I never said that she did that. She puts me above all else and I imagine that if we had children, the children would be first.
I just said that adhering to a political cause that might cause some violence is no just cause for denying someone the right to adopt children. This country’s founders were members of a political cause that resulted in a lot of bloodshed and war and no one would accuse them of being a bad parent just because of that.
But, Ava, I don’t think you or I or Mr Visible or anybody else has the right to adopt children.
Rather, I think the parentless children have the right to be adopted. And we have the privilege of becoming parents to and for them.
(And no, I’m not saying that one should discriminate against any person as a prospective parent on the basis of any particular prejudice one may happen to have – I’m just trying to put the focus on the welfare of the child. I sincerely think and mean that Mr Visible and “Mr VisiPartner” are going to do a darn good job of parenting, at least as good as Barb and I did when we took in three troubled teens – but where the rubber hits the road for me is that one has to keep focus on the welfare of the kid, not on the putative “rights of the prospective parents.”
Is that fair?
I don’t care how right the cause is, people who advocate violence on behalf of a cause should fail their homestudy. People who advocate violence on behalf of a cause ARE ALREADY putting the cause before their children - even if they don’t have children yet.
Poly is right, no one has the RIGHT to adopt children. Rather, there are children in need of homes and everyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, income, etc., has the right to be evaluated as potential parents.
Reminding me of the english anglican priest who adopted a boy with severe learning disabilities.
The priest and his partner of 20 years had known the boy for more than 10 years, as they had given respite care to him when his mother, a single parent, needed a break.
When she could finally cope no longer and placed the boy for adoption, this couple were the obvious choice. Right?
Apparently not to the church. They could accept the priest and his partner living together, but not the adoption. His parishoners apparently were happy with the situation, but no matter.
The priest gave up his licence to carry out services, and AFAIK continues to care for the boy.
If single people can adopt, the “married couple” thing is fudge, as single gay people can still adopt.
If it is better for a child to be with a couple than with a single person, it is better for the child to be adopted by both members of the couple, in order to feel that both are “real” parents, and to make legal, medical and social decisions easier.
Whether they are gay, straight, slightly wavy or thoroughly miserable is irrelevant.
If they are judged to be the sort of people who can produce happy, healthy, well-adjusted kids, i don’t give a damn.
(sidenote… Dangerosa, if they advocate violence for ANY cause?
eg
the war on terror? a war on Iraq? or north korea? supporting an armed rebellion in Burma? advocating military action to deal with Mugabe? donating money to the IRA? being hunt saboteurs?
i’m not disagreeing with you per se, i’m just saying that i think your wording was a little fuzzy. i’m not trying to be rude.)
Advocating, I think yes. Supporting, perhaps not. It is perhaps a fuzzy line.
There are times when violence is appropriate. One should hope they can avoid it and some other means for achieving change will be found. A person with children should really hope that violence will stay far from their homes.
Perhaps the issue is best addressed by a policy in which (almost) all specific, a priori restrictions are repealed on “who can adopt”;
A “best overall interest of the child in his/her actual situation” as the general guideline (supplemented by an admonition to interpret the word “actual” rigorously, not relying upon prejudice toward particular “categories of person”); and
Allowing some reasonable (but not interminable) route of appeal.
Whattaya think, Vis? Poly? Dang?
I’ll have to break the digital camera out and take pictures of the rooms in [my|the] house to show you just what kind of taste Esprix has when it comes to decorating.
Esprix, what are you willing to offer to keep me from posting the pix? 
JOhn.
Works excellently for me, Scott. I’m sorry if any gay posters heard my perspective as against them – I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of any one of them who might choose to seek to adopt, and in four cases whom I know more personally, I would be 100% in support of their request from the word go. But I have seen enough behavior where the welfare of the child takes a distant second place to the gratification of the parent’s personal wishes (mostly from birth parents, by the way) to stress that to the extent I might have any say over a potential adoption, the needs of the child are my own top priority. That in no way justifies using anyone’s personal prejudices against a group of people, gays emphatically included, as grounds for denying them the ability to adopt.
Homosexuals give up the option to reproduce when they choose their
sexual preferance.
I’m gay. I have a son. You are obviously wrong.
Obviously, Homebrew, you didn’t read the fine print when you signed the form indicating your choice of sexual preference. The authorities will be around shortly to confiscate your gonads.
Virgowitch, would you kindly expound more on your comment of 1/21/03? I suspect strongly that I’m going to want to disagree strongly with what you have to say – there are implications in what you did say that I think are quite wrong – but I’d prefer seeing what you meant by it first. Thanks.
virgowitch, I have a sister who is a lesbian. She chose her lifestyle, and later, chose to have a son. She has a son (now 20). Is it your stated opinion that, having chosen to be gay, she should not have been allowed to reproduce?
The only way for a homosexual to reproduce is with a partner of the opposite sex (which would mean heterosexual sex) or in a test tube.
Those are the only ways a heterosexual person can reproduce also. What the hell is your point?
Yes, we understand basic biology. It’s good to know you do, too.
Now what does that have to do with adoption?
Or homosexuality, for that matter?
Oh, wait - your line of reasoning seems to be “homosexuals don’t have sex with the opposite gender, and therefore can’t have children.”
Excuse me while I laugh in your face.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You slay me, girl!
Now I’ll just go ask my several gay friends who, for various reasons (read: societal or familial pressure and expectations) were married or forced themselves to have sex with the “correct” gender, and have one or, in some cases, several children how they managed it.
“Virgowitch: The Fight Against Ignorance… MARCHES ON!”
[sub]Eat Snackysmores![/sub]
Esprix
What happened to Iteki and the English data of the Swedish study on gay adoption?
I’d still like to see it.