I expect that’s all too true. In the many states that still have sodomy laws, they even fight efforts to reduce the penalties - which can range up to 10 years in prison in a lot of those states.
Ah, the spirit of Christian love, compassion, and forgiveness. :rolleyes:
betenoir:
Well, I dare say that abuse and neglect are extraordinary circumstances and are criminal behavior. I think you’d find that even such right-wing stalwarts as, say, Dr. Laura Schlessinger endorse adoption by a gay couple for children who would be being removed from such a situation.
Actually, I’m inclined to think that we do have something of a surplus. I’ve seen plenty of articles about couples…even hetero ones…who so desperately want to adopt a child that they take foreign children from shady operators rather than wait for an American child to be available to them. Doesn’t that imply a surplus?
Well, I certainly don’t have any major complaints, and I think most people would echo such sentiments.
Chaim Mattis Keller
No, not necessarily…it likely means those families do not want to go through the wait required for the adoption of an healthy American (most likely non-black) infant, and/or they do not wish to adopt the special-needs (older, with siblings, of a minority race, physical/mental/emotional problems, etc.) children that are waiting for adoption. We do seem to have a surplus of people who want to quickly adopt a healthy non-minority infant; however, there are about 35,000 children currently waiting for adoption (if the stats I have seen are correct), the majority of whom are considered “special-needs”. As an example, African American foster children have only a little better than one-fourth the chance of being adopted than white foster children. (Research Regarding the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act and Amendments) The number of US adoptions from foreign countries is about 11,000, about 10% of the total number of US adoptions. Since presumably those who adopt children from other countries do not have a predjudice against adopting minority children in general (though they may simply not object to orientals), I would suspect that they choose to adopt from outside the US to speed up the adoption process and/or because they prefer to not adopt the special-needs children available in the US. But overall, I would disagree with your conclusion that we have a surplus of adoptive families for the children who need them. Besides, even if we have so many loving families that they are adopting children from outside the US, that doesn’t mean we have a surplus of good families–just that there is a surplus in the USA. Clearly, there would still be a need for adoptive parents overall.
[Edited by Gaudere on 02-02-2001 at 10:36 AM]
True enough, but this makes it a sort of “holier than thou” clause. Society teaches us that some sexual mores are bad, or, at the very least, outside the norm - not only same-sex sex, but things like S&M, fetishes, hell, even being adventurous (Dr. Ruth’s attempts to change society’s views notwithstanding). So there are a fair number of people who secretly enjoy these things, but since society is telling them they’re bad, they feel guilty. How much better they feel, then, when someone who is proud and open about their “bad” sexual mores is around, because then they can self-righteously point a finger at them and say, “Them bad, me good! Whew! Boy, that felt good! What a relief!”
Methinks the heterosexuals doth protest too much.
Esprix
You’re my new best friend. 
Esprix
You will not hear me protest a thing. Being a woman I consider myself extremely lucky to have been born late enough to enjoy the “sexual revolution”. Free to be as prudish or not as I choose. Without having to suffer the consequences of unwanted pregnancies or being held physically, emotionally, and financially in bondage under the pretext of “marriage”.
Needs2know
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Esprix *
**
I’m Esprix’s new best friend :).
It implies a surplus of something, but we haven’t quantified just what that is. I don’t have a link, but last fall, the Washington Post Magazine (one of the paper’s Sunday supplements), published a story paralleling one American couple’s efforts to adopt a baby, and a teen couple’s decision to carry a baby to term and raise it on their own. A substantial part of their choice to not give the baby up for adoption was a very inflated view of their economic prospects - he was out of high school, unemployed, few skills, and she was still in high school.
For reasons that are unclear to me, giving up a child for adoption is regarded very negatively in America by teen mothers and fathers who, on the whole, are harming their chances of ever being able to provide for children by keeping a child at a point when they are as yet unable to do so.