09-08-01 @ 6:17 pm EDT

I just woke up, and then I provided this mondo-long answer for a question at BF, "Should gays be allowed to adopt children?" Blah, leave it to me to not be able to keep my yap shut on the subject. ^_^; However, I think the asker is a well-known...hm, let's just say conservative on the site, who once called me an "anti-Semite" for daring to question him when he compared gun control to Kristallnacht er something. No idea where he came up with that one. (Oh, he also once asked a very rude question, something like "Do Jews like taking it up the a**?" or something...yuck. ME, anti-Semite??) But anyway, here's my answer, which I liked despite its wordiness and repetitiveness (which are my personal trademarks!), just in case it ends up...MIA. :)

All right. My answer probably won't be a very good one, since it's rather simple. And the answer is...yes.

There appear to be two main arguments against gays adopting children, one of them without, IMO, any validity, the other with some possible validity. I'll address both of those.

The first reason, and usually the main one given, is that gays are "perverts" and will either attempt to "corrupt" the children they adopt, or they will abuse or molest them. Studies repeatedly show this isn't true. Homosexuality cannot be equated with pedophilia; the two are distinctly different. The majority of pedophiles, whether they abuse same- or different-sex children, are considered "straight"/heterosexual. The thing is that, rather than being attracted to adults, they are attracted to children. A child, in most cases, does NOT have the emotional maturity to decide whether they want to engage in sex or not. Thus the act is immoral, as force or deception are often used. The argument may be given that, simply because they are attracted to children, pedophiles are not really "straight." I have no counterargument. However the argument cannot be made that they are gay. Gay is something different altogether.

To be gay, one is attracted to the SAME SEX. NOT to children. The majority of gays do not feel any sexual attraction to children. (There are always exceptions. The same as you will find priests who molest children despite their vows, police who murder despite their duty to protect, etc.) I do not believe most gays are promiscuous, either (although yes, some are, the same as we have promiscuous straight people). I don't know about any studies about the stability of their relationships, though I would assume that they are the same as straight relationships, in many cases; they all have their ups and downs.

My only real "requirements," personally, for someone adopting a child: They can provide for this child, and take good care of it, without putting it in an abusive situation.

Can gays do this?

Yes.

Therefore, I have no problem with them adopting a child, based on this first argument. I do not believe they would be any more likely to abuse the child or try to "corrupt" it. That's not a worry in my mind, and I fail to see how it can be a worry in anyone else's mind, without admitting that they are biased against gays for no logical reason.

(I see you did not clarify whether a SINGLE gay person should be allowed to adopt, or a gay COUPLE. So I won't argue based on that, I'll just let it pass.)

The second main argument against gays adopting children: the stigma the child will receive from others on learning that their "parents" are gay. This argument has more validity than the first, much more. This is the only "problem" I have with the adoption process. A child may have extra undue pressure put on them by others who are not so openminded as their adopters and the ones who allowed the adoption to go through. Though there will be cases in which there is no trouble whatsoever, I assume (again without knowing of any studies) that some of the adopted children of gay parents either have to put up with secrecy (parents hiding their orientation from others) and a not-completely-truthful situation, or else ostracism/bullying from others on finding out. No child, whether they've been adopted by gays, straights, or whatever, should have to put up with this. Childhood is meant for learning and growing, not secrecy and shame.

Based on THIS argument, yes, I see a potential problem with the gay adoption process, one that should be carefully gone over by the potential parents and the agency through which they adopt. Parents should take into account all the factors that will go into the process--how tolerant their community is, what to say in the event others are not so accommodating, etc. It would not be easy for either them or the children.

Should this deter gays from trying to adopt? Or rather, do I think this should deter them?

No. I think it's actually a problem faced by many adoptive parents, whether straight or gay. Should blacks be allowed to adopt a white baby? Should whites adopt a black? These scenarios often present trouble, but they don't seem to be argued about nearly as much as the gay adoption process. Perhaps it's merely a matter of time before it's more accepted and less argued about.

So, my final answer to the question would have to be yes, they should be allowed to adopt. I think the adoption process should be based on the INDIVIDUALS involved, and their skill with caring for children, not their sexual orientation or the color of their skin or whatever. Individuals of all stripes can do the same job effectively, sometimes more effectively than those we would deem "more fit" for the job. Give the children to those who can best care for them.

So...that's my final answer.

(I apologize that this is not proofread. It's a mouthful and I just woke up!!)

DAMN! For not being proofread I think I did pretty well!

Anyway...

Big thunderstorm watch in effect until ten, the next four hours. That's a long watch.

OH YEAH! I did a couple of rough little sketches of Damien's head using a few tips from furry drawing, one in profile and one in three-quarters. HE'S SO CUTE!! **drool** In one he's got kind of a smirk and in the other he just looks confused. "Wazzupwiddat??" *LMAO!!* He's got adorable shoulders too. **DROOL!!** Okay, whoa, back off, girl, the guy's taken. Plus he's a cartoon. ^_^;; I cannot, however, say the same for Kat. Eeewww she did not turn out well at all. <:P Perhaps I'll have to modify my technique for her as well, though I'm not sure how. Hmmmm...how does one make a cat woman look pretty? Perhaps it's just concealed jealousy? :)

Oh yes, another little note. HE said something in a public post about going to an art museum on Wednesday. I can see it now. That's his NEXT excuse for not sending me that "long" letter supposedly sitting in his drafts folder for the past...what, two or three weeks? Uh-huh. Whatever. He even dared to toss out my name in that post. Bleh. Try something new, please, 'cause I'm sick of this already.

Part 35 finished, but not proofread; hope P. can wait till tonight for that. Boring Chapter Number...what, Three? Four? Eesh. I'm driving everyone off. <:)

Well, I think that was it, though don't be surprised if I'm back in here again soon and in a bad mood, too...