On the subject of Homosexuality: Adoption

[Nemesis]

I am emphatically in favor of allowing same sex couples to adopt children, and I don't see any credible argument to make me see otherwise. Thoughts?

[attila_the_hunny]

Boom

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6665

[Ivy]

You won't get any argument from me. Let's see... being raised by two dudes who love each other, or being in foster care until 18? Seems like a slam-dunk to me, even if you're not nuts about the idea of gayness.

[melancholeric]

I am emphatically in favor of allowing same sex couples to adopt children, and I don't see any credible argument to make me see otherwise. Thoughts?
Well, the kids couldn't be any worse off than what I've seen from some straight couples, so ... why not.

The kids might (scratch that, they will) get bullied at school because of it though, but then ... kids do get bullied, for any imaginable reasons.

I can't see any reasons why not.

That, however, doesn't mean that I think you should one day be allowed to adopt children. : p

[Nemesis]

Stop ruining my fun.

[Nemesis]

Well, the kids couldn't be any worse off than what I've seen from some straight couples, so ... why not.

The kids might (scratch that, they will) get bullied at school because of it though, but then ... kids do get bullied, for any imaginable reasons.

I can't see any reasons why not.

That, however, doesn't mean that I think you should one day be allowed to adopt children. : p
I'm not even sure if I'd ever want to. I don't think I would want to put a child through the stigma of having gay parents. Plus, I'm not all that sure I'd be a great father, and I'm of the belief that you shouldn't commit to raising a child until you're absolutely sure that you'll be the best mother or father you can be, and even then, that the best you can be is enough for the child.

[attila_the_hunny]

I'm not even sure if I'd ever want to. I don't think I would want to put a child through the stigma of having gay parents. Plus, I'm not all that sure I'd be a great father, and I'm of the belief that you shouldn't commit to raising a child until you're absolutely sure that you'll be the best mother or father you can be, and even then, that the best you can be is enough for the child.

You're like, 17. When I was your age, I never wanted children. I still don't right now, but I know I've changed a lot in four years and I'll probably change some more in five more. And maybe in the next five years, I might want children, and hopefully be a better person than I am now so that I can raise them responsibly.

[attila_the_hunny]

And when I was a kid, no one ever questioned whether my dad was gay until I was in high school. And then, I was older and didn't give a shit if they didn't like it. A lot of people thought it was cool because I was different and pretty rare in school just because my dad sucked cock.

[booyalab]

it's not natural, but neither is adoption. so since adoption has to exist, i think gay couples should be able to partake in it.

[KuJo]

foster parents can be some pretty horrible people. i seem to remember a case outwest about a man and a woman putting a bunch of foster children in cages....

[LongSilence]

They let single people adopt so why not?

I think that a more specific question thats more complicated is the issue of children being reproduced for gay couples. But then again, single women can go into a sperm bank and make themselves a baby so again, you can't really criticise a gay couple because they hardly offer the kid any less than that.

All it does is bring up questions that the kid might have to find personal answers for when (s)he grows up. Such issues as discovering one's sexualities and comparing it with one's parents and finding out the circumstances of one's birth are things we all have to deal with. Therefore, we're just like every other human when it comes down to our foundations. However, when we get kids not produced by both a sperm and an egg, then you get a human being that isn't conceived in the manner that everyone else is. That's an idea that I think really is an issue with no easy answer.

[Nemesis]

They let single people adopt so why not?

I think that a more specific question thats more complicated is the issue of children being reproduced for gay couples. But then again, single women can go into a sperm bank and make themselves a baby so again, you can't really criticise a gay couple because they hardly offer the kid any less than that.

All it does is bring up questions that the kid might have to find personal answers for when (s)he grows up. Such issues as discovering one's sexualities and comparing it with one's parents and finding out the circumstances of one's birth are things we all have to deal with. Therefore, we're just like every other human when it comes down to our foundations. However, when we get kids not produced by both a sperm and an egg, then you get a human being that isn't conceived in the manner that everyone else is. That's an idea that I think really is an issue with no easy answer.
What the hell are you talking about that?

[LongSilence]

Expanding your question because everyone seems to agree there's no reason gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt children.

i) Is it a different issue when the child is being born for a homosexual couple, i.e. through surrogac,y rather than such a couple stepping in to care for it?

ii) Science looks likely to bring in the possibility of children born not from cells from both the 'natural' organs, i.e. one sperm from the testes of a man and one egg from the ovaries of a woman- what does this mean for such children?

That more to the point?

[Nemesis]

i) Is it a different issue when the child is being born for a homosexual couple, i.e. through surrogac,y rather than such a couple stepping in to care for it?
I suppose. When anyone adopts a child, the child will almost always have the curiosity of what happened to their biological parents.

ii) Science looks likely to bring in the possibility of children born not from cells from both the 'natural' organs, i.e. one sperm from the testes of a man and one egg from the ovaries of a woman- what does this mean for such children?
Idk. Who the hell cares what cells you're born of? Besides, you can't have two male cells reproduce, there's too great a risk the child would have YY and no X.

[Lee]

I wish I were gay.

[EmmaPeel]

You left out a few choices.

[Nemesis]

You left out a few choices.
Such as?

[Nemesis]

I wish I were gay.
Why? I used to wish I was straight.

[Lurker]

Such as?

Gay people shouldn't be allowed to partner up at all?

Edit: It just occured to me. Should gay people be allowed give birth to children?

We all have to guess, since Emma doesn't have the courtesy to answer the question she prompted. Shady, shady

[Nemesis]

Gay people shouldn't be allowed to partner up at all?
So that would fall under "No."

[Lee]

Why?Because then I'd get to be a victimised minority, I could go on protest marches, reveal my plight to raptuous applause at various conferences, and possibly even get on TV as the token gay.

But mostly because I like guys asses.

[Lurker]

So that would fall under "No."

I'm just guessing at what Emma was thinking. After all, I can't read her mind.:mellow:

[attila_the_hunny]

Because then I'd get to be a victimised minority, I could go on protest marches, reveal my plight to raptuous applause at various conferences, and possibly even get on TV, as the token gay.

But mostly because I like guys asses.

You could always start doing the same thing...for asexuals.

[Nemesis]

I'm just guessing at what Emma was thinking. After all, I can't read her mind.:mellow:
Lol.

[Lee]

You could always start doing the same thing...for asexuals.Unfortunately, nobody cares about asexuals.

[Nemesis]

Because then I'd get to be a victimised minority, I could go on protest marches, reveal my plight to raptuous applause at various conferences, and possibly even get on TV as the token gay.

But mostly because I like guys asses.
Hmm. Well, from that Muscle Man Lee avatar that I had way back when, I'd say you'd be readily welcomed into the gay community.

[attila_the_hunny]

Hmm. Well, from that Muscle Man Lee avatar that I had way back when, I'd say you'd be readily welcomed into the gay community.

AKA Bend Over Lee.

[Nemesis]

Why is nobody arguing against?

[Nemesis]

AKA Bend Over Lee.
Other way around, toots.

[attila_the_hunny]

Why is nobody arguing against?

Why would I? I was raised by the fags.

[Lee]

Why is nobody arguing against?'cause you're just so darn wuvable?

[Nemesis]

Why would I? I was raised by the fags.
I meant by the people who voted "No."

[attila_the_hunny]

Other way around, toots.

"Plug Him Good" Lee?

Ah, so you like to open the anal-freshness seals, eh?

[Lee]

Well this is interesting.

[attila_the_hunny]

I think a lot of those opposed to everything homosexual are generally religion-focused. NTs generally are liberal-minded because we don't follow God's Law or shit like that.

[Nemesis]

"Plug Him Good" Lee?

Ah, so you like to open the anal-freshness seals, eh?
Too far :rofl:

[Nemesis]

Well this is interesting.
Is it so wrong for me to think that you're hot (without even having heard your accent)?

[LongSilence]

Idk. Who the hell cares what cells you're born of? Besides, you can't have two male cells reproduce, there's too great a risk the child would have YY and no X.

that's one of the questions that might come up. But if you're able to extract the dna from cells then you're going to be able to make sure that one of the sperms has the X chromosome in it and put it in an empty egg. You'd then need a womb from somewhere of course.

And I dunno, some people might care what cells they came from. Homosexuals cannot be logically argued as "unnatural" but someone not born of a sperm and an egg can be. After all, that's pretty much an acknowledgement a child couldn't possibly have been conceived through a sexual act. Whats the reproductive point of testes if sperm aren't needed?

In fact, what's the reproductive point of sex then?

[libertarianjim]

I don't see any sort of convincing reason to deny homosexuals the right to adopt. How are they unfit as parents? (And I say that as someone among the most religiously conservative people on the board.)

[cafe]

I think the ideal would be a two-sex couple family, but who the heck gets ideal? I think as messed up as some biological families are and as messed up as the foster system is, it would be hypocritical and stupid to ban qualified gay couples from adopting. If pressed, I might even argue that at my conservative Charismatic church.

[Nemesis]

I think the ideal would be a two-sex couple family, but who the heck gets ideal? I think as messed up as some biological families are and as messed up as the foster system is, it would be hypocritical and stupid to ban qualified gay couples from adopting. If pressed, I might even argue that at my conservative Charismatic church.
Okay. I'm pressing you. But don't blame me when the outcome isn't ideal LOL.

[cafe]

Okay. I'm pressing you. But don't blame me when the outcome isn't ideal LOL.
LOL. If the subject came up and I respected the person I was speaking with enough to think that my breathe wouldn't be completely wasted, I would argue, politely, of course, out of respect.

[Architectonic]

Having homosexual parents is definitely less than ideal and I can see why some people may object to it - but not having a stable family is generally worse.

I know I'd rather have been adopted by homosexual parents than to be an orphan....

[Wiki]

I realize this is not the oepn minded Wiki you are used to. I realize straight parents can do a fine job at screwing up their kids. I am just not convinced the child would be gaining any advantages, seems quite the opposite.

By all means, convince me otherwise, I am not beyond reason.

[Architectonic]

I realize this is not the oepn minded Wiki you are used to. I realize straight parents can do a fine job at screwing up their kids. I am just not convinced the child would be gaining any advantages, seems quite the opposite.

Have you ever talked to an orphan? (especially those who were orphans 30-50 years ago when things were really fucked up in that area...)

[Rooster]

Have you ever talked to an orphan? (especially those who were orphans 30-50 years ago when things were really fucked up in that area...)

I have to agree. Take a developmental psychology course and you will hear more than enough statistics on how adopted children have it far better off. They are better educated, less prone to crime, and even have better health throughout life. The advantage is there and homosexual couples are certainly better than nothing.

[cjs55]

Better than nothing most likely. However, should heterosexual couples be preferred if there are multiple couples trying to adopt one baby? I am certainly inclined to say yes as a guess.

However, I would like to see studies done on the 'success' or problems of people adopted by both heterosexual and homosexual parents later in life before I make any sort of decision.

[Ivy]

Better than nothing most likely. However, should heterosexual couples be preferred if there are multiple couples trying to adopt one baby? I am certainly inclined to say yes as a guess.

However, I would like to see studies done on the 'success' or problems of people adopted by both heterosexual and homosexual parents later in life before I make any sort of decision.

If it's an agency doing the placement, I say no. I think couples should be evaluated independant of their sexual orientation. In reality, many times it is the pregnant mother who chooses the family and of course mothers have the right to choose a family on whatever criteria they deem important.

I know I was one of the ones who said this, but the more I think about it the more I think the "it's better than being an orphan" argument is pretty insulting. I've known several gay couples raising children now, and I really don't see how it's NOT ideal for those particular kids. I am hard pressed to think of how they'd be better off if one of their loving, firm yet gentle, affectionate parents was the other gender.

[Xander]

Okay I voted yes but no that I have thought about it I'm not so sure. I do not know what the effect would be on the childs psyche and the whole being teased at school is different from the norm (as I see it) as the teasing would be centred on what the parents are rather than an aspect of the child itself and therefore may drive a wedge in between the parents and the child.

[panda]

Wait, are we talking homosexual robots or aliens ? I'm for it either way. Especially in the case of sexy lesbian robots.

[Ivy]

Okay I voted yes but no that I have thought about it I'm not so sure. I do not know what the effect would be on the childs psyche and the whole being teased at school is different from the norm (as I see it) as the teasing would be centred on what the parents are rather than an aspect of the child itself and therefore may drive a wedge in between the parents and the child.

I don't really buy this argument. People who are adopted by a parent with a noticeable physical disability might face some pretty cruel teasing, too. Do we discourage people with noticeable physical disabilities from adopting, on the grounds that their kids might get teased? I was teased pretty mercilessly because my parents were unusually religious. Should we also discourage religious people from adopting on the grounds that their kids might be teased?

[Ivy]

I realize this is not the oepn minded Wiki you are used to. I realize straight parents can do a fine job at screwing up their kids. I am just not convinced the child would be gaining any advantages, seems quite the opposite.

By all means, convince me otherwise, I am not beyond reason.

I think by focusing on the sexuality of the parents you're ignoring the advantages they might gain by being adopted by people who are kind, loving, and gentle.

Edit: or smart, or well-off financially, or blah blah blah. You know, all those advantages kids are supposed to get by being adopted by straight parents. Why is sexuality, in the absence of dangerous behavior or inappropriate exposure to the children, a trump card?

[Xander]

I don't really buy this argument. People who are adopted by a parent with a noticeable physical disability might face some pretty cruel teasing, too. Do we discourage people with noticeable physical disabilities from adopting, on the grounds that their kids might get teased? I was teased pretty mercilessly because my parents were unusually religious. Should we also discourage religious people from adopting on the grounds that their kids might be teased?
Sorry I should have explained that I'm not thinking on a personal level with this but more so on a society level.

It would not be socialy acceptable to have a negative view of the disabled and the religious groups seem to look after themselves by believing that the tormentors are just not as "elevated" as they are and so are one step removed. Those who are gay are not so usually by choice and in that sense cannot be removed one step very well. Plus there is still a stigma attatched to it by lots of people. Personally it wouldn't make much difference to me (I'd actually be more wary of zealous parents) but I'm thinking more of how the less open minded populace would respond to it. I am thinking that those here are usually remarkably open minded in the majority and so the opinions will be affected by this.

I realise that this is not a good defence of stopping gay couples adopting but is there a need for more people to adopt? (honest question) If not then there would probably need to be a reason to give a child to a gay couple over a straight couple purely based on the idea that the gay couple may well come with stigma type drawbacks (assuming all other variables are equal).

One thing that rocks the boat to my mind is what happens if a straight couple adopt, they break up and then the one with the kid realises they are gay and finds themselves a partner. Do they then get stripped of the kid?

[Ivy]

Sorry I should have explained that I'm not thinking on a personal level with this but more so on a society level.

It would not be socialy acceptable to have a negative view of the disabled and the religious groups seem to look after themselves by believing that the tormentors are just not as "elevated" as they are and so are one step removed. Those who are gay are not so usually by choice and in that sense cannot be removed one step very well. Plus there is still a stigma attatched to it by lots of people. Personally it wouldn't make much difference to me (I'd actually be more wary of zealous parents) but I'm thinking more of how the less open minded populace would respond to it. I am thinking that those here are usually remarkably open minded in the majority and so the opinions will be affected by this.

I don't mean to engage in too many slippery slope arguments here, but I'm just seeing so many parallels to other forms of discrimination. Do you think mixed race couples adopting should be frowned upon as well, since in many areas people are still not open-minded to that? Or, do we just say fuck the bigots and realize that things aren't going to change as long as it remains an aberration?


I realise that this is not a good defence of stopping gay couples adopting but is there a need for more people to adopt? (honest question) If not then there would probably need to be a reason to give a child to a gay couple over a straight couple purely based on the idea that the gay couple may well come with stigma type drawbacks (assuming all other variables are equal).

There may not be a need for more people to adopt white, healthy, infants. And, although I recognize that this is not a valid statistical sample, the gay people I know who have adopted aren't doing that. There is DEFINITELY a need for more people to adopt older children, minority children, and disabled children. But beyond those realities, I see "sure, you can have the older kids and the minorities and the disabled kids, but for heaven's sake, leave the healthy white babies for the straight people!" as insulting to gay parents AND to all those kids who need homes despite not being healthy, white, or a baby.


One thing that rocks the boat to my mind is what happens if a straight couple adopt, they break up and then the one with the kid realises they are gay and finds themselves a partner. Do they then get stripped of the kid?

Someone with more knowledge than I have should correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure adoption can't be undone, if the couple goes through all the proper legal channels in the first place. Once you've adopted, the legal relationship is the same as if you had given birth. For better or worse.

[Xander]

I don't mean to engage in too many slippery slope arguments here, but I'm just seeing so many parallels to other forms of discrimination. Do you think mixed race couples adopting should be frowned upon as well, since in many areas people are still not open-minded to that? Or, do we just say fuck the bigots and realize that things aren't going to change as long as it remains an aberration?
I wasn't thinking of the bigots really, their views are resistant to change. There are people who are not comfortable with the idea because of old and traditional values that have been passed down. These people are no more bigots than you or I but their world view has been shaped. Surely it would be best to try to reshape their world view whilst bringing in gay adoption? Mind you though I'm offering no solution here, merely more questions.

There may not be a need for more people to adopt white, healthy, infants. And, although I recognize that this is not a valid statistical sample, the gay people I know who have adopted aren't doing that. There is DEFINITELY a need for more people to adopt older children, minority children, and disabled children. But beyond those realities, I see "sure, you can have the older kids and the minorities and the disabled kids, but for heaven's sake, leave the healthy white babies for the straight people!" as insulting to gay parents AND to all those kids who need homes despite not being healthy, white, or a baby.
If the non perfect babies are not being adopted by straight people then it would probably follow that gay people would be no different. Unless it is thought that if the agency runs out of grade A babies that people will then choose from the grade B ones?
(I'm not trying to be offensive with the grading idea. Just direct.)

Someone with more knowledge than I have should correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure adoption can't be undone, if the couple goes through all the proper legal channels in the first place. Once you've adopted, the legal relationship is the same as if you had given birth. For better or worse.
I am of the same thinking although there would be then an adopted child with gay parents. I'd lay money that it's happened and that nothing was done about the child thus proving that it can't be that bad surely?

[Ivy]

I wasn't thinking of the bigots really, their views are resistant to change. There are people who are not comfortable with the idea because of old and traditional values that have been passed down. These people are no more bigots than you or I but their world view has been shaped. Surely it would be best to try to reshape their world view whilst bringing in gay adoption? Mind you though I'm offering no solution here, merely more questions.

I don't see any way to shape their worldview other than to make it more normal, mainstream, and common. That can only happen if it's allowed and widespread. In the 1950s in America (forgive me for mostly using US examples, but it's what I know, you know) people who married outside their race were persecuted, and their children were too. It has only been through a generation of people growing up being exposed to it that mixed-race couples and children have become acceptable to most people.


If the non perfect babies are not being adopted by straight people then it would probably follow that gay people would be no different. Unless it is thought that if the agency runs out of grade A babies that people will then choose from the grade B ones?
(I'm not trying to be offensive with the grading idea. Just direct.)

That's what I was trying to say-- although I don't know about the larger statistics, the gay people I know ARE adopting the kids who are not "grade A" as you so crudely put it :smooch: Two gay couples in our church have adopted older black boys, and I can't even count the number of lesbians I know with adopted girls from China.

[Xander]

I don't see any way to shape their worldview other than to make it more normal, mainstream, and common. That can only happen if it's allowed and widespread. In the 1950s in America (forgive me for mostly using US examples, but it's what I know, you know) people who married outside their race were persecuted, and their children were too. It has only been through a generation of people growing up being exposed to it that mixed-race couples and children have become acceptable to most people.
I think that there is an important point here. Children can be the most cruel and vicious with their tongues but simultaneously they have the gift of fresh eyes and may see no difference and no reason to tease (unless they have a "starlet" for a parent but that can happen regarless of sexual orientation).

However should we be putting adoption children in the "firing line"? I realise the low probability of natural parenthood for gay couples (not considering surogate mothers) but that would have been the major way that mixed race marriages became accpeted I would have thought. Perhaps this one step removed would cause a problem, perhaps not.

Oh and as were using the States as an example, you have a high proportion of bigots :P

That's what I was trying to say-- although I don't know about the larger statistics, the gay people I know ARE adopting the kids who are not "grade A" as you so crudely put it :smooch: Two gay couples in our church have adopted older black boys, and I can't even count the number of lesbians I know with adopted girls from China.
I suppose the chance is there. Those who are different from the norm often like things which are different from the norm (no disrespect to either party there). I am unsure as to whether this would be a long term trend however.

[Nemesis]

[...]but the more I think about it the more I think the "it's better than being an orphan" argument is pretty insulting.[...]
Thank you.

[Nemesis]

but is there a need for more people to adopt? (honest question)
:blink: You're kidding right?

Chinese or Russian babies, definitely.

If not then there would probably need to be a reason to give a child to a gay couple over a straight couple purely based on the idea that the gay couple may well come with stigma type drawbacks (assuming all other variables are equal).
Oh, come on. There's a stigma against being an adoptee in general, who's going to know the child's parents' orientations anyway.

I actually have a friend whose parents are lesbians. She is straight. She's well adjusted, has a boyfriend, is academically successful and is going to Berkeley in August. I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about the possible negative effects.

What's best: caring and loving gay parents, neglectful straight parents, or no parents?

[Xander]

:blink: You're kidding right?

Chinese or Russian babies, definitely.
It was an honest question. I've never looked into adoption. I have enough trouble with two nephews, what the hell do I need my own for???

Oh, come on. There's a stigma against being an adoptee in general, who's going to know the child's parents' orientations anyway.

I actually have a friend whose parents are lesbians. She is straight. She's well adjusted, has a boyfriend, is academically successful and is going to Berkeley in August. I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about the possible negative effects.

What's best: caring and loving gay parents, neglectful straight parents, or no parents?
Oh I agree completely. From the point of view of the child with the parents I see little problem. My point was more a muse at how the child of a gay couple would be accepted into society. People would find out in many ways. Not least of which would be parents meeting where you can either lie "oh this is my errr brother" or tell them the truth. Same when the kids friends come over "where's your mum?". These things don't stay hidden for long unless you turn the kids life into that of a star's child (you know how screwed up they are!!).

I think that attitudes need to change on both sides of the fence and the whole psychology needs to change. The stereotypes of lesbians has portrayed them as cool and slightly mysterious where as gay men have three - man in black leather with holes in it, creepy middle age guy or raging poof (aka camp as tits). These don't help matters and in my view is what is keeping gay men looked down upon long after lesbians have reached levels of acceptance.

Don't read me wrong Nem, I am not trying to argue against (well a little bit perhaps cause you seemed so disappointed) but I can see that there could be problems down the road that aren't normally part of the picture and how this could cause some (especially those not so open minded as you may find here) to revile the concept.

[cjs55]

caring and loving gay parents, neglectful straight parents

That makes it so easy, doesn't it? I'm more interested about: Caring and loving gay parents, vs. caring and loving straight parents. Well, I'm also interested about the aggregate of all gay adopters vs. the aggregate of all straight adopters, and any different trends amongst the kids they raise.

I don't think you can say much without knowing these things.

[sbw]

the voting is even more one-sided that I wouild have anticipated.

Scott

[Xander]

the voting is even more one-sided that I wouild have anticipated.

Scott
Open minded to the point of being closed minded about it. ;)

[sbw]

Open minded to the point of being closed minded about it. ;)

hmmmmm :joft:

Scott

[panda]

I think that attitudes need to change on both sides of the fence and the whole psychology needs to change. The stereotypes of lesbians has portrayed them as cool and slightly mysterious where as gay men have three - man in black leather with holes in it, creepy middle age guy or raging poof (aka camp as tits). These don't help matters and in my view is what is keeping gay men looked down upon long after lesbians have reached levels of acceptance.
This is interesting. In some countries/cultures (such as Japan) gay men seem to be far more accepted than lesbians. Outside of video games/anime/manga, lesbianism is totally taboo in Japan, whereas gay men seem to be somewhat tolerated. (I've heard plausible theories as to why this is, but, frankly, I'm too fucking tired to expound on it right now.)

[Xander]

hmmmmm :joft:

Scott
As in to be classicaly open minded then you vote yes. Many who do so will defend their position vehemently, which to me sounds closed minded. To be truely open minded you'd probably answer maybe. It was just a pun that occured to me when reading your post :)

[Xander]

This is interesting. In some countries/cultures (such as Japan) gay men seem to be far more accepted than lesbians. Outside of video games/anime/manga, lesbianism is totally taboo in Japan, whereas gay men seem to be somewhat tolerated. (I've heard plausible theories as to why this is, but, frankly, I'm too fucking tired to expound on it right now.)
Ah the popularity of the effette hero, damned if I can remember the proper term. You have a point there. Perhaps if our advertising and entertainment culture wasn't so hardline macho (removing from my reality the accursed make up advertisements for men) then the problem would be lessened?

[panda]

Actually, 'homosexuality' in Japan shouldn't necessarily be viewed in a Western context... it was rather lazy on my part to do so.

The last few generations have been OBSESSED with identity... it drives me a little mad. This ties into the other thread.

Anyway, does anyone have any reasons why 'homosexuals' (I am so sick of that word) should not adopt, except for the "their kid(s) will be made fun of" reason?

[Xander]

Anyway, does anyone have any reasons why 'homosexuals' (I am so sick of that word) should not adopt, except for the "their kid(s) will be made fun of" reason?
Er yeah. The child may have to go outside of the couple for it's other role model (sould that theory persist in such an environment) and that could cause probelms both for the child and the parents.

Stupid things could end up being large problems such as the kid asking "where's mommy" or wondering how to refer to "the other daddy" correctly. Small things but could mean so much if not thought about and "dealt with" before the parents and child derail.

[panda]

Er yeah. The child may have to go outside of the couple for it's other role model (sould that theory persist in such an environment) and that could cause probelms both for the child and the parents.
You mean, like, Mommy cleans the house and Daddy brings home the bacon?


Stupid things could end up being large problems such as the kid asking "where's mommy" or wondering how to refer to "the other daddy" correctly. Small things but could mean so much if not thought about and "dealt with" before the parents and child derail.
I'm not following you.

[floid]

The categoriies "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are too broad and contain too many variables to make any meaningful distinction as to either group's ability to rear children better than the other.

Wise, compassionate, nurturing and stable MM or FF pairs would make better parents than FM pairs lacking these qualities.

Unless social convention, religious conviction, or personal experience bias the issue I do not think there is an appreciable difference.

What is "normal" is what is familiar and I don't see why being cared for by four boobs can't be as normal as two boobs and a beard, especially if thats what you start out with from day one.

[Xander]

You mean, like, Mommy cleans the house and Daddy brings home the bacon?
Oh so you don't think that kids believe in father christmas? Children are educated and learn stereotypes from an early age. This one at least still seems alive and well.

I'm not following you.
"This is my holiday photos. This is my daddy and me at the top of the water slide and other daddy catched me at the bottom"
Who wants to be "other daddy"? What other title could be used that wouldn't seem like a stigma against "other daddy"? It's not just the child that could get hurt but causing upset would upset the child regardless of if they understand the cause or not.

[Shimpei]

"This is my holiday photos. This is my daddy and me at the top of the water slide and other daddy catched me at the bottom"
Who wants to be "other daddy"? What other title could be used that wouldn't seem like a stigma against "other daddy"? It's not just the child that could get hurt but causing upset would upset the child regardless of if they understand the cause or not.

what's the problem with Daddy Jim and Daddy Jack?

[Xander]

what's the problem with Daddy Jim and Daddy Jack?
Not much except the child would feel more isolated by the distinction. It took me quite a while to find out my father's name. I still never call him by it.

The child itself will notice that no one else has daddy ____ but just daddy. They will find out why.

[panda]

Oh so you don't think that kids believe in father christmas? Children are educated and learn stereotypes from an early age. This one at least still seems alive and well.
Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue what your point is.


"This is my holiday photos. This is my daddy and me at the top of the water slide and other daddy catched me at the bottom"
Who wants to be "other daddy"? What other title could be used that wouldn't seem like a stigma against "other daddy"? It's not just the child that could get hurt but causing upset would upset the child regardless of if they understand the cause or not.
Shimpei's solution is fine. I don't see why you think it's a major issue. I often call my father by his first name.

[panda]

The child itself will notice that no one else has daddy ____ but just daddy. They will find out why.
Why is it a bad thing for the child to "find out"... ? What is the problem?

[Shimpei]

The child itself will notice that no one else has daddy ____ but just daddy. They will find out why.

Of course they will find out why. What's the problem with it? At least the kid can tell his peers he has TWO fathers! :)

[Xander]

Why is it a bad thing for the child to "find out"... ? What is the problem?
That's not the point now is it. The point is that they will not realise that their family is different. They will not know any different. When they do then this may cause a reaction that may cause problems on top of the usual. For example how would a child raised by gay men find the insight of a female perspective, or even a straight man's for that matter. You'd automatically be different and as the difference would be from early on then it could diverge further than is expected. In engineering it'd be called compound error but I think that would be considered ever so slightly innapropriate here.

The point is that psychology is a young field of science and a shakey one at best. I am merely musing on the possible problems. After all we cannot know without trial but with a trial may come the first problem that may cause the child pain and as such would be callous. Stalemate.

Oh as for the stereotypes, you seemed to be saying that I was reinforcing stereotypes and therefore was incompatible with such learned thinking as may progress this world but children are taught by these same things. As wrong as we know it is we teach children bullshit and then spend half of their lives trying to rewrite it. You seem to be proposing a new approach and yet have not detailed it, though I certainly would welcome the change even if it is far to late for me to benefit directly.

[Nemesis]

Wow, kendoiwan. I have to say I'm honestly surprised.

[Ivy]

Oh so you don't think that kids believe in father christmas? Children are educated and learn stereotypes from an early age. This one at least still seems alive and well.

"This is my holiday photos. This is my daddy and me at the top of the water slide and other daddy catched me at the bottom"
Who wants to be "other daddy"? What other title could be used that wouldn't seem like a stigma against "other daddy"? It's not just the child that could get hurt but causing upset would upset the child regardless of if they understand the cause or not.

Have you ever actually heard a child say "daddy" and "other daddy?" In the families I know with same sex parents they have a different term of endearment for each parent, like Mama and Mem, or Mom and Mommy, or Dad and Daddy, or Pa and Dad, or [fill in the blank].

[Ivy]

Not much except the child would feel more isolated by the distinction. It took me quite a while to find out my father's name. I still never call him by it.

The child itself will notice that no one else has daddy ____ but just daddy. They will find out why.

Honestly, I can't think of a LESS germane line of reasoning than this one. One of my daughter's friends calls his dad Miles instead of Dad, just because he feels like it. And one of her classmates is being raised by her mom and her grandma. Another of her classmates has two fathers, and I've never heard him refer to either of them except as "my dad." None of these kids gets teased, if my daughter's social barometer is accurate (and since she's almost definitely an E I'm pretty sure it is). I just don't see the big deal.

[panda]

The point is that they will not realise that their family is different. They will not know any different. When they do then this may cause a reaction that may cause problems on top of the usual. For example how would a child raised by gay men find the insight of a female perspective, or even a straight man's for that matter. You'd automatically be different and as the difference would be from early on then it could diverge further than is expected. In engineering it'd be called compound error but I think that would be considered ever so slightly innapropriate here.
What's wrong with being different? Different does not have to mean bad. Every one of us is different than our peers in some respect.

How would a child raised by gay men find the insight of a female perspective? Well, by seeking the insight of a female I would imagine.

The main thing I learned from my amazing non-homosexual parents (by observing them) is that jealousy is the most absurd of all emotions. They weren't exactly my role models.


The point is that psychology is a young field of science and a shakey one at best. I am merely musing on the possible problems. After all we cannot know without trial but with a trial may come the first problem that may cause the child pain and as such would be callous. Stalemate.
You seem to be forgetting that gay couples have been raising children for a while.


Oh as for the stereotypes, you seemed to be saying that I was reinforcing stereotypes and therefore was incompatible with such learned thinking as may progress this world but children are taught by these same things. As wrong as we know it is we teach children bullshit and then spend half of their lives trying to rewrite it. You seem to be proposing a new approach and yet have not detailed it, though I certainly would welcome the change even if it is far to late for me to benefit directly.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm proposing anything new. There are plenty of parents who take the rational approach with their children.

[ptGatsby]

The main thing I learned from my amazing non-homosexual parents (by observing them) is that jealousy is the most absurd of all emotions. They weren't exactly my role models.


And I learnt that drinking was a sure way to destroy a relationship and traumatize kids. The good news is that I wasn't different... which is kind of sad in itself.

[Mercury_Quirks]

I recently watched a surprisingly touching(but somehow not overwhelmingly sappy) documentary about a gay male couple in Florida that adopted several AIDS babies(one turned out not to have AIDS, at which point florida decided that they wanted to take that child away from them).

They seemed like a healthy family(apart from the aids, of course), and the one that didn't have aids(a young straight african-american male) was perfectly happy with them and didn't want to be placed elsewhere.

From what I've learned in psychology, a stable home is best. Even a stablely bad home is apparently better than a constantly changing family situation(I think there are limits to this though. There must be). So a stable gay home may not, in many's eyes, be as good as a stable straight home, but it's better than no home or a foster home situation.

Children are pretty resilient and of all the children I've seen raised by gay parents, they handle the whole "my parents are gay" thing very well. And as for the role models thing, it is not guaranteed that people will look to their parents as role models and I think so long as they have access to other adults that they can look up to, if they choose not to look up to their parents, then it's okay.

I look to my brothers much more than to my father for that fatherly-ish type male presence/support in my life.

I also know people adopted into families of different races. Again, would it be better if they could be matched with a same race family? On that one level, sure. But they're just happy that they have a family, and if they're willing, they can and do fulfill any cultural needs through other ways.

[panda]

Nice post, and I agree, MQ.

[pangolin]

As in to be classicaly open minded then you vote yes. Many who do so will defend their position vehemently, which to me sounds closed minded. To be truely open minded you'd probably answer maybe. It was just a pun that occured to me when reading your post :)

To be open minded means to examine all sides of the issue prior to arriving at a conclusion, and being open to revising that conclusion should new data appear. If one has considered all available data, it is quite acceptable to vehemently defend a particular view until contravening data appears. Thusfar, everything in this conversation is about 10 years out of date, so there is not any particular need for anyone to revise their positions unless they have been hiding under a stone.

[pangolin]

...They will not know any different. When they do then this may cause a reaction that may cause problems on top of the usual. For example how would a child raised by gay men find the insight of a female perspective, or even a straight man's for that matter. You'd automatically be different and as the difference would be from early on then it could diverge further than is expected. In engineering it'd be called compound error but I think that would be considered ever so slightly innapropriate here.


It never ceases to amaze me how people who have grouped themselves together on the basis of an innate quality type psychological schema can give so much credit to behaviorist lines of thinking...

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

I only have my own experience from which to form speculation, so keep that in mind.

I was raised by my mother and her lesbian lover from 2nd grade up 'til 7th. It made school hellish, and there was no sense of balance in the house. The kids at school had a field day with the knowledge that my mother was a lesbian, and it's not an easy thing to hide. Furthermore, a child shouldn't be forced to hide his/her parents' sexuality just to make life bearable. I lacked a father figure, and the "manly" traits my mother's partner did exhibit were overpronounced and fairly disturbing.

I don't think homosexual couples should have the option to adopt. It's not fair to homosexuals, but putting children in the position to live that sort of life isn't fair either. Adoption is, after all, about the children, and it shouldn't matter how fair or unfair the situation may be to couples.

Obviously, one bad experience isn't enough to justify a rule, but it's a hell of a lot better than the blind speculation of people who've never gone through it.

I'm not the most agreeable person in the world, so... make your own judgements about how the kids might turn out. Being forced to face constant ridicule during your formative years can really scar you.

As a curious side note, my mother's lover was an INTP.

-dp

[LongSilence]

Yeah, but would you really have preferred living in a communal foster home with no-one really offerring at least the care and love (i'm assuming your mum and her lover gave you these?), not to mention possessions and financial support?

[attila_the_hunny]

I only have my own experience from which to form speculation, so keep that in mind.

I was raised by my mother and her lesbian lover from 2nd grade up 'til 7th. It made school hellish, and there was no sense of balance in the house. The kids at school had a field day with the knowledge that my mother was a lesbian, and it's not an easy thing to hide. Furthermore, a child shouldn't be forced to hide his/her parents' sexuality just to make life bearable. I lacked a father figure, and the "manly" traits my mother's partner did exhibit were overpronounced and fairly disturbing.


A lot of kids lack father figures...they're called children of single moms.
My life wasn't the greatest either with Big Gay Dad, but life sucks for everyone, regardless of your parent's sexuality. My father likes abusive boyfriends who are alcohol/drug addicts/murderers. Even if I lived with my straight mother as a kid, it would have been exactly the same, only not so...gay.
Or maybe I wasn't a pussy like you and could handle it better. ;P

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

It would be easy for me to say yes, since I've never experienced life in a foster home. I can't make an informed decision.

As far as affection goes, it seemed like a balancing act between her partner and I. Unfortunately, the partner almost always won out when issues involving her sexuality were brought up. I used to hear, "What, because I'm not a man?" or "What, you want me to act like a man?" quite a bit. It seemed to cause a lot of conflict.

I spent most of my time alone, in my room, reading my encyclopedia set.

I suppose you could explain it as bad parenting. Hrm.

-dp

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

A lot of kids lack father figures...they're called children of single moms.
My life wasn't the greatest either with Big Gay Dad, but life sucks for everyone, regardless of your parent's sexuality. My father likes abusive boyfriends who are alcohol/drug addicts/murderers. Even if I lived with my straight mother as a kid, it would have been exactly the same, only not so...gay.
Or maybe I wasn't a pussy like you and could handle it better. ;P

Women are forced to endure far less scrutiny from their peers, especially in matters involving sexuality.

But you're right... kids have enough on their plate as it is. Why introduce more hardships?

-dp

[attila_the_hunny]

Women are forced to endure far less scrutiny from their peers, especially in matters involving sexuality.

My brother would have said the exact thing as me.



But you're right... kids have enough on their plate as it is. Why introduce more hardships?

-dp

It's much different when your family is evaluated than when it's a crapshoot.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

Or maybe I wasn't a pussy like you and could handle it better. ;P

Or maybe you simply had someone to edure it with, namely your brother. The world is a very different place for an only child.

-dp

[attila_the_hunny]

Or maybe you simply had someone to edure it with, namely your brother. The world is a very different place for an only child.

-dp

We lived in two separate homes for some time, but we went to the same school.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

We lived in two separate homes for some time, but we went to the same school.

Or maybe I was just a pussy.

-dp

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

Wait, wait... I've got it!

I can blame this all on the subject matter, and turn it into a support for my position!

See, you were raised by two men, and you turned out to be a butch("Or maybe I wasn't a pussy like you and could handle it better. "), and I was raised by two women, and I turned out to be a pussy. In conclusion, homosexual couples produce severely imbalanced children.

It's the truth, I tell ya!

-dp

[cafe]

Or maybe I was just a pussy.

-dp
IMO, kids should be allowed to be pussies. A kid should not have to be tough, etc. Unfortunately it rarely works that way.

[cafe]

Wait, wait... I've got it!

I can blame this all on the subject matter, and turn it into a support for my position!

See, you were raised by two men, and you turned out to be a butch("Or maybe I wasn't a pussy like you and could handle it better. "), and I was raised by two women, and I turned out to be a pussy.

It's the truth, I tell ya!

-dp
LOL. Nice save. :rofl:

[LongSilence]

It's ok being a pussy, but you wouldn't want to be wet as well now would you?

[Ivy]

I don't think homosexual couples should have the option to adopt. It's not fair to homosexuals, but putting children in the position to live that sort of life isn't fair either. Adoption is, after all, about the children, and it shouldn't matter how fair or unfair the situation may be to couples.


Did you see my question to Xander in an earlier post about whether we should be limiting the adoption rights of other people who might embarass their kids? I'd love to know what you think.

I am not a heartless bitch when it comes to the kids, either. I have close second-hand knowledge about how much it sucked to be made fun of for having a gay dad. I really don't see how we can make it any better by disallowing it, though-- like mixed race marriages, it won't be seen as mainstream until it IS mainstream and that means allowing it (or even encouraging it).

I also think there may be a fundamental difference for the children between being born to gay parents and being born to straight parents who later break up and one of them reattaches to a member of the same sex. That would be much more of a mindfuck, I'd think, than being brought up where it's just always a part of your family story.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

It's ok being a pussy, but you wouldn't want to be wet as well now would you?

Actually, I think being wet would help me deal with all the dicks in the world.

-dp

[Ivy]

Actually, I think being wet would help me deal with all the dicks in the world.

-dp

Yes, but if they're very rough with you, you may still end up getting chafed.

(Maybe we should stop this extended metaphor in its tracks, before it gets any worse...)

[attila_the_hunny]

Wait, wait... I've got it!

I can blame this all on the subject matter, and turn it into a support for my position!

See, you were raised by two men, and you turned out to be a butch("Or maybe I wasn't a pussy like you and could handle it better. "), and I was raised by two women, and I turned out to be a pussy. In conclusion, homosexual couples produce severely imbalanced children.

It's the truth, I tell ya!

-dp

I actually wasn't raised by two men. My father had a few boyfriends, but none of them lasted more than a couple years. There were long gaps [years] between relationships as well. I viewed him as a single father. My father is also very femme in nature.
I also wouldn't call myself butch...I certainly don't look it (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/attila_the_hunny/mesmile.jpg).
I like popping holes in theories.

[Nemesis]

I only have my own experience from which to form speculation, so keep that in mind.

I was raised by my mother and her lesbian lover from 2nd grade up 'til 7th. It made school hellish, and there was no sense of balance in the house. The kids at school had a field day with the knowledge that my mother was a lesbian, and it's not an easy thing to hide. Furthermore, a child shouldn't be forced to hide his/her parents' sexuality just to make life bearable. I lacked a father figure, and the "manly" traits my mother's partner did exhibit were overpronounced and fairly disturbing.

I don't think homosexual couples should have the option to adopt. It's not fair to homosexuals, but putting children in the position to live that sort of life isn't fair either. Adoption is, after all, about the children, and it shouldn't matter how fair or unfair the situation may be to couples.

Obviously, one bad experience isn't enough to justify a rule, but it's a hell of a lot better than the blind speculation of people who've never gone through it.

I'm not the most agreeable person in the world, so... make your own judgements about how the kids might turn out. Being forced to face constant ridicule during your formative years can really scar you.

As a curious side note, my mother's lover was an INTP.

-dp
That sucks for you. I have a friend who was raised by a lesbian couple. Her life didn't suck, so I'm not exactly enclined to take you seriously.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

I actually wasn't raised by two men. My father had a few boyfriends, but none of them lasted more than a couple years. There were long gaps [years] between relationships as well. I viewed him as a single father. My father is also very femme in nature.
I also wouldn't call myself butch...I certainly don't look it (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/attila_the_hunny/mesmile.jpg).
I like popping holes in theories.

That smile has butch written alllll over it.

-dp

[attila_the_hunny]

That sucks for you. I have a friend who was raised by a lesbian couple. Her life didn't suck, so I'm not exactly enclined to take you seriously.

Suckage levels are going to vary among children of gay parents, just like children of straight parents.

[Xander]

Whoa it seems like my position earlier was taken wrong. People asked to be provided with possible problems (i'd expect becasue they saw none) and I supplied. The views are hardly inline with my own.

As for open-mindedness (not to derail a thread but hopefully straighten a small splinter), iif you have decided then surely you take more shifting? To be properly openminded would require being open to the slightest change and not require blunt trauma was all I was pointing too.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

That sucks for you. I have a friend who was raised by a lesbian couple. Her life didn't suck, so I'm not exactly enclined to take you seriously.

That's your prerogative, Nemesis.

Your friend's experience doesn't nullify my own, nor does it make it any less realistic or serious.

-dp

[Nemesis]

That's your prerogative, Nemesis.

Your friend's experience doesn't nullify my own, nor does it make it any less realistic or serious.

-dp
Just like your experience isn't going to be the constant. Or are you one of those narcissists who thinks "that's how it was for me, that must be how it is for everybody."

[panda]

Ok, you two, it's getting old. Keep it away from the ad hominem, or I will delete more posts.

[Nemesis]

Ok, you two, it's getting old. Keep it away from the ad hominem, or I will delete more posts.
I'll delete you...

...you pussy.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

Hey, I haven't made any personal attacks here.

Don't blame him for having a selective memory. Heck, if you leave out the following excerpts from my posts, his portrayal of me as a narcissist is very logical.

"I only have my own experience from which to form speculation, so keep that in mind."

"Obviously, one bad experience isn't enough to justify a rule, but it's a hell of a lot better than the blind speculation of people who've never gone through it."

"It would be easy for me to say yes, since I've never experienced life in a foster home. I can't make an informed decision."

"I suppose you could explain it as bad parenting. Hrm."

It's OK. :)

-dp

[Nemesis]

Hey, I haven't made any personal attacks here.

Don't blame him for having a selective memory. Heck, if you leave out the following excerpts from my posts, his portrayal of me as a narcissist is very logical.

"I only have my own experience from which to form speculation, so keep that in mind."

"Obviously, one bad experience isn't enough to justify a rule, but it's a hell of a lot better than the blind speculation of people who've never gone through it."

"It would be easy for me to say yes, since I've never experienced life in a foster home. I can't make an informed decision."

"I suppose you could explain it as bad parenting. Hrm."

It's OK. :)

-dp
I fail to see how my position is wrong even when you DO have those excerpts in your post. I'm sorry, but you weren't the victim of homosexual parenting, you were the victim of bad parenting. The two are not synonymous.

[panda]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[attila_the_hunny]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I hate commercials.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

I fail to see how my position is wrong even when you DO have those excerpts in your post. I'm sorry, but you weren't the victim of homosexual parenting, you were the victim of bad parenting. The two are not synonymous.

Somehow, I think that last excerpt, which I brought up allllll by myself(I'm a big boy), addresses that issue.
"I suppose you could explain it as bad parenting. Hrm."

Notice that after that statement, I stopped using my experiences as a generality and started bantering with attila.

Calm down, boy. You're barking up the wrong tree.

-dp

Enigma: Sorry to continue this, but if you want this to end, then just wipe out everything including and after the first combative post. If I can't reply to his attacks, and they remain undeleted, then moderation just isn't working properly.

[panda]

I hate commercials.
You know what I hate more than commercials? Those fucking tests of the emergency broadcast system. They always start right during critical dialogue and/or the money shot.

[attila_the_hunny]

PMs exist for a reason.

[attila_the_hunny]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/attila_the_hunny/Icons/test.gif

THIS IS ONLY A TEST.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

Tell that to Mr. "You're a narcissist."

-dp

[panda]

Tell that to Mr. "You're a narcissist."
Are you doing this on purpose? Because it seems like it.

Must I really go into the "two wrongs don't make a right" thing? Just drop it.

[GhostOfTheChameleon]

Eh, it's been dropped.

Just don't expect public insults to be resolved in PMs. If something is thrown into a public forum, most people will answer it in that public forum.

Sorry for the temporary derailment... back to the topic.

Have there been any studies about how children raised by homosexual couples turn out? I'm sure someone has done a study about children living in foster homes. It would be really interesting to compare the two.

-dp

[LongSilence]

Hmmm, I fear this thread of Nemesis' won't be getting anyone banned or sent to purgatory then... except maybe Nemesis if he can't deal with the idea of someone answering 'No' to the question.

[Nemesis]

Hmmm, I fear this thread of Nemesis' won't be getting anyone banned or sent to purgatory then... except maybe Nemesis if he can't deal with the idea of someone answering 'No' to the question.
Actually, I wasn't being hostile at all. I was wording myself strongly, but I tend to do that all the time anyway.

[Dom]

My bother told me about some friends of his, and the story alarmed me, I'm certain as to why but we shall see....

He works with a lesbian couple. Under UK law they are currently not permitted to adopt and said they didn't want too anyway, they said they wanted their own child. Now without a lot of genetic jigglyrepokery they can't do that, and I think the tech isn't quite up to the jigglyrepokery yet either.

Yet they still wanted their own child and so found away to resolve their problem. They had been friends with a straight couple for years and years, the straight couple had children of their own and so they knew there was no unusual genetic problems with their friends.

So they asked the straight couple if they would help, and so for several weeks on the appoint day and time, the lesbian couple would 'wait outside the bedroom' and when 'ready' the wife of the straight couple would open the door and hand over the result of her husbands climax.

The lesbian couple would then retire to another room to commence efforts with the 'turkey baster'.

Eventually one of the lesbians fell pregnant and a lovely baby boy was born.

There is no doubt that the child is loved and wanted but he is growing up with two mum's (I don't know how he distigusihes between the two Mums) And he is good friends with the children of the straight couple.

Now I'm from a 'broken' family, I have a few half brothers and a couple of half sisters, adding all my half brothers and half sisters together with step syblings and attached syblings (Step children to Step Parent that remarried) I get to 27-29 in total.

What concerned me was what it was going to do to this lads head, when he finds out only one of his mothers is biologically his mother and that his 'friends' are actually half brothers..... Other concerns are that of course the donner father is legally liable for his child!

They plan to repeat the process, but with the 'other' mum being the biological mother this time....

My brother described the whole thing as beautiful and perhaps it is, but I jsut saw the whole thing as a fucked up mess!!! If letting Homosexual couple adopt gets round these sort of mad situations, then I guess I'd prefer that! Especially as my objection to Same sex adoptive parents can find little rational support, even in my own head.

I just worry that a lot of parents manage to fuck up thier kids, they really don't need to create trickier situations for themselves to navigate!

[Xander]

I think Moridin picks up where I was going. As open minded adults we are capable of navigating this kind of thing. The problem is, are children. Even if they are, should we really put them through the extra complications? Personally I think that we should risk it because love and support are the best things parents can give. Uncomplicated lives are things they can only strive to get closer to no matter what their sexuality.

[Wiki]

the voting is even more one-sided that I wouild have anticipated.

Scott

:offtopic: I love the new avatar and the dogs. They are the only dogs I will eat. I cant find the skin 'on' ones anywhere around here only skinless, which is your preference, just curious.

Oh yeah thanks for the direct responses. The best I can do is adopt a position of neutrality with a slight bias towards hetero.

[boppa]

Whilst I'm not against gay adoption, per se, there are still quite apparent concerns:
- the gender perspective issue already raised. Parents attitudes have the strongest affect on a child's emotional/values development. Is a gender-bias attitiude more prevalent in gay couples?
- are gay relationships more stable? Since marital statistics are not available, how is this known?
- are legal rights in gay relationships (or the dissolution of) appropriate for child raising?
- would the likelihood of significant proportions of gay couples adopting 'non-a-grade' babies cause a misconception of their worthiness/success in raising children?

The 'not-as-bad-as' arguments are not viable for setting up a system for administrating this kind of thing. Yes, it may sound un-pc but it's necessary to remove these barriers to full and frank discussion......I think?!?...

[wildcat]

Having homosexual parents is definitely less than ideal and I can see why some people may object to it - but not having a stable family is generally worse.

I know I'd rather have been adopted by homosexual parents than to be an orphan....
There are good parents and bad parents. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

[NoahFence]

Boppa I'm replying to your posts but please don't take my comments about "you" to be you in particular, I'm being more general. I'm speaking to the concerns, really.


Whilst I'm not against gay adoption, per se, there are still quite apparent concerns:
- the gender perspective issue already raised. Parents attitudes have the strongest affect on a child's emotional/values development. Is a gender-bias attitiude more prevalent in gay couples?

I can't answer your question, but I can propose another. If this is truly enough of a hangup to stop gay couples from adopting, should it not also prohibit single parents from adopting? Or at least only allow those who intend to put out?


- are gay relationships more stable? Since marital statistics are not available, how is this known?
Marital statistics ARE available. For straight couples. And they're fucking abysmal. If you are going to argue that being gay means you're more or less likely to break up, it's arguing whether the pot's blacker than the kettle. If stability of marriage is an issue then, by this logic, Straight couples should not be allowed to adopt.

- are legal rights in gay relationships (or the dissolution of) appropriate for child raising?

So now we're basing this decision off of how much we've decided to oppress them legally? Should not the question be, "If legal rights in gay relationships are INappropriate for child raising, can we not see that they are being treated unfairly??"

- would the likelihood of significant proportions of gay couples adopting 'non-a-grade' babies cause a misconception of their worthiness/success in raising children?

I have no idea what this even means. Are we worried about Gay People's public image with the people who want them to not exist anymore? Is it not conceivable that a more appropriate response to them adopting "Grade F" babies is that it is MORE of a parenting challenge?


The 'not-as-bad-as' arguments are not viable for setting up a system for administrating this kind of thing. Yes, it may sound un-pc but it's necessary to remove these barriers to full and frank discussion......I think?!?...
I agree, but for some reason, everyone is landing on the side of "you can't prove it doesn't hurt them so we shouldn't let them until we can prove it's safe."

This, in itself, is a descriminating position that allows you to pat yourself on the back for saving the children while totally short-changing the homosexuals. Prove to me that being raised Catholic doesn't hurt a child before we let any more Catholics adopt. Prove to me that a white child raised by a black family is not going to "have a negative impact on their childhood" before we let black people adopt any more white babies (they can have the asian babies, though...just you examine those two thoughts and see if you have any racism lurking in your soul after all).

The "not as bad as" arguments are meant to show that you are, in fact, letting your belief that homosexuality is Icky overwhelm your logic. They show that if you REALLY were solely concerned about that aspect of the child's upbringing, the same thing should concern you in these other cases as well...but it doesn't concern, and it's allowed, and so the only remaining difference is "But...but...you'll have two dads!!"

[NoahFence]

And you know, it's funny...I happen to think that bible-thumping fundamentalists should not be allowed near their OWN children, let alone be given someone else's.

Those are MY beliefs. Stop those Baptists from adopting, NOW!

Wait...what's that? You say it's wrong of me to shove my beliefs down someone else's throat and force them to live how I think they ought to, even if I never ever once lay eyes on them?

Why, fancy that.

[sbw]

...to remove these barriers to full and frank discussion......I think?!?...

I think my avatar removes those barriers.

(ZING)

even more :offtopic: than wiki--my local grocery store has the skinless variety; I like both. also, I was very excited the other day when I found a bag (yes, a bag) of sabrett brand "pushcart style" onions in sauce. 'twas the highlight of my trip to the grocery store.

Scott

[ShadyShady]

gay adoption is child abuse.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

gay adoption is child abuse.

Awwww...look at him trying to push people's buttons! ;)

[Ivy]

Awwww...look at him trying to push people's buttons! ;)

I remember how proud I was when my toddler son learned to push buttons on the phone. Then he started actually calling people and it just became annoying.

[wildcat]

I remember how proud I was when my toddler son learned to push buttons on the phone. Then he started actually calling people and it just became annoying.
I understand it is embarrassing (and expensive) when Shady calls all over the States and China.

[NoahFence]

I understand it is embarrassing (and expensive) when Shady calls all over the States and China.
Just China. (Yay Vonage!)

[wildcat]

Just China. (Yay Vonage!)
Not to mention that Shady had the audacity to wake Hong Ying in Chongqing in the middle of the night.

[Leftfield]

The only reason why I say "no" is because the kid will be singled out in middle school and be subject to ridicule that he/she does not deserve. I have no problem with it, but the backlash the kid will get could be far greater damage to his/her psyche then they deserve.

Tough argument either way.

[imfrellinggay]

I wish I were gay.

I wish you were too <_<

[attila_the_hunny]

I wish you were too <_<

Out of fucking nowhere!

[NoahFence]

The only reason why I say "no" is because the kid will be singled out in middle school and be subject to ridicule that he/she does not deserve. I have no problem with it, but the backlash the kid will get could be far greater damage to his/her psyche then they deserve.

So why is it that this means "no gay adoption" instead of "no torturing the different kid"? Don't you see that you are implying that descrimination against kids with gay parents is fine, so fine in fact that you couldn't sacrifice it for something like gay adoption?

[Ivy]

So why is it that this means "no gay adoption" instead of "no torturing the different kid"? Don't you see that you are implying that descrimination against kids with gay parents is fine, so fine in fact that you couldn't sacrifice it for something like gay adoption?

Exactly. And see my earlier question about why do we allow adoption for other people who might be embarassing to their children.

[Leftfield]

So why is it that this means "no gay adoption" instead of "no torturing the different kid"? Don't you see that you are implying that descrimination against kids with gay parents is fine, so fine in fact that you couldn't sacrifice it for something like gay adoption?

No, I'm implying that it will most likely happen because that is what 12 year olds do... they pick on their peers for any disfunction about them or their attributes (ex: having two gay parents).

If I were gay and had a significant other and adpoted a kid; I would be pretty scared about what people would think of him because it is a very touchy subject. This also depends on geographics too, I am in the Midwest where it is rare/not very socially accepted still to have inter-racial dating.

[aklight]

Yes, go for it. And if you adopt a boy, name him Sue. Then he'll be one tough cookie. At least if a gay couple wants to adopt you know they in a healthy relationship and plan to stay together. This will make up for all the accidents that are being born.

Some day, I think it won't bother people. Some people drink coke, and some people drink pepsi. Some people can't drink milk. But we don't kill each other over that kind of thing. Hopefully some day, homosexuality will be insignificant like that. It will just be accepted.

However, I totally feel that it should be completely illegal for gay couples (especially men) to have their own children. Adoption is the way to go.

[earwax]

However, I totally feel that it should be completely illegal for gay couples (especially men) to have their own children. Adoption is the way to go.
But we should still defend their right to have children. :cheers:

[attila_the_hunny]

However, I totally feel that it should be completely illegal for gay couples (especially men) to have their own children. Adoption is the way to go.

Are you saying gay men should not have the ability to use surrogate mothers?

[NoahFence]

No, I'm implying that it will most likely happen because that is what 12 year olds do... they pick on their peers for any disfunction about them or their attributes (ex: having two gay parents).

If I were gay and had a significant other and adpoted a kid; I would be pretty scared about what people would think of him because it is a very touchy subject. This also depends on geographics too, I am in the Midwest where it is rare/not very socially accepted still to have inter-racial dating.

By bringing it up in this context you are heavily implying that it would be a reason to prohibit gay adoption. You're basically saying "No, you can't have the same rights as others, because we know for a fact that the people who don't like it will hurt you if we allow it." I don't know how to say it more plainly: It is passive support of descrimination, and is exactly what kept racial segregation alive for so long.

On your inter-racial dating comment...should an interracial couple be allowed to adopt, since their child would face similar negative pressures?

Should people with last names like "Dickliss" and "Nutslapper" be forbidden from adopting? Jesus have mercy on the kids in those families.

My problem here is that you're stretching HARD for reasons that gay adoption would be bad, and failing to consider the implications your rule might have on other groups. It's like as soon as it nullifies gay adoption, you're satisfied.

[Leftfield]

By bringing it up in this context you are heavily implying that it would be a reason to prohibit gay adoption. You're basically saying "No, you can't have the same rights as others, because we know for a fact that the people who don't like it will hurt you if we allow it." I don't know how to say it more plainly: It is passive support of descrimination, and is exactly what kept racial segregation alive for so long.

On your inter-racial dating comment...should an interracial couple be allowed to adopt, since their child would face similar negative pressures?

Should people with last names like "Dickliss" and "Nutslapper" be forbidden from adopting? Jesus have mercy on the kids in those families.

My problem here is that you're stretching HARD for reasons that gay adoption would be bad, and failing to consider the implications your rule might have on other groups. It's like as soon as it nullifies gay adoption, you're satisfied.


OK lets go with this one, it isn't natural within our speices to have a child grown up without a man and a woman as parents.

I don't want to hear stuff about the divorce rate / kids living with single parents. It isn't scientific to allow such an event.

As for inter-racial, wow that is all about political correctness. I think it would be tough on the child but not as much as homosexual parents. Other races can procreate so it is fine with me.

My problems here is that you need to realize that there are close to 300M people in this country (if we are focusing on the United States) and that the Left will agree with you, the Right will disagree and the centrists will split. Given that roughly 50% of America (minimum) has an issue with this right now, is the issue. It's an SJ world dude, start realize you are living it.

[Ivy]

My problems here is that you need to realize that there are close to 300M people in this country (if we are focusing on the United States) and that the Left will agree with you, the Right will disagree and the centrists will split. Given that roughly 50% of America (minimum) has an issue with this right now, is the issue. It's an SJ world dude, start realize you are living it.

A lot of people said that to the civil rights activists in the 50 and 60s, too. Good thing they didn't listen.

[NoahFence]

OK lets go with this one, it isn't natural within our speices to have a child grown up without a man and a woman as parents.

Prove that.

I think you may find that you have no f'ing clue what is "natural" for our species, and instead are simply projecting what is "natural" in our culture. I would have to argue that homosexuality is a natural occurance. We are far from the only species with homosexual tendencies. Hell, it's not even confined to mammals.

And if we're all concerned about the natural state of our species, we should all live with our grandparents, aunts, and cousins in a cave we stole from some sabertooths. There are very good reasons for us to do so, all of them totally "natural".

I love how one part of "natural" can be discarded as "unimportant and silly" and another can be "absolute and imperative", depending of course on which supports your position.

For example if I said it was "Natural" for women to be dominated by men, would you go along with that? Would you want all further legislation based on that premise?


I don't want to hear stuff about the divorce rate / kids living with single parents. It isn't scientific to allow such an event.

Ummm...isn't scientific to allow it...you're saying divorce and unmarried pregnancies should be prohibited, based on science? I have no idea why you even bring this up.


As for inter-racial, wow that is all about political correctness. I think it would be tough on the child but not as much as homosexual parents. Other races can procreate so it is fine with me.

If it is about procreation, what about people with genetic disorders that prevent them from being fertile? They should not be allowed to adopt, because they can't have kids naturally?


My problems here is that you need to realize that there are close to 300M people in this country (if we are focusing on the United States) and that the Left will agree with you, the Right will disagree and the centrists will split. Given that roughly 50% of America (minimum) has an issue with this right now, is the issue. It's an SJ world dude, start realize you are living it.

I simply cannot believe that some shit about "just do what the majority tells you and shut up" came out of an INTP's mouth just now. I am frankly astonished.

You going to tell me you drop any argument that is against the majority opinion simply because "it's an SJ world"? Give me a break.

Are you seriously telling me that if all the SJ's decided it was, after all, tolerable, that you'd suddenly be okay with it and switch sides with them?

I'll just wrap this up with a quote from Ghandi. "Even if I am a minority of 1, the Truth is the Truth."