until he/she is of age? Poor kid is screwed with either situation.

Monitored with understanding the child might be removed if at risk.
I actually would charge them; but returned if nothing negative in 7 years.
It's destructive against kids.

Opposite sex couples are the ones who need help. They are the ones we need to focus on. Same sex is anomalous, more unstable, it is harder to make work.

You have two completely different versions: male/male and female/female.

We do have a possible sort of history with female/female. That would be female run orphanages and nuns. They are notoriously known for there abusiveness.

Male/Male one I cannot think of any. Maybe a sort of stealth set up in trade guilds, workshops, something like that. It would potentially be better than the female/female arrangement

Adoption if there is a family connection should be fine. But strangers from a community that struggles with longerterm relationships .... hum need watching.

How about you socialist think about how the human needing raised feels foremost. Ask themthey know how it matters idiot leftist lunatic fringe pop libtards