Rosie O'Donnell & Gay Adoptions

I was sad to hear that she was homosexual, but not really surprised. Gay adoption should not be allowed. And I am not homophobic. They do not scare me, I do not hate them, I just don't think they should be allowed to adopt children because they are living a lifestyle that is not natural and only lends to having no children. You want kids, marry the opposite sex and have kids. If she is barren or he is "shooting blanks" adopt. Flame away, I will not discuss it further.

I already knew she was gay. I say, good for her, there aren't that many successful women with talkshows and magazines and all of that fame and respect that are gay.

I have more than one person in my family who was adopted (my mother included), and I've discussed all sorts of stuff like this with them. They feel that a good, safe, loving, and accepting home is all a child could want. A girl on that program talked about how she had been adopted at *12* years old. Imagine going through the first 12 years of your life with ****ed up parents or no parents at all, being shifted back and forth between cruel and disgusting conditions in foster homes (don't tell me they're all great places--I have quite a few very unfortunate friends who would tell you otherwise). It sure as hell beats that.

If you disagree with gays/homosexuality, that's one thing. But hating gays/homosexuals enough to both want to deprive them of having a family, and teach children that they should hate and discriminate against gays in these kinds of ways is another, and completely immoral and unacceptable. You might think being gay is 'unnatural,' and maybe it is, but newsflash, a hell of a lot in this world is unnatural, like beating your kids or smoking crack. I'd rather be part of a household that involves parents with an arguably 'unnatural' sexual preference than either of those. What kind of effect do you think it is going to have? How about they'll be able to figure out something that an unfortunately large number of Americans, Christians included, still can't today--that you can disagree with a lifestyle and still practice tolerance.

Like someone said in the program (forgive my memory), "These kids don't care what goes on in their parents' bedroom... They just want a loving family and a home." (verbatim)

I'm a bit homophobic, but I also think anybody that would be a good parent should be able to adopt.

I suppose some would say that all gay people are impure and bad parents. I think that kind of thinking is becoming increasingly unpopular.

It seems like a lot of good people are being turned down for adoption.

I think the only people who shouldn't be allowed adopt are children are christians.

[quote]Originally posted by trick fall:
<strong>I think the only people who shouldn't be allowed adopt are children are christians.</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by trick fall:
<strong>I think the only people who shouldn't be allowed adopt are children are christians.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bigot.

Publicity Stunt...

think about it... she now gets to right a book about it and go on talk shows and get "air time" to talk about "it" and sell her story so we can have a "made for tv movie", etc... show...

its a publicity stunt... she makes more money and gets more airtime (another couple minutes in the spotlight) and she can always change her mind later...

If she is, who gives a .....

------------------------------------

© FERRO 2001-2002

Some people say homosexuality is 'not natural'. However it is has consistency within the human population; all nations, all colors, all creeds, all races, all ideological and political groups etc etc have a certain percentage of folk who are homosexual (to varying extent). Some say the percentage is as high as 10%, others say it is lower, truth is nobody really knows for sure because in surveys, there are still many who people would never qualify themselves as being homosexual or having tendencies due to the horror and guilt of self admission, let alone to a third party.

I would say that it is a natural part of humanity, but a minority within the overall human population, in a similar way that left-handedness is. Do we discriminate against left handers? Do lefthanders get arbitrarily beaten up in the street by rednecks, hatemongers and lefthanderbashers? Do they get disqualified from this, that and the other, because of their minority status within a population? No, no, and no. Then why do gay people get the shaft? Maybe because, as a society in the USA, we have this puritan roots, and we have this massive problem with sexuality in general.
I mean, if the Justice Dept spends 10s of thousands of $$ to cover up the breasts of a bronze statue because John Ashcroft can't handle it, or one of the TV networks goes to the trouble of digitally constructing a virtual bikini strap to hide a woman's naked back (!!!!!!!!!???), while at the same time they show broken bodies, shootings, bombs, blood, and guts by the shipload without a blink, then that proves that we have some truly fvcked up values and priorities.

[quote]Some people say homosexuality is 'not natural'. However it is has consistency within the human population; all nations, all colors, all creeds, all races, all ideological and political groups etc etc have a certain percentage of folk who are homosexual (to varying extent). <hr></blockquote>

actually, that's not entirely true. i'll have to dig up my human sexuality textbook.

there's a tribe in Africa with 0% homosexuality (at least in men for sure). no one could figure out why. then they found out that the tribe believed that the only way to get semen for yourself was to swallow it from someone else. so young boys are made to suck the men of the village off and swallow, until they can produce semem of their own.

all the boys have to do it. after they come of age, not a single one is homosexual. interesting.

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>

actually, that's not entirely true. i'll have to dig up my human sexuality textbook.

there's a tribe in Africa with 0% homosexuality (at least in men for sure). no one could figure out why. then they found out that the tribe believed that the only way to get semen for yourself was to swallow it from someone else. so young boys are made to suck the men of the village off and swallow, until they can produce semem of their own.

all the boys have to do it. after they come of age, not a single one is homosexual. interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting ?
:eek:
discussing

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

I would say that it is a natural part of humanity, but a minority within the overall human population, in a similar way that left-handedness is. Do we discriminate against left handers? Do lefthanders get arbitrarily beaten up in the street by rednecks, hatemongers and lefthanderbashers? Do they get disqualified from this, that and the other, because of their minority status within a population? No, no, and no. Then why do gay people get the shaft? Maybe because, as a society in the USA, we have this puritan roots, and we have this massive problem with sexuality in general.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that Homosexuality is a natural part of humanity and therefore have to respect it.
But the problem of adoption is different from left hander against right hander. The problem of adoption is to bring a child in a new family. We have also to consider the future of the child. Many homosexual in my opinion can be good parents, and some of them have childs and are married indeed. Some homosexuals are terrible parents in the same ways has heterosexuals parents.
My personal question about this ,is homesexual family can bring identity problems for the child ?. You know even in the old Greece, the family was made of a father and a mother weither or not their sexual preferences (gay or not). What is the consequences of such family model ?

I have not very strong opinions in that subject, just find it not very natural, any advices or answers to this question are welcome.

Well as a few of you know, my name is Jamie and I am *gasp* a homosexual.

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't believe gay adoption is a good thing. Not at this point in time. Until homosexuality is more widely accepted in society I feel that it's unfair for the children to have to put up with the funny looks and the "my two Dads" taunts.

That's my two pence on the subject but I don't think I'm an expert just because I'm a queer so I'm happy to listen to other views. Even from people who class themselves as homophobic, after all, I’m scared of midgets but that doesn’t make me a bad person.

J :cool:

Telling a 'gay' person/couple they can't adopt a child is the same thing as telling a person who is a certain color or from a certain religion that they cannot adopt.

Why should gay people not be allowed to adopt? It's stupid to not allow them to care for a child if they want to. After all, they have to go under the same background checks, etc. to see if they are fit parents, and if they are, then why should they not be allowed to adopt?

I don't see how growing up with gay parents would be drastically different then with straight parents. The only thing I can think of is that the kid might be given a hard time about their parents being gay. But let's face it: Within the next few years, I think you're going to see 'gay rights' take off in terms of them being able to get married, etc. Why give them a hard time about raising children? After all, they're just a person.

The thing that gets me is that other people think that they have the right to judge other people that are different in some way from them. They think they are so much better, that they get to judge other people. Baloney. We're all people, and we should all have the same rights.

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

The thing that gets me is that other people think that they have the right to judge other people that are different in some way from them. They think they are so much better, that they get to judge other people. Baloney. We're all people, and we should all have the same rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>

With the exception of PC users, right?!

J :cool:

Jamie, don't you think it would be more widely accepted if it was more common?

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Jamie, don't you think it would be more widely accepted if it was more common? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well yes and no. It seems to be much more common now than a few years ago to see gay couples in the street but I don't think the level of acceptance has risen dramatically.

My two cents:

Outright prohibiting people that are gay (much less gay couples) from adopting is patently absurd. It's as aburd as prohibiting Scientologists from adopting, or prohibiting Mormons from adopting.

I'm intentionally pointing to two other groups that are commonly disliked and distrusted in the popular culture, and who regularly have their value systems questioned. It's discriminatory and illegal to make a blanket prohibition on adoption by these groups; instead, we tend to believe in judging the individuals, not the group.

The criteria for adoption should be simple: the best interests of the child. That should be evaluated by the ability of the prospective parents to raise the child with love and attention.

In short, I'd rather be adopted by two wonderful gay people (or two wonderful Scientologists) than by two lousy straight people.

Rosie O'Donnel is gay?!?! Well **** my ass and call me Nancy! What a revelation of the ages!

Seriously, was there ever a doubt. You ever see Another Stakeout?

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Then why do gay people get the shaft? </strong><hr></blockquote>

must....fight....urge....to...joke...

LOL!

one thing i will say. i would be much more opposed to having gay parents adopt same sex children than i would having them adobt opposite sex children.

this is because i would think that as a child, a boy with two gay fathers will be teased unmercifully. he will be queer as far as the other boys are concerned.

a daughter of two lesbian mothers will be a dyke in the eyes of her peers.

however, i don't think the daughter of two gay men would have anything near the problems a son would. nor would the son of two lesbians have half the problems a daughter would, IMO.

just a thought.

I have no problem with the gay adoptions/gay parents themselves; the problem is in the societal unacceptance that having gay parents would bring the children. Some would use that as an excuse to bar such parents from providing what, as in most cases of parenting, a loving environment for their children. However, I believe that an unjust society is what needs to be changed, not the parents.

As for Rosie O'Donnell, I think that some of what she had to say in the interview as well as the timing of the interview, was aided by PR people. If she didn't do the interview according to an expert's specs, it would likely be torn apart. It still will be, but I can see that PR might have influenced it and why that might be so.

Furthermore, I half-agree with FERRO on the subject of a publicity stunt. Coming out on Primetime is bound to generate publicity amongst the North American public. Not all positive, mind you. I can just imagine the housewives' collective gasps. But others will see the outing as a cause to rally behind, and that will help Ms. O'Donnell's commercial endeavours. In a society where people just don't expect a certain percentage of their population to be homosexual - and especially not their wholesome afternoon talk show host - coming out is a publicity mill.

[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: Mac The Fork ]</p>

I'm all for gay adoption. Some of my best friends are gay, and I would never think to deny them the joys of a family. The only possibly valid argument against gay adoption that I can think of is that a man, gay or not, is not going to be as well suited to help his daughter with certain issues as a woman would be and vice versa. Obviously there could be a close family friend who could help with these things, but it's not the same as having a parent to talk to. But if single dads and moms can do it, I see no reason why a gay couple couldn't do it.

[quote]Originally posted by CosmoNut:
<strong>Yes, that means that I don't agree with a single person (gay or not) adopting. I think adoption needs to be a collective effort, so that the child(ren) can have the influence of a father and mother growing up.</strong><hr></blockquote>I basically agree with you here. Ideally, a child should have a mother and a father.

The problem is that there are lots of kids who don't have families of any kind - they're in temporary homes or are in state-run "orphanages." And although a mom and pop is best, I think it's better to have a non-traditional family than no family at all.

I think a mom and dad should be given precedence, but I don't think gays or singles should be completely barred from adopting.

I think any parents are better than no parents. As long as one of the partents isn't Paula Poundstone.

[quote]And it all goes back to the children. Yes, we should look at what's best for the children. And it seems to me that children should have a father AND mother when they're adopted. Period. No gay adoptions, and no single-person adoptions.<hr></blockquote>

So under your logic, we should probably have children taken away from single parents as well. After all, they should have two parents. If the mother dies during child birth, it would be awful for the child to grow up without a mother, so the father should immediately put the child up for adoption, as he is unfit to raise the child, right?

That's basically what you are saying.

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

So under your logic, we should probably have children taken away from single parents as well. After all, they should have two parents. If the mother dies during child birth, it would be awful for the child to grow up without a mother, so the father should immediately put the child up for adoption, as he is unfit to raise the child, right?

That's basically what you are saying.</strong><hr></blockquote>


That is not what he said. That is what you are twisting it to mean. The child should remain with their biological parents unless they are shown to be be unfit parents. And I mean unfit in the true meaning of the word. Abuse, gross negligence, etc...

I believe the point of show was that the young man that the two men are not being allowed to adopt had lived with them for years as a foster child. As gay men, the were allowed to take in a weeks old infant who was HIV+ and care for him (as well as several other kids) to the point that he is a happy, well-adjusted (and sero-converted to negative) child who is available to be adopted, just not by the only "parents" he has ever known.

I believe that this particular case was the impetus for Ms. O'Donnell officially coming out.

now i'll be interested to see if Rosie pulls an Ellen.

her show was funny until she came out. then it was lesbian this, lesbian that. they were so stuck on the fact that she was gay that the show started sucking.

now i hate rosie anyway. anyone that opposed to guns drives me insane. but i'll be interested to see if she can hold her show/audience now that she's come out. it will be tempting to make a big deal out of this, but she should remember that this isn't what got her where she is now, and is unlikely to keep her there.

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I'll say this straight off: Rosie probably ain't a lesbian as much as she is a disenfranchised heterosexual. I'd look for her to pull an Anne Heche as much as I'd look for her to pull an Ellen.

Hmm... So you're saying Rosie is a hetero that hasn't gotten any action in the last, oh say, 10 years, and so she decides it must be because she is gay? I have no problem with that. Sounds like it's a spot on acessment.

I'm not a fan of Rosie by any means, but I do feel a little sorry for her, or anyone, that has to come out so late in life. I feel blessed in a lot of ways that I'm growing up in a time when it's much more widely acceptable to be gay. I won't have to live 40+ years of my life hiding myself from people. It's a nice feeling. My brother was adopted, so I know how much good adoption can do for both families and children. I hope to adopt someday, and I feel confident knowing that maybe the kid will have questions about his/her dad's lives, but in the end they will never question whether or not they're loved.

Anyone familiar with the adoption system now should know better than to suggest that anyone should be prohibited from adopting a child because of their sexuality. The system desperately needs good parents, gay, straight, or otherwise.

With good people waiting years to adopt children, I wonder how desperate the need really is. I know people who can't have children. They're not rich, but they're good people, they work hard, maintain close ties to their families, are committed to each other, etc etc... But they don't make the most money. They're always waiting... there's always more paper-work... more interviews... more stalling.

I object to Rosie (and others) getting the pick of the litter (I know, sorry) simply cause they can pay their way through a sometimes shady process. There is a much more significant discrimination taking place in the adoption system right now. Does a child really have to grow up wealthy to grow up healthy and loved?

Personally, although I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and unnatural, I can't really argue against their marrying or adopting except from a moral standpoint.
Legally, I just can't see why they can't do those things. Are they less committed to each other? Look at the divorce rate amongst heteros. Homosexuals can't be much worse and even if they are, so what?
Can homosexuals be good parents? Sure they can. They can be bad parents too. Their kids may grow up with a different view of the world and what is right and wrong but as a parent, that is their right to teach them.
trick fall makes a point with his little smart arse remark. People don't agree with the christian lifestyle but that shouldn't keep them from adopting or marrying.
I think that a lot of people get hung up on the whole "if they can't reproduce naturally, then they aren't meant to have children" thing. Now, considering my views, I agree. But what about hetero couples that can't conceive? They get to use drugs or invetro or adoption so really, what's the difference?
I believe it's hard to argue against the fact that being gay is not natural, especially if you're an evolutionist. Survival of the fittest, man. These people wouldn't last a generation, for obvious reasons. But in today's society, there just isn't a good arguement against their having the same rights as everyone else.
So in conclusion:
I'd rather not see it but I can't really say that it's not right except from a moral viewpoint.

I'd better stop now before I keep on blathering....

[quote]I think a mom and dad should be given precedence, but I don't think gays or singles should be completely barred from adopting.<hr></blockquote>

All things being equal except the obvious, perhaps, but if 'mom and dad' have a history of alcoholism or a shaky marriage, then no.

The adoption system sucks, that's why "good people" aren't able to adopt. It's not because of a shortage of adoptees.

For what it's worth, homosexual tendencies have been proven to be widespread among animals.

"Natural" and "unnatural" are completely subjective. "Contrary to my sheepish, closed-minded, arrogant Christian beliefs" would be a better descriptor of homosexuality, for most people calling it "unnatural."