<strong>The idea of two gay men adopting a child strikes me as ridiculous. Why on earth would two gay men want a baby that wasn't genetically theirs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because they can afford it. Just like you can buy a pet when you want to. Nobody, I repeat, nobody even considers treating a baby like a human being. Nobody is going to ask a baby "Hey do you want two or three gay machos to be your parents?"
I think that a gay people, of either sex, have every right to bring up a child. I don't think their sexual orientation has any bearing on that of the child (we are what we are, regardless of what people would prefer us to be), or the security of the home environment - after all "straight" couples split up every day.
But, I think that gay couples should only be allowed to adopt a child, or to conceive a child naturally. I don't think they should be allowed to do the "test tube" thing.
Sorry guys, but it's your decision to live your life like that, and so you have to accept everything that comes as part and parcel with it. You'll just have to swallow your pride and try things naturally - if you want a child that much.
Obviously gay couples who can't conceive naturally should be allowed to investigate the "test tube" thing, in the same way that mixed sex couples can.
<strong>But, I think that gay couples should only be allowed to adopt a child, or to conceive a child naturally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Where did you see 2 boys conceiving a child?! :eek:
In the lesbian case, there is always a way to circumvent the law. One of the girls gets laid and ? oops ? she has a child and lives together with her girlfriend.
What about men? What freaking court on earth would take a baby from the mother to give him/her to a gay who lives with another gay and they possibly don't mind to make the baby gay too? It's hell, people!
How can we idly discuss the bullshit without thinking ahead? Try your imagination now: you and your wife/husband die today in a car crash accident. Your baby becomes an orphan and a couple of gays adopt her. Because they want a baby. See her in their hands? You like it? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
What has become of church? If they don't give a damn either, we are indeed in hell.
I believe that gay couples adopting a child could be potentially damaging psycologically to the child in question.
Every child views their "parents" as being their rolemodels and "normality" counts for an awful lot when said child is trying to find their place in the world, fitting into society - with friends, at school, at work and eventually in their adult relationships.
Their could be nothing more awkward or confusing to a person if they had been brought up in a same sex parental environment and sees other peoples parents, ie. male+female, as being the normal and natural thing.
And this is the real point - nature has intended male and female to pair off and reproduce and the resulting offspring are nurtured and protected by the parents - though in modern society these simple, basic facts are often ignored through well intentioned yet misguided notions that same sex "parents" are as good a family unit as M+F, which naturally, they cannot be.
There are plenty of male+female couples out there who have excellent potential as parents to adoptive children, therefore giving these children normal rolemodels and a normal family unit without all the confusion and stigma that goes with gay parents.
What? Where did you see 2 boys conceiving a child?! :eek:
In the lesbian case, there is always a way to circumvent the law. One of the girls gets laid and ? oops ? she has a child and lives together with her girlfriend.
What about men? What freaking court on earth would take a baby from the mother to give him/her to a gay who lives with another gay and they possibly don't mind to make the baby gay too? It's hell, people!
How can we idly discuss the bullshit without thinking ahead? Try your imagination now: you and your wife/husband die today in a car crash accident. Your baby becomes an orphan and a couple of gays adopt her. Because they want a baby. See her in their hands? You like it? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
What has become of church? If they don't give a damn either, we are indeed in hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
don't be such a tool. the only thing any of us should care about is if the child is raised in a caring and loving environment. there are way to many kids being brought up in this world in screwed up households where abuse and neglect are rampent. if it's apparent that two people care enough to want to adopt and raise a child, then i see no reason why sexual orientation has to play a part in it. i'm clueless as to what your last point is regarding "church". what church? the church that has shown more concern over their own image than those of the children placed in their care?
Gay people most often have a lot more acquaintances that are gay too than other people. So that the parents are two women will not be strange for them. They will probably be better in coping with the differences than other children because they learn that there is no such thing as "normal" in the meaning opposite "unnormal".
It would only be a problem if the child was hold away from heterosexsual people or if lesbians held them away from men. But the same applies if other children was held away from "strange people" and in my experience that is not the case.
About "Dont **** with nature": In general terms I agree in that I don´t think artificial insimination is that great idea when so many children are living a shitty life. I´d rather have that adoption was the first choice. But when we **** with nature on straight couples (who normally are helped when nature won´t give them a child) I see no "natural law" argument against helping lesbians (who are no less able to concieve than the normal population of women).
On a side note I listened to a swedish professor in zoology the other day: Homosexuality is actually very normal among animals. But when we see nature films all those aspects are toned down or removed. So the way we percieve nature is actually very bound in culture.
As usual the stupidity overflows from both sides of the debate.
Bigotry doesn't need identification, we can all recognize.
It's the other side that troubles me, this thoughtless sentimentality that passes for reason.
A loving environment is far from being the only relevant criteria. That may be the PC thing to say, but don't believe it for a second. Love is an extremely overused term, most people can't even define it or distinguish a sustained state of horniness from love. Unless you're Woody Allen this isn't an adoption issue, but people have trouble even distinguishing an innate paternal desire, or affection, from love. This is an issue. Love has very selfish and precise demands, though it is also selfless. Christians might tell you that love is selfless, full stop, but Christians are of little use here, they want love to meet a strictly theological point that in truth can be teased into inconsistency with itself without too much effort.
<strong>Hmm. Youi say love isn´t the only thing nessesary. I agree. But what more is needed and does it affect whether gays should be able to become parents?</strong><hr></blockquote>
maybe no one thing alone, maybe love, but not as many here would likely define it...
intelligence,
stability,
money,
community.
I can see stability as a real gay specific concern, and community too, though neither is neccessarily a deal breaker. I just want to point out that there are many heterosexual couples who despite all the 'love' in the world have great difficulty adopting, love then, is not some special pass that ought to promote gays, anymore than it can promote heteros, or vice versa. When you argue for their rights, love is not the grounds to do it, this is just the most naive, lowest common denominator type of emotional appeal.
<strong>As usual the stupidity overflows from both sides of the debate.
Bigotry doesn't need identification, we can all recognize.
It's the other side that troubles me, this thoughtless sentimentality that passes for reason.
A loving environment is far from being the only relevant criteria. That may be the PC thing to say, but don't believe it for a second. Love is an extremely overused term, most people can't even define it or distinguish a sustained state of horniness from love. Unless you're Woody Allen this isn't an adoption issue, but people have trouble even distinguishing an innate paternal desire, or affection, from love. This is an issue. Love has very selfish and precise demands, though it is also selfless. Christians might tell you that love is selfless, full stop, but Christians are of little use here, they want love to meet a strictly theological point that in truth can be teased into inconsistency with itself without too much effort.
Define it for yourselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
your right, love is not the only criteria in this issue, but it's certainly should be considerd a major focus.
Don't be so stupid! Or have you never seen gay 'families'? There are many, many and many everyday-life problems in them. It's not just bed. It's behaviour at home, social life, manners, etc. Suffragettes may call me a sexist, but an average woman is not equal to an average man in terms of behaviour, natural approach to life, work, children, clothes, etc. No better, no worse ? just different. Point. If you don't agree, think about it: a woman is a creature who can reproduce herself while a man cannot. This simple fact influences everything from the conscious to the unconscious. A child by nature should have access to both father and mother. And seeing that, it makes some difference for a child between homosexual and heterosexual parents.
And stop saying there's no difference between men and women: if you don't see it, you are beyond repair.
One more thing about church. Those who don't know what it is may skip. No church of whatever religion will bless a homosexual marriage, thus putting the child in an ugly position: keep out either of church or of the parents. Of course, when the kid grows up to make his own judgements, if ever, this is no problem. We discuss little children who need care, love and support.
You know why this question appeared at all? Some dirty-hands politicians want to have extra votes at whatever cost; they seek the votes from homosexuals. Perhaps, the best solution would be not to argue but to ignore these politicians. Go ask a homosexual couple in private and they'll tell you that the difference between men and women are far greater than heterosexuals are taught to admit.
You talk about some of what I mean in a broader sense of 'community'
For a really entertaining twist see what gay men and lesbians really think about each other. Very entertaining. Even though they kinda play for the same team, the persistence, even amplification, of male and female attitudes is absolutely hilarious as evidenced in gay circles.
About votes:
It's a stupid strategy. I'd venture that gay males vote more on average (since they tend to be wealthier than average) gay women probably vote more too, for the similar reasons women in activistic circles tend to vote, and being a lesbian is a form of activism even if it starts in the genitals. However, none of that can overcome the small number of votes one is likely to collect. Only about as high as 5% in the gayest districts, and probably lower than 1% in more conservative areas. (average 1.5-2.5% in the last 30 years of study on the subject) You're better off pandering to women in general, though these women tend to identify with their men (even the intellectuals who "think" they represent all women) so that makes appeals to women a tricky affair since they do not behave in a consistent manner, except that they are shallow and many of the ladies over 40 cannot resist a good looking man. That leaves race, which is a politics that has been doing quite well for a few well known sycophants, and been doing little for the races themselves once we got past the 70's. In any event, you can't win anything on the back of the gay vote.
Gays know this, this is why gayness has been rebranded as a sort of "enlightenment" politics. Sell it to students and psuedo-intellectuals, put it on display on college campuses and make it a virtual criteria for anyone who wants to think of themselves as smarter/fairer/deeper than the average dolt. When anyone speaks against the things that gaytivists say/do, it becomes unfairly equivocated with being against the gays themselves.
I could go on for days, but I'm gonna go yell about prices in FH.
I have a great many friends who are gay. My best friend in fact, who is gay, stood up in my wedding. I've known him for almost 20 years. Him and his partner have a handsome 7 year old boy that they adopted. As a family man with four kids of my own, I can say that his 7 year old boy is very well situated in his environment. He calls both of them Dad. (The boy came from an abusive family that basically abandoned him when he was two.)
As I see it, A homosexual couple is just as much a "Fit" couple as a hetero couple. When it comes to kids, there is no difference in my eyes as long as the parent(s) provide a loving and nurturing home and environment for the kid(s).
Being a father, I would hope that all kids could grow up in a loving home. There's definitely a shortage.
There are two lesbian households on my block that have kids. One of the couples has a little girl my daughter's age. This little girl is really sweet. her parents are super-caring if not too caring. Hell, they breast fed her til she was almost three. I also realize that this little girl is probablty used to seeing her parents displaying acts of affection between her parents just like my daughter.
But tell me how your going to feel when everyone is out standing in the neighborhood, doing the Saturday morning stroll, chat, mowing of lawns and then the lesbians' daughter walks right up to mine and just starts kissing on her.
it's very uncomfortable... and it's also where your "theoretical" beliefs get tested.
I consider our neighbors to be good neighbors. They have the keys to our home. We share tools, bake for each other and do more than just live near each other.
I do however find myself resentful toward them when I realize that I will have to explain the why "Michelle" has two mothers. I know it makes me an a$$hole for saying that but, I don't want to have to explain things like this so early.
Trust me .."Some kids have two mommies." doesn't usually end the questioning.
Anyway, I consider this to be like the "Do you suppoort this war question people ask now a days. if you gave the war supporteers a gun and said "okay get in there and give them hell, I'm sure most of them would balk."
Opinions only matter when the rubber meets the road.
One more thing about church. Those who don't know what it is may skip. No church of whatever religion will bless a homosexual marriage, thus putting the child in an ugly position: keep out either of church or of the parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My church (First Congregational Church, UCC) will. The rationale is simple: If two people want the legal, financial, spiritual and communal stability of marriage, and of a supporting congregation, why deny them? It's hypocritical to criticize people for indulging in hedonism (to the extent that that's even a distinctive trait among gays) and then deny them the (socially and culturally approved) alternative when they seek it. Hedonism might be a political statement for some, but when a socially blessed stability is forcibly denied them, who is to blame for that? And who should change their behavior?
I read a bemused article on Salon by a partner in a lesbian couple. Their daughter had figured out that every other child had a "mommy" and a "daddy," so she came home one day and named one parent "mommy" and the other "daddy." Problem solved. The writer was "daddy," and this was clearly not a situation she was expecting, but she adjusted to it. People are nothing if not adaptable.
The surveys that have been done sofar reveal that an adopted child does better under the care of a gay couple than a straight couple. The author of the study surmised that it could be because it's so difficult for a gay couple to get approved in the first place that the ones who succeed are truly dedicated. Nevertheless, the study establishes that there is no obvious or intrinsic harm in having gay parents rear a child. It's almost certain to be a different experience, but it's not like every child of a straight couple has the same experience, so I don't see that as a criticism or a problem. The main problem is whether the community is accepting, and as far as that goes I can vouch for my community.
Well I have some strong opinions on this issue and they are formed from a variety of interesting sources. So please don't stereotype your thinking and allow me to get to the full conclusions.
First let me say that I have grown up having a gay aunt and uncle. Out of 5 children on my mother's side of the family, 2 of them are gay/homosexual. I also have had "cousins" from both of these families.
As for how my family handled the sexuality of both of them, we were simply told that their respective partners (multiple in my aunt's case) were roommates.
Perhaps you think it naive but I never really questioned this "roommate" thing until I went off to college and learned about wedding and engagement rings. When I came back I noticed for the first time that my uncle was wearing a wedding ring. (He had been with his partner for well over 10 years at that point) It didn't really change anything because I never really thought about who my aunts or uncles (all of them) had sex with, and I still pretty much don't.
My aunt had one roommate for well over 10 years. Her name was Nancy and I bawled my eyes out when I was told they weren't going to be roommates anymore. She was a lovely, decent, and kind person and I was sad then and now that I never really saw her again. She had another relationship that was pretty long term. I would say about 8 years and involved a woman who was a high school teacher. She had a daughter from a heterosexual marriage and the daughter and I became great friends. I attended Long Beach State because of her.
Long Beach, for anyone who is familiar with it, had a very large and active homosexual population. Likewise being a music major you definiately encounter plenty of people who are homosexual because well, they like the arts in disportionate numbers.
In college I was in a fraternity called Phi Mu Alpha, a music service organization. A fair number of my brothers in this organization were homosexual.
Now before I go onto how I would handle these issues with homosexuals, I would like to state what I feel is wrong with how it is handled with heterosexuals. First no-fault divorce should be pretty much abolished in my opinion. As a child of not one but two divorces, I felt they were much more corrosive than anything having to do with sexuality. As for adoption, the rights of natural parernts are grossly overrated in my opinion. I have seen both foster and natural families to which I wouldn't hand over a child even at gunpoint.
As a last issue I would just like to say that the courts treat men like crap and women like children. I have never seen a court award a mother less time with their child based on their ability to provide as I have watched them do to numerous males. Likwise I have watched courts help women commit fraud and crimes even after they admitted they were lying.
So just so we are clear, I don't have a high opinion of government or the courts.
That being said I don't think it is the state's job to provide insemination services for homosexual female couples, because I don't think it is their job to do so for heterosexual couples. If the health benefits of their private job allow for it, then well it is their business and I am really to busy living my life to stick my nose in theirs. I wouldn't provide this benefit for public employess be they homo or heterosexual because it is not related to general health or even preventative care.
As for adoption, I wouldn't allow a heterosexual single person to adopt so I obviously wouldn't allow a homosexual single to adopt. This has nothing to do with sexuality or gender. Rather I believe in simple math which states that 2 does not equal 1. I believe all children deserve to have two parents.
As for adoption by couples, I would only allow adoption by married couples over the age of 30 who have been married for a minimum of 3 years and earn more than the median salary. (about $34k a year right now)
I would probably allow the same requirements for homosexual couples however it would have to involve a civil committment ceremony since most states don't allow gay marriage. A small part of me does want to limit the age of the to those 5 and older but there isn't a clear rational reason for it, just a sense that the child will already understand the state of the world and their own gender identity a bit better before being moved into a non-normed situation. I would prefer it but can't really justify it so I wouldn't argue about it.
I knew this would come up, it's a politically correct cop-out, there are reasons very specific to being homosexual. You've made them as naive as can be, but the community has not done it's best help its own case. They've made a politics out of hedonism, and now they have to pay some of the consequences of that because it reflects very directly on the upbringing of a child. Do gays stay together as much as heteros? What do we know about the relative state of fidelity, promiscuity, and monogamy in the gay community? What we know tends be a strike against gays in general (even if it isn't fair to individual members).
This doesn't discount homos, but neither is it a specifically anti-homo stance, it's part of the same thinking that typically disadvantages single people.
A community with a gay pride day that looks the way gay pride days tend to look (here in TO) is asking for much of the resistance they receive. Too bad too, because many of the homos who want children probably don't fit the flaming parade day stereotype.</strong><hr></blockquote>Your operating on absurd generalities typical of people who have maybe met a gay couple once or twice before but not much beyond that.
I know gay couples who have been together longer than most mairrages . . . and they would make GREAT parents . . . and in most cases they have the symbolic genderization taking place anyway: butch and fem . . . etc.
The kind of activity to which you refer when you say promiscuity are generally not the same kind of people that want to adopt . . they are very much like mom&pop except its Pop&Pop or Mom&mom . . . most of the couples that I knnow that are monogamous and have been together for a long time and have a household are also, strangely, extremely good at taking care of house . . . they are all very very organized and 'together'
Promiscouse gays, such as in the Castro area in the Eighties (I used to live there) are all over the place and not very 'together' but that topo is a genralization.....
and your bit about gay pride day <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
would that disqualify people from New Orleans from having children because of Mardi Gras?!?!?
On a side note I listened to a swedish professor in zoology the other day: Homosexuality is actually very normal among animals. But when we see nature films all those aspects are toned down or removed. So the way we percieve nature is actually very bound in culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but the subject is not homosexualitie, but who raise the childrens, in nature childrens are never educated by a couple of homesexual, there is always a mother (there is no example where only the father educated his child in the nature apart from death of the mother) and sometimes a father.
the subject is not also the love that can be brought to the children, homosexuals have the same potential than any other people. The subject is the psychological aspect of role-model. No child will ever complain to have homosexual parents, but it can hurt them and induce psychologic failures. That's the subject.
Homosexuals wanted (with reason) that the main group accept their differences, but does homosexual accept their differences and their implications ?
Opinion: The Gay Community is its own worst enemy in many of these issues.
Fact: Im part of that same community. May Partner and I have been together for 7 years (Im 25, he is 31). FYI, I live in Australia, which has similar laws to the original poster.
We, like so many other GLB&T (Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender.. lets just call it Queer) people, do not fit any styereotype. I can also assume very safely, that most people reading this thread do not fit any stereotype that they may be labelled with based on their gender, race, geographical location, or socio-economic standing etc.
Given that, I personally do not think Gay Men are ready to raise children. Nor do I think the wider community is ready to accept gay men raising children. Im not going to touch on the topic of a lesbian couple because 1. it doesnt impact my life, and 2. im too ignorant on the issues to make a fair call.
My partner is fanatical about kids. He has two nephews and a niece(the niece is my godchild, and yes, blessed in a Catholic Church) and I have a nephew/niece(dont know which yet) on the way.
As much as we both love kids, and my partner would make an awesome parent, I would not be prepared to raise a child in the current environment.
Many of my fellow 'gay bretheren' critisise people like me for not pushing gay rights forward. Ive even been called homophobic because if it!
The gay community does so little to present the side of itself that shows that there are facets of our lives that aren't the flamboyant, dramatic, parading group that we and the hetrosexual community market us as.
I do think that there are many gay men and lesbians CAN make awesome parents, and can raise 'normal' kids and can empower their kids to handle the school yard bullies and ignorant teachers... I dont see myself as one of those people.
I disagree with the theme in some posters replies of the reason why gay/lesbian couples want children is because they 'can', because they have the money. Thats just utter cr*p. Do hetrosexual couples who have children (willingly) do it only because they can, and becuase they can afford to?
None of this is going to change in the near future, and even then, its only going to happen when every different group involved gives a bit. The Queers need to show that we can do things other than create fabulous floats and pop music. The Church.. ok I wont go there. Governments need to realise that the disparity between rights for homosexuals and rights for hetrosxuals still have a long way to go before that gap is bridged. And the general Hetrosexual community needs to realise that tolerance doesnt just apply to the black/white, muslim/christian, male/female comparisons that are currently being taught in schools and at home.
<strong>Your operating on absurd generalities typical of people who have maybe met a gay couple once or twice before but not much beyond that.
I know gay couples who have been together longer than most mairrages . . . and they would make GREAT parents . . . and in most cases they have the symbolic genderization taking place anyway: butch and fem . . . etc.
The kind of activity to which you refer when you say promiscuity are generally not the same kind of people that want to adopt . . they are very much like mom&pop except its Pop&Pop or Mom&mom . . . most of the couples that I knnow that are monogamous and have been together for a long time and have a household are also, strangely, extremely good at taking care of house . . . they are all very very organized and 'together'
Promiscouse gays, such as in the Castro area in the Eighties (I used to live there) are all over the place and not very 'together' but that topo is a genralization.....
and your bit about gay pride day <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
would that disqualify people from New Orleans from having children because of Mardi Gras?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tut tut, I was talking about politics. I realize that when I get to writing something semi serious it sometimes takes on a rhetorical weight, but I believe the bits about fidelity were honest questions. Never did I say I have a problem with gay adoption, I merely said that there are legitmate concerns specific to gays.
The difference between mardi gras and gay pride day is that gay pride days purport themselves to represent gays. Gays themselves have done little to make these celebrations really about gayness so much as a thinly veiled porno (if it's veiled at all.) It is their show, their public presentation, they make it what it is, and so they have to answer for the image they propel. Mardi gras OTOH, never purports to speak for heterosexuals, or even losely to it's religious roots. It is an anti celebration, as is gay pride day (really) but it presents itself as an indulgence, it recognizes its own impropriety, this is not who we are, it is who aren't supposed to be at any other time. Hmmm... mebbe they are a lot alike afterall, but so slightly different in that the message of gay pride days seems to be we ought to be this at all times but aren't allowed, whereas the message of mardi gras is that we're not to be this way at any other time.
Gayness is mired in protest, slightly trapped really, but it must break itself from a politics of sexual liberation and find a less reactionary, less sensationalistic grounding, or it cannot succeed.
I did not invent the stereotypes, but knowing quite a bit more about the gay community than you assume, I am well aware of who makes the greatest use of them, not me.
Because it pleases me, I like to study human behavior, and seep in the arrogant disaffection that it sometimes promotes. If I were a better person all this watching would have made me more sympathetic, but I'm basically an asshole, so... instead it's made me a critic, and in fairness you can always say this about critics -- they all know what to do, but none of them know how to do it.
Do I have any answers? Nope. Do I care? Not really, unless it affords me an opportunity for "I told you so" which, to be honest is the moment we all live for. What does entertain me is the paranoia of the sensitive. Not that anything about correctness is actually sensitive, but that is another debate entirely.
I get the sense that you didn't actually read my posts, so much as look for hints of bigotry. Isn't it fun? Bigotry is so crude, fun, yes, but wrong. But hints of it, the thrill of unearthing the deep seated biases, the hate, in otherwise intelligent discussion, must make some of you moist, or hard, and I must confess, that trolling is far more stimulating with a line rather than a net, if that makes any sense?
PS. your anecdotes do not negate mine, nor do mine negate yours. There are plenty of homos and heteros (proportionally speaking) that make good and bad test cases for adoption. I'm just having fun disagreeing with everyone, c ya round.
Comments
<strong>The idea of two gay men adopting a child strikes me as ridiculous. Why on earth would two gay men want a baby that wasn't genetically theirs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because they can afford it. Just like you can buy a pet when you want to. Nobody, I repeat, nobody even considers treating a baby like a human being. Nobody is going to ask a baby "Hey do you want two or three gay machos to be your parents?"
I think that a gay people, of either sex, have every right to bring up a child. I don't think their sexual orientation has any bearing on that of the child (we are what we are, regardless of what people would prefer us to be), or the security of the home environment - after all "straight" couples split up every day.
But, I think that gay couples should only be allowed to adopt a child, or to conceive a child naturally. I don't think they should be allowed to do the "test tube" thing.
Sorry guys, but it's your decision to live your life like that, and so you have to accept everything that comes as part and parcel with it. You'll just have to swallow your pride and try things naturally - if you want a child that much.
Obviously gay couples who can't conceive naturally should be allowed to investigate the "test tube" thing, in the same way that mixed sex couples can.
Discuss...
<strong>But, I think that gay couples should only be allowed to adopt a child, or to conceive a child naturally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Where did you see 2 boys conceiving a child?! :eek:
In the lesbian case, there is always a way to circumvent the law. One of the girls gets laid and ? oops ? she has a child and lives together with her girlfriend.
What about men? What freaking court on earth would take a baby from the mother to give him/her to a gay who lives with another gay and they possibly don't mind to make the baby gay too? It's hell, people!
How can we idly discuss the bullshit without thinking ahead? Try your imagination now: you and your wife/husband die today in a car crash accident. Your baby becomes an orphan and a couple of gays adopt her. Because they want a baby. See her in their hands? You like it? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
What has become of church? If they don't give a damn either, we are indeed in hell.
I believe that gay couples adopting a child could be potentially damaging psycologically to the child in question.
Every child views their "parents" as being their rolemodels and "normality" counts for an awful lot when said child is trying to find their place in the world, fitting into society - with friends, at school, at work and eventually in their adult relationships.
Their could be nothing more awkward or confusing to a person if they had been brought up in a same sex parental environment and sees other peoples parents, ie. male+female, as being the normal and natural thing.
And this is the real point - nature has intended male and female to pair off and reproduce and the resulting offspring are nurtured and protected by the parents - though in modern society these simple, basic facts are often ignored through well intentioned yet misguided notions that same sex "parents" are as good a family unit as M+F, which naturally, they cannot be.
There are plenty of male+female couples out there who have excellent potential as parents to adoptive children, therefore giving these children normal rolemodels and a normal family unit without all the confusion and stigma that goes with gay parents.
So, basically, don't fvck with nature!
<strong>
What? Where did you see 2 boys conceiving a child?! :eek:
In the lesbian case, there is always a way to circumvent the law. One of the girls gets laid and ? oops ? she has a child and lives together with her girlfriend.
What about men? What freaking court on earth would take a baby from the mother to give him/her to a gay who lives with another gay and they possibly don't mind to make the baby gay too? It's hell, people!
How can we idly discuss the bullshit without thinking ahead? Try your imagination now: you and your wife/husband die today in a car crash accident. Your baby becomes an orphan and a couple of gays adopt her. Because they want a baby. See her in their hands? You like it? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
What has become of church? If they don't give a damn either, we are indeed in hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
don't be such a tool. the only thing any of us should care about is if the child is raised in a caring and loving environment. there are way to many kids being brought up in this world in screwed up households where abuse and neglect are rampent. if it's apparent that two people care enough to want to adopt and raise a child, then i see no reason why sexual orientation has to play a part in it. i'm clueless as to what your last point is regarding "church". what church? the church that has shown more concern over their own image than those of the children placed in their care?
Gay people most often have a lot more acquaintances that are gay too than other people. So that the parents are two women will not be strange for them. They will probably be better in coping with the differences than other children because they learn that there is no such thing as "normal" in the meaning opposite "unnormal".
It would only be a problem if the child was hold away from heterosexsual people or if lesbians held them away from men. But the same applies if other children was held away from "strange people" and in my experience that is not the case.
About "Dont **** with nature": In general terms I agree in that I don´t think artificial insimination is that great idea when so many children are living a shitty life. I´d rather have that adoption was the first choice. But when we **** with nature on straight couples (who normally are helped when nature won´t give them a child) I see no "natural law" argument against helping lesbians (who are no less able to concieve than the normal population of women).
On a side note I listened to a swedish professor in zoology the other day: Homosexuality is actually very normal among animals. But when we see nature films all those aspects are toned down or removed. So the way we percieve nature is actually very bound in culture.
Bigotry doesn't need identification, we can all recognize.
It's the other side that troubles me, this thoughtless sentimentality that passes for reason.
A loving environment is far from being the only relevant criteria. That may be the PC thing to say, but don't believe it for a second. Love is an extremely overused term, most people can't even define it or distinguish a sustained state of horniness from love. Unless you're Woody Allen this isn't an adoption issue, but people have trouble even distinguishing an innate paternal desire, or affection, from love. This is an issue. Love has very selfish and precise demands, though it is also selfless. Christians might tell you that love is selfless, full stop, but Christians are of little use here, they want love to meet a strictly theological point that in truth can be teased into inconsistency with itself without too much effort.
Define it for yourselves.
<strong>Hmm. Youi say love isn´t the only thing nessesary. I agree. But what more is needed and does it affect whether gays should be able to become parents?</strong><hr></blockquote>
maybe no one thing alone, maybe love, but not as many here would likely define it...
intelligence,
stability,
money,
community.
I can see stability as a real gay specific concern, and community too, though neither is neccessarily a deal breaker. I just want to point out that there are many heterosexual couples who despite all the 'love' in the world have great difficulty adopting, love then, is not some special pass that ought to promote gays, anymore than it can promote heteros, or vice versa. When you argue for their rights, love is not the grounds to do it, this is just the most naive, lowest common denominator type of emotional appeal.
<strong>As usual the stupidity overflows from both sides of the debate.
Bigotry doesn't need identification, we can all recognize.
It's the other side that troubles me, this thoughtless sentimentality that passes for reason.
A loving environment is far from being the only relevant criteria. That may be the PC thing to say, but don't believe it for a second. Love is an extremely overused term, most people can't even define it or distinguish a sustained state of horniness from love. Unless you're Woody Allen this isn't an adoption issue, but people have trouble even distinguishing an innate paternal desire, or affection, from love. This is an issue. Love has very selfish and precise demands, though it is also selfless. Christians might tell you that love is selfless, full stop, but Christians are of little use here, they want love to meet a strictly theological point that in truth can be teased into inconsistency with itself without too much effort.
Define it for yourselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
your right, love is not the only criteria in this issue, but it's certainly should be considerd a major focus.
And stop saying there's no difference between men and women: if you don't see it, you are beyond repair.
One more thing about church. Those who don't know what it is may skip. No church of whatever religion will bless a homosexual marriage, thus putting the child in an ugly position: keep out either of church or of the parents. Of course, when the kid grows up to make his own judgements, if ever, this is no problem. We discuss little children who need care, love and support.
You know why this question appeared at all? Some dirty-hands politicians want to have extra votes at whatever cost; they seek the votes from homosexuals. Perhaps, the best solution would be not to argue but to ignore these politicians. Go ask a homosexual couple in private and they'll tell you that the difference between men and women are far greater than heterosexuals are taught to admit.
For a really entertaining twist see what gay men and lesbians really think about each other. Very entertaining. Even though they kinda play for the same team, the persistence, even amplification, of male and female attitudes is absolutely hilarious as evidenced in gay circles.
About votes:
It's a stupid strategy. I'd venture that gay males vote more on average (since they tend to be wealthier than average) gay women probably vote more too, for the similar reasons women in activistic circles tend to vote, and being a lesbian is a form of activism even if it starts in the genitals. However, none of that can overcome the small number of votes one is likely to collect. Only about as high as 5% in the gayest districts, and probably lower than 1% in more conservative areas. (average 1.5-2.5% in the last 30 years of study on the subject) You're better off pandering to women in general, though these women tend to identify with their men (even the intellectuals who "think" they represent all women) so that makes appeals to women a tricky affair since they do not behave in a consistent manner, except that they are shallow and many of the ladies over 40 cannot resist a good looking man. That leaves race, which is a politics that has been doing quite well for a few well known sycophants, and been doing little for the races themselves once we got past the 70's. In any event, you can't win anything on the back of the gay vote.
Gays know this, this is why gayness has been rebranded as a sort of "enlightenment" politics. Sell it to students and psuedo-intellectuals, put it on display on college campuses and make it a virtual criteria for anyone who wants to think of themselves as smarter/fairer/deeper than the average dolt. When anyone speaks against the things that gaytivists say/do, it becomes unfairly equivocated with being against the gays themselves.
I could go on for days, but I'm gonna go yell about prices in FH.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
As I see it, A homosexual couple is just as much a "Fit" couple as a hetero couple. When it comes to kids, there is no difference in my eyes as long as the parent(s) provide a loving and nurturing home and environment for the kid(s).
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: DrCreations ]
There are two lesbian households on my block that have kids. One of the couples has a little girl my daughter's age. This little girl is really sweet. her parents are super-caring if not too caring. Hell, they breast fed her til she was almost three. I also realize that this little girl is probablty used to seeing her parents displaying acts of affection between her parents just like my daughter.
But tell me how your going to feel when everyone is out standing in the neighborhood, doing the Saturday morning stroll, chat, mowing of lawns and then the lesbians' daughter walks right up to mine and just starts kissing on her.
it's very uncomfortable... and it's also where your "theoretical" beliefs get tested.
I consider our neighbors to be good neighbors. They have the keys to our home. We share tools, bake for each other and do more than just live near each other.
I do however find myself resentful toward them when I realize that I will have to explain the why "Michelle" has two mothers. I know it makes me an a$$hole for saying that but, I don't want to have to explain things like this so early.
Trust me .."Some kids have two mommies." doesn't usually end the questioning.
Anyway, I consider this to be like the "Do you suppoort this war question people ask now a days. if you gave the war supporteers a gun and said "okay get in there and give them hell, I'm sure most of them would balk."
Opinions only matter when the rubber meets the road.
MSKR
<strong>
One more thing about church. Those who don't know what it is may skip. No church of whatever religion will bless a homosexual marriage, thus putting the child in an ugly position: keep out either of church or of the parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My church (First Congregational Church, UCC) will. The rationale is simple: If two people want the legal, financial, spiritual and communal stability of marriage, and of a supporting congregation, why deny them? It's hypocritical to criticize people for indulging in hedonism (to the extent that that's even a distinctive trait among gays) and then deny them the (socially and culturally approved) alternative when they seek it. Hedonism might be a political statement for some, but when a socially blessed stability is forcibly denied them, who is to blame for that? And who should change their behavior?
I read a bemused article on Salon by a partner in a lesbian couple. Their daughter had figured out that every other child had a "mommy" and a "daddy," so she came home one day and named one parent "mommy" and the other "daddy." Problem solved. The writer was "daddy," and this was clearly not a situation she was expecting, but she adjusted to it. People are nothing if not adaptable.
The surveys that have been done sofar reveal that an adopted child does better under the care of a gay couple than a straight couple. The author of the study surmised that it could be because it's so difficult for a gay couple to get approved in the first place that the ones who succeed are truly dedicated. Nevertheless, the study establishes that there is no obvious or intrinsic harm in having gay parents rear a child. It's almost certain to be a different experience, but it's not like every child of a straight couple has the same experience, so I don't see that as a criticism or a problem. The main problem is whether the community is accepting, and as far as that goes I can vouch for my community.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
First let me say that I have grown up having a gay aunt and uncle. Out of 5 children on my mother's side of the family, 2 of them are gay/homosexual. I also have had "cousins" from both of these families.
As for how my family handled the sexuality of both of them, we were simply told that their respective partners (multiple in my aunt's case) were roommates.
Perhaps you think it naive but I never really questioned this "roommate" thing until I went off to college and learned about wedding and engagement rings. When I came back I noticed for the first time that my uncle was wearing a wedding ring. (He had been with his partner for well over 10 years at that point) It didn't really change anything because I never really thought about who my aunts or uncles (all of them) had sex with, and I still pretty much don't.
My aunt had one roommate for well over 10 years. Her name was Nancy and I bawled my eyes out when I was told they weren't going to be roommates anymore. She was a lovely, decent, and kind person and I was sad then and now that I never really saw her again. She had another relationship that was pretty long term. I would say about 8 years and involved a woman who was a high school teacher. She had a daughter from a heterosexual marriage and the daughter and I became great friends. I attended Long Beach State because of her.
Long Beach, for anyone who is familiar with it, had a very large and active homosexual population. Likewise being a music major you definiately encounter plenty of people who are homosexual because well, they like the arts in disportionate numbers.
In college I was in a fraternity called Phi Mu Alpha, a music service organization. A fair number of my brothers in this organization were homosexual.
Now before I go onto how I would handle these issues with homosexuals, I would like to state what I feel is wrong with how it is handled with heterosexuals. First no-fault divorce should be pretty much abolished in my opinion. As a child of not one but two divorces, I felt they were much more corrosive than anything having to do with sexuality. As for adoption, the rights of natural parernts are grossly overrated in my opinion. I have seen both foster and natural families to which I wouldn't hand over a child even at gunpoint.
As a last issue I would just like to say that the courts treat men like crap and women like children. I have never seen a court award a mother less time with their child based on their ability to provide as I have watched them do to numerous males. Likwise I have watched courts help women commit fraud and crimes even after they admitted they were lying.
So just so we are clear, I don't have a high opinion of government or the courts.
That being said I don't think it is the state's job to provide insemination services for homosexual female couples, because I don't think it is their job to do so for heterosexual couples. If the health benefits of their private job allow for it, then well it is their business and I am really to busy living my life to stick my nose in theirs. I wouldn't provide this benefit for public employess be they homo or heterosexual because it is not related to general health or even preventative care.
As for adoption, I wouldn't allow a heterosexual single person to adopt so I obviously wouldn't allow a homosexual single to adopt. This has nothing to do with sexuality or gender. Rather I believe in simple math which states that 2 does not equal 1. I believe all children deserve to have two parents.
As for adoption by couples, I would only allow adoption by married couples over the age of 30 who have been married for a minimum of 3 years and earn more than the median salary. (about $34k a year right now)
I would probably allow the same requirements for homosexual couples however it would have to involve a civil committment ceremony since most states don't allow gay marriage. A small part of me does want to limit the age of the to those 5 and older but there isn't a clear rational reason for it, just a sense that the child will already understand the state of the world and their own gender identity a bit better before being moved into a non-normed situation. I would prefer it but can't really justify it so I wouldn't argue about it.
Nick
<strong>
I knew this would come up, it's a politically correct cop-out, there are reasons very specific to being homosexual. You've made them as naive as can be, but the community has not done it's best help its own case. They've made a politics out of hedonism, and now they have to pay some of the consequences of that because it reflects very directly on the upbringing of a child. Do gays stay together as much as heteros? What do we know about the relative state of fidelity, promiscuity, and monogamy in the gay community? What we know tends be a strike against gays in general (even if it isn't fair to individual members).
This doesn't discount homos, but neither is it a specifically anti-homo stance, it's part of the same thinking that typically disadvantages single people.
A community with a gay pride day that looks the way gay pride days tend to look (here in TO) is asking for much of the resistance they receive. Too bad too, because many of the homos who want children probably don't fit the flaming parade day stereotype.</strong><hr></blockquote>Your operating on absurd generalities typical of people who have maybe met a gay couple once or twice before but not much beyond that.
I know gay couples who have been together longer than most mairrages . . . and they would make GREAT parents . . . and in most cases they have the symbolic genderization taking place anyway: butch and fem . . . etc.
The kind of activity to which you refer when you say promiscuity are generally not the same kind of people that want to adopt . . they are very much like mom&pop except its Pop&Pop or Mom&mom . . . most of the couples that I knnow that are monogamous and have been together for a long time and have a household are also, strangely, extremely good at taking care of house . . . they are all very very organized and 'together'
Promiscouse gays, such as in the Castro area in the Eighties (I used to live there) are all over the place and not very 'together' but that topo is a genralization.....
and your bit about gay pride day <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
would that disqualify people from New Orleans from having children because of Mardi Gras?!?!?
<strong>About role model thing:
On a side note I listened to a swedish professor in zoology the other day: Homosexuality is actually very normal among animals. But when we see nature films all those aspects are toned down or removed. So the way we percieve nature is actually very bound in culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but the subject is not homosexualitie, but who raise the childrens, in nature childrens are never educated by a couple of homesexual, there is always a mother (there is no example where only the father educated his child in the nature apart from death of the mother) and sometimes a father.
the subject is not also the love that can be brought to the children, homosexuals have the same potential than any other people. The subject is the psychological aspect of role-model. No child will ever complain to have homosexual parents, but it can hurt them and induce psychologic failures. That's the subject.
Homosexuals wanted (with reason) that the main group accept their differences, but does homosexual accept their differences and their implications ?
Fact: Im part of that same community. May Partner and I have been together for 7 years (Im 25, he is 31). FYI, I live in Australia, which has similar laws to the original poster.
We, like so many other GLB&T (Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender.. lets just call it Queer) people, do not fit any styereotype. I can also assume very safely, that most people reading this thread do not fit any stereotype that they may be labelled with based on their gender, race, geographical location, or socio-economic standing etc.
Given that, I personally do not think Gay Men are ready to raise children. Nor do I think the wider community is ready to accept gay men raising children. Im not going to touch on the topic of a lesbian couple because 1. it doesnt impact my life, and 2. im too ignorant on the issues to make a fair call.
My partner is fanatical about kids. He has two nephews and a niece(the niece is my godchild, and yes, blessed in a Catholic Church) and I have a nephew/niece(dont know which yet) on the way.
As much as we both love kids, and my partner would make an awesome parent, I would not be prepared to raise a child in the current environment.
Many of my fellow 'gay bretheren' critisise people like me for not pushing gay rights forward. Ive even been called homophobic because if it!
The gay community does so little to present the side of itself that shows that there are facets of our lives that aren't the flamboyant, dramatic, parading group that we and the hetrosexual community market us as.
I do think that there are many gay men and lesbians CAN make awesome parents, and can raise 'normal' kids and can empower their kids to handle the school yard bullies and ignorant teachers... I dont see myself as one of those people.
I disagree with the theme in some posters replies of the reason why gay/lesbian couples want children is because they 'can', because they have the money. Thats just utter cr*p. Do hetrosexual couples who have children (willingly) do it only because they can, and becuase they can afford to?
None of this is going to change in the near future, and even then, its only going to happen when every different group involved gives a bit. The Queers need to show that we can do things other than create fabulous floats and pop music. The Church.. ok I wont go there. Governments need to realise that the disparity between rights for homosexuals and rights for hetrosxuals still have a long way to go before that gap is bridged. And the general Hetrosexual community needs to realise that tolerance doesnt just apply to the black/white, muslim/christian, male/female comparisons that are currently being taught in schools and at home.
Opinon: off
Thanks for reading
Adam
<strong>Your operating on absurd generalities typical of people who have maybe met a gay couple once or twice before but not much beyond that.
I know gay couples who have been together longer than most mairrages . . . and they would make GREAT parents . . . and in most cases they have the symbolic genderization taking place anyway: butch and fem . . . etc.
The kind of activity to which you refer when you say promiscuity are generally not the same kind of people that want to adopt . . they are very much like mom&pop except its Pop&Pop or Mom&mom . . . most of the couples that I knnow that are monogamous and have been together for a long time and have a household are also, strangely, extremely good at taking care of house . . . they are all very very organized and 'together'
Promiscouse gays, such as in the Castro area in the Eighties (I used to live there) are all over the place and not very 'together' but that topo is a genralization.....
and your bit about gay pride day <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
would that disqualify people from New Orleans from having children because of Mardi Gras?!?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tut tut, I was talking about politics. I realize that when I get to writing something semi serious it sometimes takes on a rhetorical weight, but I believe the bits about fidelity were honest questions. Never did I say I have a problem with gay adoption, I merely said that there are legitmate concerns specific to gays.
The difference between mardi gras and gay pride day is that gay pride days purport themselves to represent gays. Gays themselves have done little to make these celebrations really about gayness so much as a thinly veiled porno (if it's veiled at all.) It is their show, their public presentation, they make it what it is, and so they have to answer for the image they propel. Mardi gras OTOH, never purports to speak for heterosexuals, or even losely to it's religious roots. It is an anti celebration, as is gay pride day (really) but it presents itself as an indulgence, it recognizes its own impropriety, this is not who we are, it is who aren't supposed to be at any other time. Hmmm... mebbe they are a lot alike afterall, but so slightly different in that the message of gay pride days seems to be we ought to be this at all times but aren't allowed, whereas the message of mardi gras is that we're not to be this way at any other time.
Gayness is mired in protest, slightly trapped really, but it must break itself from a politics of sexual liberation and find a less reactionary, less sensationalistic grounding, or it cannot succeed.
I did not invent the stereotypes, but knowing quite a bit more about the gay community than you assume, I am well aware of who makes the greatest use of them, not me.
Because it pleases me, I like to study human behavior, and seep in the arrogant disaffection that it sometimes promotes. If I were a better person all this watching would have made me more sympathetic, but I'm basically an asshole, so... instead it's made me a critic, and in fairness you can always say this about critics -- they all know what to do, but none of them know how to do it.
Do I have any answers? Nope. Do I care? Not really, unless it affords me an opportunity for "I told you so" which, to be honest is the moment we all live for. What does entertain me is the paranoia of the sensitive. Not that anything about correctness is actually sensitive, but that is another debate entirely.
I get the sense that you didn't actually read my posts, so much as look for hints of bigotry. Isn't it fun? Bigotry is so crude, fun, yes, but wrong. But hints of it, the thrill of unearthing the deep seated biases, the hate, in otherwise intelligent discussion, must make some of you moist, or hard, and I must confess, that trolling is far more stimulating with a line rather than a net, if that makes any sense?
PS. your anecdotes do not negate mine, nor do mine negate yours. There are plenty of homos and heteros (proportionally speaking) that make good and bad test cases for adoption. I'm just having fun disagreeing with everyone, c ya round.