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.
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.
In my opinion, the whole "every society has gays" thing doesn't hold much water. Even though that may be the case doesn't mean it's right. What about stealing? Every society has that, too. So is that not wrong now? What I'm saying is that you just can't effectively use that argument. Every society has gays, stealing, happiness, money, etc. So what?
I'm opposed to gay adoption, simply on basic anatomical logic. In the sense that men and women are designed to fit together to make children (there's got to be a reason for that), I also think that it's probably best for a man and woman TOGETHER to adopt. 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.
Let me take that further: I don't (generally) agree with the idea of sole custody in divorce cases. Now I understand that sometimes, a father or mother can be a detrimental influence to themselves or their children. In those instances, so be it. Usually, though, I see a very greedy parent trying to get back at their ex-spouse by using the children. NO NO NO! Bad.
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.
<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.
[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?
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....
<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just copied that whole damn post, because it all reminds me of another "reproductive issue" that REALLY ticks me off:
I can't stand it that there are thousands (maybe even millions) of women who live in the slums, don't work at all, sleep around all the time, and keep popping out babies because they have no self control OR they just want more welfare money.
Those children don't have a good life, they're not really wanted, and their mothers are usually drug addicts. Yet, there's nothing that says they can't have more children.
So yes, it is a shame that the adoption process is so messed up and expensive, because it's easier for a (pardon me) complete loser to have a baby than it is for good people to adopt one. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
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."
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
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.
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 opposed to gay adoption, simply on basic anatomical logic. In the sense that men and women are designed to fit together to make children (there's got to be a reason for that), I also think that it's probably best for a man and woman TOGETHER to adopt. 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.
Let me take that further: I don't (generally) agree with the idea of sole custody in divorce cases. Now I understand that sometimes, a father or mother can be a detrimental influence to themselves or their children. In those instances, so be it. Usually, though, I see a very greedy parent trying to get back at their ex-spouse by using the children. NO NO NO! Bad.
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.
<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.
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>
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 that this particular case was the impetus for Ms. O'Donnell officially coming out.
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.
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.
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?
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....
All things being equal except the obvious, perhaps, but if 'mom and dad' have a history of alcoholism or a shaky marriage, then no.
<strong>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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just copied that whole damn post, because it all reminds me of another "reproductive issue" that REALLY ticks me off:
I can't stand it that there are thousands (maybe even millions) of women who live in the slums, don't work at all, sleep around all the time, and keep popping out babies because they have no self control OR they just want more welfare money.
Those children don't have a good life, they're not really wanted, and their mothers are usually drug addicts. Yet, there's nothing that says they can't have more children.
So yes, it is a shame that the adoption process is so messed up and expensive, because it's easier for a (pardon me) complete loser to have a baby than it is for good people to adopt one.
"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."
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just ask <a href="http://www.yesterdayland.com/popopedia/shows/primetime/pt1106.php"; target="_blank">Nicole</a>. And her two dads were heterosexual!