adoption by gay couples?

[pennquaker09]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:24:39 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Kenny~ I''d never thought of ''putting a child on the front lines.'' but it has brought out some thoughts for me. ALL parents have to make the decision on who/what they allow their children to be exposed to. Private school, gay communities have both been mentioned to shelter the child a bit. More and more religious people are taking to homeschooling their children to avoid the outside influence as well. I completely understand your own desire to not have kids, but I don''t think gay people are being handed anything that other parents aren''t dealing with in some way. Granted, the gay topic is more of a hot button issue, but any child who isn''t from an ideal family is sitting awful close to the front lines too.

Exactly, I can remember how many times I was a called the N word as a kid AND didn''t know that I was different until I was maybe 10/11. I was so sheltered that I didn''t put much into that my mom was black and my dad was white. It took other kids, with some arguably racist parents, to point that out to me.

 

[pennquaker09]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:27:46 PM
Author: MarquiseGirl
OK Kenny, let me take Adam and Eve out the equation altogether. You bring up in-vitro, even there you have the egg and the sperm. There is just no getting around this fact.

I think that''s just a very narrow way of thinking. It''s like you''re not getting the big picture.

 

[somethingshiny]

Okay, perhaps I''m dense....

This thread doesn''t ask "should gay people be allowed to CREATE children?" it asks "should gay people be allowed to ADOPT children?"

If your (whomever) answer is "if you can''t create it, you can''t raise it" fine. But, does that also mean if you can''t raise your own grains, meat, dairy, you shouldn''t be allowed to eat them? Eating is just as natural as procreation but I doubt many here could manage without a grocery store.

I am very secure in my religious beliefs. I tried for many years to have a child myself. I couldn''t believe that God would give me such a desire to be a mother if it wasn''t going to happen. Why would someone''s sexual preference make them any different?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/29/2010 6:50:10 PM
Author: Steal

Hi Thing,

I don''t agree with your logic as to the qualification of an exception.

As for your last statement, it is a reach from my comments but I''ll run with you. Yes, I do. I have already said why ''I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father''. Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.

Go on go crazy....

Steal...i''am sure there''re many members agree with that statement,but are too chicken to say it.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:01:34 PM
Author: pennquaker09
For what it''s worth, and to maybe calm this thread down a little bit because I would personally like for it to remain open, but I, as a gay parent, understand what Steal is trying to say. And it doesn''t offend me that she feels this way. What are we without our morals? She has beliefs that are near and dear to her, and I would never ask her to change those.

However, Steal, when you mention biology, I kind of want to understand what you''re saying fully. Because like I said earlier, that assumes that everyone is heterosexual, has the desire to get married, inferitility didn''t exist . . . essentially it would be a Stepford like world. Would it not?

I have very strong feelings on this issue, so I have stayed out of this thread until now. But, Penn, I just had to say this: I''m very impressed by your attitude in the above post. You are an extremely graceful person. I absolutely cringed for you when I read some of the comments that have been made in this thread, because I KNOW you and Nate are excellent parents, and I could easily see how offended you might have been by some of the things that have been said here. You have handled these comments much, MUCH better than I would have in your position.

 

[packrat]

It''s too bad that in this day and age as a society we''d rather leave kids to languish w/out the love/care of adoptive parents, and sometimes kids are sent back to biological parents after being taken away and things happen to those kids, all b/c people are scared.

Somebody''s got to stand up for the kids, and somebody''s got to sit in the front of the bus.

 

[swimmer]

I'm a new mom to a baby that could only be created through hormone injections and an IUI...but him being defined as unnatural is not my point here.

The amazing thing is that kids aren't bigots...its their parents that keep on trying to poison them with hatred and bigotry. Kenny, I'm happy to share with you that it is amazing how much schools have changed since we were there. It really (at least in Boston) is prized to be different, afros and any way of accentuating exotic looks/features are the norm; essentially kids want to look like the old bennetton advertisements. It is no longer "cool" to all be cookie-cutter (do you remember "Heathers"...am I dating myself? Imagine the opposite.) High school today is all about standing out, and yes, I can only speak to the Boston area. Truly this thread was a horrible reminder to me that gay marriage isn't legal everywhere.

In my childbirth class of 6 couples, 2 lesbians. In my new moms' class of 14, two are lesbians (not each others' partners), and one is a gay man. We are all doing the best to raise our babies in an uncertain world. The world is changing...whether some people like it or not. BTW a quick google reveals that 40% of homosexual couples in the US are raising at least one child. In MA, gays have a much lower divorce rate than heterosexual couples, and MA has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country!

Remember that Louisiana couple who were denied a marriage certificate because they were of two different races and the clerk who tried to stop them (and was ignorant of Loving vs VA), claimed that it was because life would be difficult for their mixed race children? Now no one can say that Barack Obama has been having it easy lately, but he certainly doesn't seem to have been slowed down much by the bigoted haters of the world. Opponents of miscegenation in our recent past were shown to be on the wrong side of the law and morale code of the US. Soon, very soon hopefully, the same will be true of gay marriage and adoption.

In any choice of what side of something to be on, I side with love.
ETA: Penn, you are awesome. I'm impressed with your class act all the time, but in particular here.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 6/29/2010 9:48:19 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy

I am honestly curious, how is different from interracial marriage? It is not natural, people have always been with their own kind, they cannot produce viable offspring, the bible says it is wrong, where is the difference?

Huh

Interracial couples most certainly can and DO produce viable offspring. Also not sure what you're referring to in the Bible...VERY strange.

ETA - I believe that capable and willing adults should be allowed to adopt, no matter their sexual orientation.

 

[ericad]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:20:14 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/29/2010 10:06:13 PM

Author: MarquiseGirl

As far as the whole 'natural' thing is concerned, Adam and Eve had children the old fashioned way. Without the egg+sperm we, as a human race, would no longer exist. It is a fact that without those two elements we would become extinct. That is natural. '2 of a kind' simply cannot do this, naturally.

By citing Adam and Eve you write as if everyone believed in your religion.

That is a very problematic thing to base a rational argument on.


Your argument seems to be, only what is natural is okay.


So in-vitro fertilization is wrong too?

Is treating cancer wrong too since that is not natural?

Cars are not natural so I assume you walk everywhere.

I assume you and your family remain naked all the time since clothes are not natural either . . .


Or perhaps you are okay with all these unnatural things and only pull out the natural card when talking about families that are not like yours.

Kenny, I could kiss you for this post! May I???

I, too, don't wish to persecute Steal and others for their beliefs and am genuinely trying to understand the "nature" aspect of their argument. Your post sums it up well - If all things must be natural to be ideal, we are talking about a very limited existence.

PS - I was stewing about this topic as I commuted home this evening. How can anyone argue that homosexuality isn't natural? I don't think anyone can argue that nature made some of the population gay. Is this evolution at work? Mark my words, a few centuries from now perhaps the tables will be turned and heterosexuality will be the minority...

PPS - I also ponder how heavily religion plays into people's perspective on this issue (I suspect quite heavily).

 

[ericad]

SIGH. I could do this all night - I love debating gay issues because I''m so passionate about the subject. But alas, DH is waiting for me - in an ironic twist we are scheduled to watch some Eddie Izzard stand up. Watching a tranny whilst wearing my tranny, BWAHAHAHAHA! I crack myself up.

PS - where do the nay-sayers stand on heterosexual transvestites adopting (as Mr. Izzard has taught me, transvestites are not always gay - particularly executive transvestites)? Just curious.

Tea and cake or death?

 

[dragonfly411]

apparently I missed a lot.

I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.

I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM
Author: dragonfly411
apparently I missed a lot.


I do think that it's OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.


I personally don't agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can't help who you love, and it's not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I'd rather see them over people who aren't financially stable. I'd prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

This is what people don't get. There isn't anything to "agree" with. Would you "agree" with African Americans existing in the world and having the same rights as everyone else? Would you even debate it? In public? But it's OK not to "agree" with, quote, "gay/lesbianism"?

I try to be diplomatic when people say things like this but it is a little frustrating.

 

[ericad]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:27:46 PM
Author: MarquiseGirl
OK Kenny, let me take Adam and Eve out the equation altogether. You bring up in-vitro, even there you have the egg and the sperm. There is just no getting around this fact.

Well, yes, and gay couples also require the egg and sperm. They just have to buy the egg (or sperm) and maybe borrow a uterus. Then presto - baby making magic. In many infertility cases, hetero couples too must buy eggs or sperm and/or borrow a uterus. What's the difference???

 

[JSM]

I know so many people (extreme right AND left) that want to base their beliefs on an ideal world.

IMO, the world sucks, and it will never be the utopia (conservative, liberal, green, whatever) that we envision.

I read something recently (where I can''t remember) that became my new motto:

Live as life IS, not how it should be.


Children need a loving, stable home, and I don''t really care who the parents sleep with.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:27:26 PM
Author: Imdanny

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM

Author: dragonfly411

apparently I missed a lot.

I do think that it's OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.

I personally don't agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can't help who you love, and it's not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I'd rather see them over people who aren't financially stable. I'd prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

This is what people don't get. There isn't anything to 'agree' with. Would you 'agree' with African Americans existing in the world and having the same rights as everyone else? Would you even debate it? In public? But it's OK not to 'agree' with, quote, 'gay/lesbianism'?

I try to be diplomatic when people say things like this but it is a little frustrating.

Yeah I don't try to be diplomatic anymore. I've discovered that the older I get, the less patience I have for ignorance. I'm hoping America will catch up with the rest of the industrialized world soon enough.

In the mean time, I surround myself with people who don't offer arguments against homosexuality, especially arguments involving "nature." Because guess what-homosexuality exists in nature, too! That's right, kids-GAY ANIMALS. Guess it's not so unnatural after all. Problem solved-gay couples should adopt!

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM
Author: dragonfly411
apparently I missed a lot.

I do think that it's OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.

I personally don't agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can't help who you love, and it's not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I'd rather see them over people who aren't financially stable. I'd prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

Do all your gay and lesbian friends know you "don't agree with gay/lesbianism"?

 

[monarch64]

The whole "it''s not natural" argument (about anything, really) just kills me. It is not natural that we as humans insist upon trying to keep our sick healthy and impede evolution, so to say something isn''t natural and therefore we''re against it sort of blows my mind.

I thought Swimmer said it best in her post when she stated, "I side with love."

 

[monarch64]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:51:27 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM

Author: dragonfly411

apparently I missed a lot.


I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.


I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

Do all your gay and lesbian friends know you ''don''t agree with gay/lesbianism''?

Well, tolerance apparently equals friendship in some people''s minds. *shrugs*

Acceptance is a very tough thing after years of being conditioned to be discriminating. There is a reason we call children "innocents."

 

[kenny]

Some people believe gays are meant to be, natural if you will.
We have been called the beauty-makers because, as a group, we enhance the world for everyone.
Gays do your hair, make music and art, design clothes, decorate your home etc.

Now, Duh, obviously straights can do those things too and gays can also become police, firefighters, carpenters, and soldiers etc.
But as a group gays beautify the world for those who focus their energy raising children.
There's a place for us.

Long ago over 130 Native American tribes exalted gays to that status of holy men and women.
They felt they had the spirt of a man and a woman so they refer to them as "two-spirits".
Because they contain two opposing sides, male and female, they have a knack of seeing two sides of things and could make good mediators.
Two-spirits held honorable positions in the community, like that of healer and others mentioned in the following article.
Here's Wiki's article about them. Link

Gays have not always been seen in a negative light.
That is mostly the result of the teachings of popular religions.
The first American were puritans and they formed the culture and the laws here.
I think it will be a few more generations before all this bigotry-disguised-as-morality is washed away.

 

[megumic]

For those who base their feelings on this topic on ideals, what about the couple -- one male one female -- who are both transgender (i.e. the male identifies and lives as a female, and the female identifies and lives as a male). Female-to-male becomes pregnant (gasp!) naturally, after all we''ve got one egg and one sperm here! Is it unnatural to allow this couple to parent? Is this too far beyond ideal? Is this an "okay" environment for children to be raised within?

I just don''t get this whole "ideally" talk. Who realistically lives based on ideals, seriously.

 

[steph72276]

While I'm very conservative on most issues, in this case I would want what is best for the child. If they can get into a home with love and support instead of going from home to home in the foster system, I am all for it. I do worry about any bullying that may go with that when they are in school, but that seems minor compared to the alternative of not having a family that cares for them or enough food to eat.

ETA: I think foster parents are wonderful and are very special people to do what they do for children so I didn't want my post to say anything negative about foster parents....it would just be the "ideal" to get into a permanent, loving home.

 

[ksinger]

Frankly, I don''t trust idealists. In their self-proclaimed purity, they frequently create hells of persecution for those who don''t share their views. Life is messy, and those things we hold up as ideal usually never existed outside of a tiny little corner, which is then held up as something we SHOULD ALL be able to reach instead of the abberations they actually were. June and Ward Cleaver anyone? Honestly, who but a tiny fraction of white America in a tiny fraction of our history, ever lived that? It''s kinda old now, but I still suggest a book entitled "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Coontz. It blows quite of few cultural myths held by lots of people, into tiny bits.

I have no problem with gays adopting. But like Kenny, I can understand not wanting to put a child in the middle of that battle. Unless you live in an enclave of the enlightened and never stray from there, there is an entire world out here that isn''t so kind.

Thing, I had my gonads handed to me by the hubs when I too said that I thought single parents can do as well as two - that it was no big deal. Apparently the actual data does not bear this out. I was doing the thing I decry in others: extrapolating (wrongly) a view of the larger world based on my OWN experience. Bad on me. Anyway, if your single-parent raised friends turned out "OK", chalk that up to extraordinary mothers with many advantages, rather than the situation being no big deal. If you look at the single-parent situation outside of your circle, you''ll see that single parenthood (headed by the mother) is frequently a bad deal overall for the kids, with the educational level of the mother generally being less, family income being MUCH less, and the strain on mom being much greater. Two parents IS better, statistically. I know I wish I''d had two. I did well because I had that extraordinary mother with advantages, no other reason.

 

[iheartscience]

Ksinger-I never said one parent was as good as two. I did say that children being raised by both of their biological parents isn''t really the rule, but the exception. Two parents are definitely better than one, whether they''re gay, straight or somewhere in between. And ditto idealism leading to persecution.

The bottom line is that wanting to deny rights to gay couples (adoption, marriage) is making the statement that gay people are inferior to straight people. Blame it on morals or values if you like, but that''s what it is.

 

[ksinger]

crap. Had a reply. Posted. Error. You''d think by now I''d just quit typing HERE, and do everything in Notepad first. Grrr.

 

[Circe]

Date: 6/29/2010 9:14:03 PM
Author: Steal
This monkey will not dance.


I did not realise this was a thread for those only in support of gay adoption. Or is it?




What do you want? Did I not make my thoughts clear? Yes. But you disagree with them.


So what? Maybe I disagree with you.


You will not change my mind and do not think that you can throw an anti-gay comment at me to prove a point That is a cheap shot. But I take it because I expected it.



Do you want my address you can come over and burn something in my front yard?

I'm actually offended by this. It boggles my mind every time somebody who is part of the dominant paradigm pretends to be oppressed. I can't help but take it as active manipulation.

Let me spell this out: being a bigot is not the same as being persecuted for being a minority. Good lord, melodramatic much?

 

[Circe]

And, to get back to the topic at hand ... I support gay adoption with every fiber of my being, in the same way that I support any child who is unwanted by his or her bio-parents finding a loving home.

As for the argument that it will make life more difficult for the kids ... if it was a choice between "adoption by this happy affluent straight couple over here" vs. "adoption by this likely-to-be-persecuted gay couple here," I''d probably agree. I''d gnash my teeth and loathe it, but the important thing is what''s best for the kids. But it''s usually not quite that clear-cut. And if you carry that argument to its logical conclusion, you''ll find yourself not wanting to bring kids who might be oppressed in any way into the world ... from my not wanting to take the chance that my hypothetical children might someday encounter anti-Semites, to a preference for sons because they''d be statistically less likely than daughters to be sexually harassed or abused. Past a certain point, we sort of have to take our chances and just do the best we can ....

 

[Indylady]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM
Author: dragonfly411
apparently I missed a lot.

I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.

I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

I don''t understand...that''s like saying, "I don''t agree with your purple shoes." I understand, "I am not gay" and "I do not wear purple shoes," but I don''t understand, "I don''t agree with being gay." What''s there to agree with?

 

[lilyfoot]

Date: 6/30/2010 9:48:41 AM
Author: IndyLady

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM
Author: dragonfly411
apparently I missed a lot.

I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.

I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

I don''t understand...that''s like saying, ''I don''t agree with your purple shoes.'' I understand, ''I am not gay'' and ''I do not wear purple shoes,'' but I don''t understand, ''I don''t agree with being gay.'' What''s there to agree with?

I am not sure if this is what dragonfly means, but I have heard that some people don''t "believe" that being "gay" is real, KWIM? They think that being a homosexual is a choice that you make, not something that you are born as. Dragonfly, if I am totally off the mark here, I apologize, however, it is still a valid point of view (though certainly not MY point of view!).

My parents divorced when I was about 6-7 years old. I think about 2-3 years later, my mom discovered/came out/whatever, that she is a lesbian. I have never had a person say anything negative about it to my face. It''s really not a big deal at all, IMO. What does a parents sexuality have to do with their children?

As far as I know, kids are made fun of for all types of things that they also may not be able to help - color of their skin, wearing glasses, being chubby, being skinny, being tall, being short, etc. I don''t think that any gay person/couple looking to adopt should be scared, or feel guilty, that their child may be made fun of for their parents sexuality.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:03:53 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 6/29/2010 9:48:19 PM

Author: brazen_irish_hussy


I am honestly curious, how is different from interracial marriage? It is not natural, people have always been with their own kind, they cannot produce viable offspring, the bible says it is wrong, where is the difference?

Huh

Interracial couples most certainly can and DO produce viable offspring. Also not sure what you''re referring to in the Bible...VERY strange.


ETA - I believe that capable and willing adults should be allowed to adopt, no matter their sexual orientation.

Ditto LucyandRoger. BIH, could you please clarify your statement? I really hope I''m not misreading this as you saying interracial marriages are not natural because they''re not "of their own kind" and cannot produce viable offspring. However, from your previous comments about you being upset over being a white upper class kid who was made fun of instead of your little "dark skinned" friend, I''m not sure...

 

[Indylady]

Lily, that makes more sense. I appreciate the clarification!