|
15 Mar 02 - 12:34 AM (#669581) Subject: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Mickey191 I was wondering what the concensus would be on the subject of gay couples adopting children. In some states it is not legal, therefore these children are shuttled back & forth with no home to call their own.In many cases they are frightfully abused, and used only for the monthly stipend the state provides. In Florida there are over 3,000 kids, mostly black boys, and many who are HIV positive.There are gay couples willing to give a loving home, yet the state will not permit it.What say you? |
|
15 Mar 02 - 12:48 AM (#669587) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Lonesome EJ I say adoption should be based primarily on the responsibility, financial stability, intelligence, and maturity of the adoptive couple. Sexual promiscuity should be a factor, but not homosexuality. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 12:51 AM (#669589) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Amos And, perhaps most important, the degree of genuine love. An essential part, and an important distinction. A |
|
15 Mar 02 - 01:32 AM (#669599) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Seamus Kennedy I tried to adopt a gay baby once, and they told me I'd have to wait a few years. Bummer. Seamus |
|
15 Mar 02 - 02:45 AM (#669623) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Ebbie I taped the Primetime Thursday Gay Adoption documentary tonight. I can't imagine anyone watching it and remaining convinced that gay and lesbian people should not be adoptive parents. The Florida legislator they interviewed (cute though he was!) is an example of the unyielding, rigid stance of the fundamentalist at his worst. Somehow the stereotypical fundamentalist sees no need to examine evidence and think for him or herself. Diane Sawyer repeatedly said that the choice is not between having heterosexual parents or gay parents; it is between having any loving parents and having no parents at all. I was glad that they ended the show with 'happy' endings, but the fact is that there are tens of thousands of unhappy endings. Ebbie |
|
15 Mar 02 - 03:06 AM (#669628) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Big Tim Yea; sexuality shouldn't be confused with morality. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 05:32 AM (#669662) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Banjer Like REosie said in her portion of the interview, these kids have NO VOICE of their own. I would be willing to bet that if they were asked their main request would be for a loving family environment regardless of who provides it. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:16 AM (#669672) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Nigel Parsons At the risk of sounding the non-PC one here, I still believe in the idea of the nuclear family. (two parents of opposite sex, plus children.) I feel this is the ideal situation, but can accept that when a persons sexual orientation changes mid-life, they may already have children, and the best thing for those children may be to continue with a particular one of the parents. If this parent is then involved in a long term same sex relationship, then I would still support the parent's right to the upbringing, and the love and support of the child. However, once one has made a choice about ones sexual orientation, which puts one into a relationship in which the 'couple' could not produce a natural family, I feel that to expect to be allowed to adopt, "As A Right", is unreasonable. Where there are too many children seeking too few adoption places, then I can accept that adoption by 'same-sex' couples is a valid option. So despite my initial comments, my only objection is to any attempt to make it a legal Right, as opposed to an option for consideration. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:16 AM (#669673) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: GUEST,Paul Burke Talking of gays, I recall from childhood a version of "London Bridge is Falling Down", that ran something like:
London Bridge is falling down
|
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:17 AM (#669674) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: gnu I saw Rosie O'Donnell interviewed last night... I can't imagine a better parent. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:33 AM (#669685) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Wolfgang A bit of thread creep, but the use of words like 'family environment' and 'couple' makes me think you only think of two persons when considering adoption and only contemplate whether a same sex couple should be allowed to adopt children. A much larger minority excluded from the right to adopt are singles. Considering that in many large cities in Germany about 1/3 of all children though once born in a two person family are brought up by a single parent one could consider that as well. Wolfgang |
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:00 AM (#669694) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: McGrath of Harlow Noone has a right to adopt, and nor should they. The only relevant criterion is "Is this person going to be able to provide what this child needs?"
Of course that just throws the question back to the larger one of who decides what a child needs, and judges whether this person can provide it - but I can't see that having rules of thumb about categories of potential adopters really makes much sense. There is no escaping the need to make judgements on an individual basis. After all, there are plenty of married couples who should never be trusted with a child. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:55 AM (#669716) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: catspaw49 Before I warp drive off into one of my well known tirades on the problems with adoption and the legal system, etc........Let me give you some more gist for your mills. Gay adoption? Let's add as was mentioned above, what are your thoughts on single parent adoption? Or what about cross racial adoption? Or cross cultural adoption? How about open adoption? Or sibling groups? Or let's think about one of my favorites, big-bucks adoptions and foreign adoption. And before you run off on the "love conquers all" tangent, do you believe that the same parenting skills that apply in biological parenting are what is needed by adoptive parents, or is there something more needed? Did you know that the majority of adoptions of 12 year old children fail? Did you know the massive numbers of children out there available for adoption are between 5 and 14 years old? Think about those as you go along with the discussion. There is a solution and it's not too difficult to see, but the solution involves one of those great "god-playing" scenarios that we so fear. The legal system needs changed and the laws need changed before anything will happen of significance. We've won a few battles in the past ten years, but we've lost some too. And when the laws change the next change must be in attitude toward adoption and the underlying bigotry that some don't see because it's so deeply ingrained. Just more food for thought folks.............. Spaw |
|
15 Mar 02 - 08:08 AM (#669721) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: kendall Florida is still in the dark ages in other ways too. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 08:23 AM (#669730) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Coyote Breath Yes, loving parents should be the first requirement. No parent, regardless of sexual orientation, should expose their child to their activities in the bedroom. So provide loving homes, private activity is just that. There CAN be a reaction in certain situations to a family, the adults of which are same sex partners. I would think that a gay couple living in a semi-rural town might subject the kid(s) to some pretty unsettling reactions from the local folk. But one can deal with that so it shouldn't exclude the couple from adoption. My nephew and his partner have been together in a wonderful, loving, relationship for over twenty years. I wish that they would consider the possibility of adoption. I can't imagine two people more suitable as parents. They both are devoted to working for people in need, especially those caught in the welfare web. The option of single parenting also should be promoted. My oldest daughter and my significant other are examples of excellent single parents. My daughter is going to school full time, working full time and is a full time parent. I am so proud of her I could just burst. My SO raised two children one male and one female. These two young (in their twenties) people are exemplary citizens, productive, generous, true contributors to the community's social health. In both families the most important aspect was love and constant, sensitive involvement in the lives of the children. My SO and my daughter share that parenting ability but they are as unalike as one could imagine. CB |
|
15 Mar 02 - 08:26 AM (#669733) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: mack/misophist The question should be, "Have gay couples been good parents in the past?". Over the years, I've seen quite a few studies indicating they're no worse than any other group. Forget PC. If some one is likely to do a job well and wants it, let them have it. The job needs doing. Those of you who insist on a nuclear family should remember that most gays come from one. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 10:38 AM (#669800) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: RichM "nuclear family"? It's about love, not atomic warfare.
To restrict adoption on the basis of procreative ability or on the so-called traditional family unit, is wrong because it's an arbitrary distinction. The main ingredients in a good-parent recipe are LOVE and the ability to PROVIDE the necessities.... Rich McCarthy |
|
15 Mar 02 - 10:49 AM (#669808) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Sorcha As spaw says, there are many, many things to consider, but sexual orientation and availability of money should not enter the equation. Any rich bastard can "buy" a baby and it happens more than you would think. Looks like most of us are just "pink-o lefties"..........(grin) |
|
15 Mar 02 - 10:59 AM (#669812) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Wolfgang etymology: nuclear - 1846, from nucleus, probably by influence of Fr. nucléaire. At first, "of or like the nucleus of a cell," use in atomic physics is from 1914. Nuke, short for "nuclear weapon," is 1959, U.S. military slang; the verb is from 1962. Nuclear family is from 1949, originally a sociologists' term. Wolfgang |
|
15 Mar 02 - 11:55 AM (#669840) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: DougR I'd go with LEJ on this one. I don't think homosexuality should be a roadblock to adoption. One of my good friends and his partner raised Bill's two boys, and you couldn't ask for more loving and caring parents than Bill and Larry are. DougR |
|
15 Mar 02 - 11:59 AM (#669841) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland I think that it really doesn't matter who the parents are or what their sexual preferences are, just as long they love their child or children, and who has the right to tell them that they can't.
|
|
15 Mar 02 - 12:06 PM (#669845) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: catspaw49 In answer to your question Tam, at this point in time, most of the English speaking world. Spaw |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:15 PM (#669858) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Ebbie One of the inconsistencies in Florida law, as well in some other places, no doubt, is that same-sex couples are allowed to foster-parent long term- just not adopt. In what way is the stablility of adoption worse when it comes to role-modeling than long-term foster care? Surely, if the powers-that-be really believed what they are saying, they would not approve foster parenting? On a more particular note, if 'Bert', now that he is no longer HIV positive, is required to leave his home, his parents and his siblings, where he has spent his life, where he has been since he was 9 weeks old, I think we should all take to the streets. Or at the least, inundate with mail the Florida legislature, court system, Human Resource agency and whatever else we can think of. It would be a CRIME. Ebbie |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:26 PM (#669865) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Roger in Sheffield Somethings wrong, I agree with DougR Nice post mate |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:29 PM (#669868) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: catspaw49 Those crimes occur all the time Ebbie and more's the pity. Do you remember "Baby Richard" in Chicago? It was about 8 years ago now when "Richard" was returned to his biological father because there had been a problem with both the bio-mom lying and never notifying the bio-Dad. Now if this had occured when "Baby Richard" was indeed a "baby" then it made sense, but Richard was 7 years old and had lived his ENTIRE life with his adoptive family!!! The case changed Illinois law and several states have used the Illinois law as a model.....Sorrowfully, many states have NOT!!! So we still see those cases all and far too often.... Spaw |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:31 PM (#669870) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: alanabit I like most of what is being said here, because it is based around a presumption of the childrens' rights and needs rather than the parents'. I certainly don't think gays "have a right to have children". Effectively that would be the right to demand that other people provided children for them. On the other hand, I do not claim any "right to have children" myself. If I was not around, I would far rather my children grew up with good gay adoptive parents than with rotten heterosexual ones. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 06:34 PM (#669871) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Bullfrog Jones I don't mind having gays as some of my best friends, but I don't think I'm ready to adopt one. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:12 PM (#669883) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Desdemona First, in answer to Paul Burke's query re:"London Bridge", yes, I know that version; it also has a different tune to the one most of us knew growing up. In fact, one of my kids has it on a traditional lullabyes sort of tape that's somewhere in my house.... More importantly, not that I need to add my 2 cents at this point (when has this stopped me?!), the main criteria for "fitness" as a parent is the willingness & ability to love a child and provide it with a safe, nurturing & stable environment. Sexual orientation has exactly NOTHING to do with a person(or couple)'s capacity to provide these things. The people who oppose gay people adopting children would apparently rather see these kids languish in foster care for years, until they reach "maturity" and are thrown into society having never known a stable, secure home, than allow a loving, compassionate person to GIVE them that home, based solely on the fact that they don't conform to a picture-perfect stereotypical image of what a family "should" be. THAT'S immorality, if you ask me.
|
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:27 PM (#669887) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Sorcha alanabit--other people provided children for them--how do you see this? Any one who donates to a sperm/egg bank has no say in what happens to their zygotes. Why is this "providing for them"?
Bullfrog--I seriously doubt that at the time of an adoption, any child is of a Declared Sexuality. My very best-est friend in my life says:
If your biological child turned out gay, what would you do? How would that be any different from adopting a child who turned out gay? If you were trying to make a funny, it didn't come out that way on my end.
My Bottom Line---ANYONE who has good parenting skills and is ready to have a child should be allowed to have as many as they feel CAPABLE OF HAVING.
Obviously, Andrea Yates did NOT feel CAPABLE of having as many as her husband apparently forced her to. I know, I know, this is a whole 'nother ball game, but in most religious communities which advocate many children the children and family have the TOTAL support of BOTH parents. Financial, physical, emotional, the whole ball of string.
It appears that Andrea had none of the above, except the dictate of her Husband to Have More Babies.........and deal with all of their needs alone while he was off doing whatever men like that do. ooopss----there is more, but I'll stop now. Sorry, rant over. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:28 PM (#669888) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: catspaw49 Uh Des, I love ya' dear, but I HATE this particular phrase...."rather see these kids languish in foster care for years, until they reach "maturity" and are thrown into society having never known a stable, secure home, than allow a loving, compassionate person to GIVE them that home".. That implies that foster parents are and foster families are not families at all and that foster parents simply are in it for the money. Foster care is a less than perfect system and I know you mean that a forever family is more reassuring and healthier overall, but even that is not always the case for some kids. Did you know there are some kids in foster care who don't want to be adopted? It's true. Lots of reasons for that but it's another part of the puzzle tha confronts our social service agencies. Let's say a child is removed from his bio home for whatever reason and placed in foster care. At that point great damage has already been done especially in children past about age 3. Most of the kids still love the family they had even if Mom was an abusive drunk and Dad was only around occasionally. You'd be amazed at how the kids compensate and make excuses for them. Mom doesn't show at a visit and they make up excuses for her always putting her in the best possible light. One of the keys to repairing the system as it stands is to intervene in dysfunctional "families" as early as possible and stick to a close timetable for a parent to get over and/or fix the problem. It can and does happen, really. But in many cases it does not and the parent, owing to an antiquated legal system, is able to do barely enough to get the child back and then they fail again in a few months and Johnny is back in foster care. This one really kills the kids and often has them in and out of care until they are teenagers! Geez, I really go off on this one....so many angles to address and in so many there seems to be no real solution that we can sell. Spaw |
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:38 PM (#669898) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Bullfrog Jones I think you missed the point of the joke Sorcha... But the point you make about your friend and her gay daughter is irrelevant. Her daughter may have been gay from birth for all anyone knew. The vast majority of gays grow up in heterosexual households, so where does the nature v nurture debate take us on this one? |
|
15 Mar 02 - 07:44 PM (#669903) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Tweed Nay! I was adopted when I was about a week old. It was freaky enough at the time when I first learned that my folks weren't my biological Mom and Pop. I don't believe it's fair to put kids in a situation where not only are their folks not their biological folks but also the weirdness that other kids would come up with to torment 'em with if the "folks" happened to be of the same sex. Ya gotta think of the kid's feelings and not just the whole gay rights thing. Kids come first, always! Okay, blast away, but give a look to what the children would be goin' through first. I reckon that still counts for something, even in this day and age. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 08:09 PM (#669916) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: catspaw49 How old were you Tweed when you were told you were adopted? Also, how much flak did you take from other kids? You don't have to answer those, just curious. A lot of the way adoption is handled by parents now sometimes has precluded the "freakiness" of the situation. Where I will certainly agree with you is in the "Best Interest" idea, although many will disagree on what "Best Interest" really is. A lot of work is being done to find a case to take to the Supreme Court to get a ruling as to whether a child has a liberty interest under the 14th Amendment. I think they do, but that's just me. In general, the process that takes children into adoptive situations is so completely overcome in it's own PCness that it's tough to make a call anymore. Native americans are still winning cases where the adoptee is only 1/32 Native American. On the other hand, adoptive parents, especially those of us of a liberal bent like myself, need to be hammered hard on the idea of cross-racial adoption if they live in communities such as I do. Too often we get in situations where the children are our "weapon" to change society with no real regard for the way the child is affected. geeziz, I could write a book........ Spaw |
|
15 Mar 02 - 08:40 PM (#669924) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Tweed Spawz, I was about seven years when they told me. Of course I never told anybody else til I was about seventeen. At that time, if you was adopted, you might just as well have had leprosy. So I carried that around for a while, and became okay with the idea but it took me about ten years to get there. It ain't so easy bein' the little bastard when yer a kid. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big old bastard now and proud to say so;~) |
|
15 Mar 02 - 08:51 PM (#669927) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: McGrath of Harlow "geeziz, I could write a book........ "
And you should, spaw. (Well, in a way you have, but it's spread out over a lot of posts.) |
|
15 Mar 02 - 09:42 PM (#669941) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Ebbie This might be a good time to bring up a thought of mine. On the one hand I've been fine with cross-racial adoption, and the fact that there are now so many youngsters growing up in that mode made me feel that if a kid wants to find someone of their own 'racial profile' to fall in love with, they can. Then one day, it occurred to me: OK, sure, I think it's fine for white people to adopt black or Chinese or of whatever race. Hey, it gives the kid a home and a chance at a good life, and the family will make an effort to introduce the culture of origin to the kid. No problem. And then I suddenly wondered: How would I, as a white person, feel if I saw a black family with one adopted WHITE child? Or a Chinese family with an adopted WHITE child? Or a Japanese family- you get the idea. It made me realize that I'm not as free of racial prejudice as I'd like to be. Anyone else? Ebbie |
|
15 Mar 02 - 09:53 PM (#669944) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Irish sergeant The basic point is that adoption should be based on what is best for the welfare of the child. If a gay couple is better equipped to offer love and provender for the child sign, stamp and seal the damned papers. Florida is wrong in this instance and bloody illogical! If Gay couples can be foster parents than they certainly should be able to adopt. Look at Susan Smith and Andrea Yates heterosexuality doesn't guarentee good parentling skills. Just my two cents on the subject. Kindest regards, Neil |
|
15 Mar 02 - 10:23 PM (#669954) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Peter Kasin I say "Yea." Wonderful parents are wonderful parents, period. |
|
15 Mar 02 - 10:39 PM (#669966) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Sorcha Bullfrog--perhaps you are correct, but from my point of view there was no joke. Just a rudeness. Yes, the young lady WAS probably gay from birth---her mother says that. From the time she should have been interested in Boyz, she said "Mom, boys are boring......."
Fact: Most "gay/lesbian/queer/whatever/ are in fact that way from birth. It just takes a few years for them to realize it, and some never do actually admit it. They keep trying for a hetero lifestyle and are never happy.
I think it is very, very possible that I too am raising a homosexual daughter--if not that, at least bi. You aren't going to hurt my feelings about this because I have already accpeted that possibilty or probability. Have you???? What will you do if your child or grandchild turns out different? |
|
15 Mar 02 - 11:16 PM (#669994) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: WyoWoman Aw ta' heck with all this adoption stuff. It's HARD to adopt, it's easy to BUY. Just go to Thailand, much of Africa, etc., etc. etc, ad nauseum, and you can purchase a child for not much. No messy papers to fill out, no tightassed social workers pokinginto your personal bidnez. Buy 'em. I mean, heaven knows, people are buying children for all kinds of heinous reasons these days and no one seems to give much of a rat's ass. I'd just like to have some kids around because I LIKE 'em. So I might as well buy a pack of 'em, heh? ww |
|
15 Mar 02 - 11:22 PM (#669995) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Amos Jezz, Pansy -- ya want roll-your-own coaching here? :<) Actually, if I were a child -- which i do not believe I am -- I would love to bought up by no less a personage than yourself!! Especially considering the alternatives!! A |
|
15 Mar 02 - 11:26 PM (#669996) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: kendall Barry Goldwater softened considerably when he learned that his grandson was gay. My youngest daughter did not date all through school. I was beginning to wonder about her sexual orientation, and, I brought it up. Starting off with.."I notice you dont date...Now, if you are gay, I need you to know it makes absolutely no difference in how I feel about you. I could not love you more than I do now, and, no matter what, I will never love you less". She looked at me kinda sideways and said, "I dont date because all the boys my age are just that...boys. They bore me to tears." She's no more gay than I am. Not that there is anything wrong with that! |
|
16 Mar 02 - 12:05 AM (#670017) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: catspaw49 Pansy, you posted that one just to wind my ass up some more didn't you? Miserable bitch............ Okay, I'm with you! Let's pull those economically challenged countries out of the gutter by buying up their kids! Yes folks, for as little as 20G's you can own some foreign chattel of your very own.....Plunk down your money and be a parent!!! Help out those struggling South American countries or better yet, go to Rumania or a few of the former Soviet Bloc countries where selling children is one of the best growth industries going! .....Turns my fockin' stomach even as a joke.............. Spaw |
|
16 Mar 02 - 12:26 AM (#670028) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: katlaughing I knew a lesbian couple who did adopt a little girl from India when she was a tiny baby. She wasn't fed properly from birth because she was a girl and unwanted. They went to India to adopt because htey were not able to in this so-called enlightened country, because they were lesbians. Ebbie, my *second* family in Colorado are Americans of Mexican descent. I will never forget the day I met them. Abe, the dad was going around the dining table, introducing me to each of their beautiful children, all with dark hair and colouring like thier dad and mom, until he got to the last one: a very blonde girl. He put his arm across her shoudler and said, this is so-and-so and she's the one who looks most like me! Turned out she was a foster teen whom they had raised with their own kids. Spaw, write the book, please? More people need to hear of your and Karen's experiences and learn from your wisdom on such an important issue. Oh, and as far as gays adopting...most of you have said it already. Yes. kat |
|
16 Mar 02 - 12:55 AM (#670035) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: DougR K.C., you son-of-a-gun. I wondered what it was about you that I loved, and then I read this post. You really are something else. DougR |
|
16 Mar 02 - 01:04 AM (#670036) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: blt (After months of silence, this caught my attention.) Well, as a lesbian who "partly raised" but did not adopt my step-daughter's infant son, I have to say that this issue is difficult to imagine if one is on the outside of the family in question. There are so many dynamics that occur within individual families, so many what-ifs, should-have-beens, and so forth. As the postings prove, one person's experience does not the world define. So, my experience, for what it's worth, is that I was able to be a parent despite my beliefs otherwise; I had the ability to care for an infant; I had the strength to be fully present for this little boy, when his teenage mother, his very young adult father, and all the assorted grandparents, hetero and homo, did not. I don't think this quality is related to my sexual identity. I thought then and I believe now, 10 years later, that I received a warm, supported, cared-for upbringing myself and when it came down to it, that's what I had to pass on. I think the model of a heterosexual couple as the "ideal parents" is simply a figment of our cultural/temporal imaginations. It's not really meaningful in terms of who is able to be a parent. Two fully present adults are of course better in many ways than one because children bloom with love and attention, the more the better. I did not choose to adopt my grandson, Austin, because I really wanted his biological parents to care for him so I remain in a support role, even today. This is better in some ways, because of my on-the-road kind of lifestyle. But the connection I have to him is at time closer than his connection with his bio-dad and stepmom (his bio-mom left the picture when he was 3). I hope, though, that his relations to all his family members are strong and meaningful. I have worked very hard to keep his mother's family in touch with him, which is tricky because we're talking a cross-cultural effort here, with the father's family being white and the mother's family Native/Lakota. Several of my own songs have tried to reflect upon this event, as it transformed my already transformed life. In Portland, OR, where I live, there is an organization called "Love Makes A Family," arising partly out of a 10 year legislative battle with a very obsessed group of fundamentalist Christians who are determined to make gays and lesbians illegal in one way or another. We've defeated them every time, though the margin of defeat is shrinking as the wording on the legislative initiatives becomes more (I hate to say this) sophisticated; more politcally adept. Now they're going after teachers, trying to make it illegal to talk about gay/lesbian issues in the schools. Doesn't it seem as though we all have better things to worry about than whether the two women next door are able to really love and parent their children, adopted or no? Like, how about those priests? What's up with that? blt |
|
16 Mar 02 - 02:04 AM (#670067) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Coyote Breath Just back to say that I really am heartened by the sensitivity and kindness I have seen posted here. CB |
|
16 Mar 02 - 02:45 AM (#670070) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: katlaughing blt, nice to see you here, again! Thanks for sharing. kat |
|
16 Mar 02 - 04:18 AM (#670091) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: alanabit Scorcha, if you put my words back into context, you will appreciate that I was emphasising the point that I feel strongly that the rights of the child come before those of the parents. My final sentence should have removed all ambiguity on that poiint. I don't think that my position on this is significantly different from yours. Your raising the question that other forms of conception also cause difficult practical and ethical dilemnas does not alter that. I reiterate that nobody has a right to demand children. We are simply fortunate if they come our way. |
|
16 Mar 02 - 05:12 AM (#670098) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Bullfrog Jones Sorcha, because you didn't understand my joke please don't make assumptions about what I do or do not think about this issue. I've known several gay people of both genders who would have made terrific parents (and have to make do with being terrific aunties and uncles), and if one or both of my sons turned out to be gay I wouldn't love them any the less. |
|
16 Mar 02 - 11:58 PM (#670555) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: GUEST NAY - they are just like the priests. |
|
17 Mar 02 - 01:58 AM (#670595) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Wincing Devil What's wrong with the idea of letting a kid grow up in a home filled with love and respect? I'm afraid that to this day, some people are still confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. WD "Behold my son and son-in-law, with both of whom I am well pleased!" (That ought to piss off the Christian right, which is, of course, neither!) |
|
17 Mar 02 - 11:59 AM (#670748) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: WyoWoman It's particularly puzzling why the American Taliban is making such a big deal about gay issues large and small, considering that the Messiah they allegedly swear allegiance to didn't say zilch about gay/lesbian/bi/or straightness. Just about caring for the "least of these," which certainly applies to a bunch of children in need of a loving, supporting family. So yeah, Spaw, my "humor" is more of the gallows kind. The situation is so grim and disgusting I don't know what to do but pull out my big irony gun and point it in that general direction. I can't believe we're chasing around blowing up various parts of the world and threatening to devastate others when the equivalent of a World Trade Center full of children is dying from stavation just about every day we draw breath. We live amidst much irrationality. ww |
|
17 Mar 02 - 01:50 PM (#670792) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: SINSULL I wrote a three page tirade and then erased it. Your welcome! Children need safe, loving, stable homes. If a gay single or couple can provide that, I for one am all for their right to adopt. |
|
17 Mar 02 - 03:13 PM (#670836) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Celtic Soul So long as the people in question are not supporters/believers of NAMBLA... In my opinion, adoption should be based on a person or couples mental health. If they are healthy, sane, loving people, that should be the criteria, period. Gender, race, religion etc. should not matter. However, there are still those in the mental health community who say that homosexuality itself is a pathological problem coming from early childhood issues and traumas, indicating that, if the person in question *is* homosexual, there automatically are inherant mental issues. The flip side of the argument is that it is simply something that each gay person is hardwired for, that there is a "gay gene", and that it is no more a pathological problem than is heterosexuality. I say the jury is still out, and until one side or the other proves it's case, *nothing* should be based on ones sexual preference alone. It should always be about the individual, their character, and their abilities. Frankly, I think this not a bad modality of thought concerning a great many issues... However, I like Seamus' answer a great deal more. Very clever and funny...wish I'd thought of it first. |
|
18 Mar 02 - 12:31 AM (#671106) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Murrey It is quite evident that the "LAW " rarely makes decsions based on the welfare of a child and what is best. A child who is loved and secure and is taught to value their worth as a human being can handle anything that life hands out --even teasing about a home where two parents are of the same gender. It's time to put children first and open the doors to loving stable homes where they can grow and understand that diversity isn't something evil and maybe -maybe we'll all be better for it ! Murrey |
|
18 Mar 02 - 12:05 PM (#671338) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Desdemona Spaw, Love you right back, sweetie; my intention was not to tar & feather any & all foster families with one brush, although that's clearly what I did---mea maxima culpa! Clearly, as in all kinds of families, including thje biological variety, there are excellent foster families and wretched ones, as well as all things in between. My meaning was that it seems not in the best interest of a child to deny them the opportunity to be adopted by a family they already belong to in emotional terms (and in many of these cases the prospective adoptive parents ARE the foster parents; the only parents these kids have known). Bless you and Karen for being what I know in my heart were amongst the best foster parents a child could hope for; I wish that the necessary funds and resources were available to enable more good-hearted & right-minded people to perform this very important human service. (I prolly should PM'd you on this one, but wanted to tender my apologies for any misconstrued and wholly unintentional offense in a public arena!) D. |
|
18 Mar 02 - 01:00 PM (#671367) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: GUEST Nay... Gay couples have the inherent right to have their own biological children. Society has no place legitimizing an abnormality, by giving gays the right to adopt into an abnormal situation. This has nothing to do with religion either. |
|
18 Mar 02 - 01:28 PM (#671383) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: MMario |
|
18 Mar 02 - 06:59 PM (#671536) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: RichM Abnormality? Humans have been creating artificial(abnormal) environments and societies for many many centuries. You could say that anyone who raises a child with love and care IS normal. |
|
18 Mar 02 - 07:15 PM (#671548) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: John P Please don't feed the troll. |
|
18 Mar 02 - 07:23 PM (#671552) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: RichM I've never been happy with the definition of *troll*, or of attempts to organize group shunnings of same. The internet is a buffet meal; take what you like, and leave the rest.... |
|
18 Mar 02 - 08:23 PM (#671578) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: kendall If we were all enlightened, we wouldn't be here. Those hate mongers wont face facts; it is biological, not a choice. Homo sexuality has been observed among animals; are they making a choice to be immoral? |
|
18 Mar 02 - 11:21 PM (#671653) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Coyote Breath We Amurikins are a wierd bunch. Florida law denies gays the right to adopt (but it's OK to foster) needful children. NYC takes children away from abused and battered mothers because NYC feels the children could be exposed to violence! The city lost the suit filed on behalf of the battered mothers. The city is going to appeal! CB |
|
19 Mar 02 - 12:38 AM (#671693) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: GUEST,altview Just a few thoughts to stir the pot, and a rhetoric check… A lot of posts here suggest that a "loving family" should be the criteria, butfrom a policy standpoint how do you define "loving"? I know, I know, you know it when you see it, but isn't that too subjective for law? I would include in a definition of love the values of discipline, self-control and commitment - virtues which are not much attached to sexuality in our culture, straight or gay… I also believe it is best for a child to know the influence of both male and female in the family. To discard this as if it doesn't matter seems a form of sexism… How does the logic of the argument apply to bi-sexual people? To those who are into bestiality? Where do we draw the lines? And why? To compare "good" homosexuals with "bad" heterosexuals is rhetorically manipulative and not very helpful in grappling with the issues at hand… And finally, I'm sorry I missed the "Gay Adoption" documentary, but if I had to guess, I would say it was an advocacy piece in which homosexuals were presented in the best possible light and anyone who disagreed, particularly from a religious point of view, were presented as stereotypical, imbecilic, illogical morons… when was the last time you saw anyone even question, let alone disagree with, a homosexual on TV without being obviously pointed out as a "fundamentalist", fanatic idiot? Open minded, indeed… Sorry to upset the apple cart, just wanted to express an alternative view |
|
19 Mar 02 - 09:32 AM (#671862) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: mzkitty I say "Yea", if the kid(s) to be adopted don't mind. I think love is above sexual prefrence. Many things "proven" right or wrong at one point in time or place have been "proven" differently at another time or place. Meanwhile, lonely children live in pain, wondering why no one wants them. I wonder how those children would respond to the question of adoption by a loving gay couple. |
|
19 Mar 02 - 07:39 PM (#672250) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Celtic Soul Kendall penned: "If we were all enlightened, we wouldn't be here. Those hate mongers wont face facts; it is biological, not a choice. Homo sexuality has been observed among animals; are they making a choice to be immoral?" Playing devils advocate here... Just because a thing happens for animals as well as humans does not make it something that is *not* pathological in origin. Animals are subject to some of the same traumas that we are. Taking it completely away from the religious arguments that seem so prevalent, what purpose would it serve in nature? If natural selection is alive and well in the world, then the "genes" for it would die out with those that carried them inside of a generation or 2. Without intelligent intervention, 2 males or 2 females *cannot* procreate, and therefor, their genes will not be passed on. From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't make much sense. It is not "survival of the fittest" if you don't enter the gene pool. Now, speaking for myself, I say that the jury is very much still out. Neither side has produced any absolutely conclusive evidence that it definitely *is* biological, or that it definitely *is* environmental. What 2 people decide to do in their own bedroom is none of my business, and a persons worth should be based on their own actions and honor, nothing more. However...I think it is not logical to proclaim that something has been scientifically proven when it has not. |
|
19 Mar 02 - 11:10 PM (#672353) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: John P altview, The problem with using religious principles to deny gay people the same rights that are enjoyed by non-gay people is that it is unconstitutional. Members of religions may believe any damn thing they like, but as soon as they start trying to pass laws making the rest of us live according to their beliefs they are engaged in an attempt to overthrow the constitution of the United States. They are often presented as moronic because they often act in a moronic manner. Have you ever really paid attention to the logical content of someone who thinks the right to get married is a "special right" for a gay person, but not for others? Assuming that our government should have some say in the sex lives of its citizens actually is imbecilic, so I'm not surprised that the news sometimes presents proponents of that belief in that light. The only perversion I see in most of these arguments is the fact that so many people are willing to concern themselves with what other people do in bed. Most of these same people would be horrified if we expected to discuss their sex lives in public. Should gay people, or single people, or members of other races have the right to adopt? Only in exactly the same way that non-gay, married, racially homogenous people have that right. Anything else is a serious human rights infraction. John Peekstok |
|
20 Mar 02 - 09:17 PM (#673029) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: GUEST,Souter Well, assuming that were talking about good people who happen to be gay, there shouldn't be a problem. As to so called "traditional" i.e nuclear families, that's actually a very recent idea. Historically, people were muchmore likely to live in an extended family than a nuclear one. There's even cultures where people stay in the same homes with their mother and siblings all their lives, and the father lives with HIS mother and siblings, not his kids. Those cultures aren't any sicker than our own, so how can one say our "traditional" way is necessarily better? |
|
20 Mar 02 - 09:39 PM (#673045) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: CarolC I haven't formed an opinion on this subject, but in answer to the supposition that there is no evolutionary basis for homosexual behavor, I suggest checking out this site, or doing a search on the keyword, "bonobo". |
|
20 Mar 02 - 09:47 PM (#673049) Subject: RE: BS: Gay Adoption-Yea or Nay From: Lepus Rex Hah, good point about bonobos, Carol. :) And my cat is gay... ---Lepus Rex (pro-gay-adoption, btw) |