Ban adoption by ... Republicans?

[Driver 8]

The Republican party in Ohio is trying to ban adoption in homes where the prospective parent or their roommate is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. One lawmaker has responded by proposing a bill to ... ban adoption by Republicans. (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13950130.htm)

He says that children raised by Republicans are at risk of "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''

Admittedly, he says, he has no scientific evidence for this - but neither do the opponents of GLBT people adopting.

P.S. If you're an Ohio Republican and you want to flame me, fine, but would you at least write a letter to your representatives first and say "I'm an Ohio Republican, and would you quit grandstanding about gay parents and work on something worthwhile instead?"

[rumple4skin]

Driver,
I do not see anything you have done or said that would warrant a flame. All you did was report what was going on in the “news”. I think there is as much merit to ban republicans from adopting as there is to ban GLBTs from adopting. For those who missed the subtle sarcasm there is no merit in either case. I am sure the there are some self-righteous folk who will get there feathers all a flutter over this. Me I just shake my head in sadness over the narrow mindedness of some folk who view things as “they are different therefore we must be right and they must be wrong”. I can understand why some politicians would be threatened by the idea of a child being raised in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding. Politicians feed on fear and if you have too many people running around being tolerant and understanding of things that are different but pose no real threat what will the world come to? :bigrin:
Someone told me the term politics comes from Greek – poly meaning many and tics – as in blood sucking parasites. I have not checked the authenticity of this claim, but if the republicans do not have to do any fact checking before they put forth a bill why should I before I put forth the origin of a word. Well that is just my :2cents: – thanks for the post driver.

[anne27]

I was an Ohio Republican once upon a time. Then I grew up and grew a brain.

[Driver 8]

:bigrin: If I recall correctly politics comes from the Greek "ta politika," or "affairs of state," which is derived (via a couple of intermediate steps) from "polis," or "city."

I much prefer your joke - but I also wanted to spare JohnnyV from having to look up even more Greek than he usually does ;)

[rumple4skin]

lol - I am glad you liked the joke :) I had not thought of making more work for JohnnyV and thank you for the true origin of the word. Sorry if I sent you on a pointless research mission JohnnyV :)

[Driver 8]

Sorry if i sent you on a pointless research mission JohnnyV
Hey, on the bright side, classical etymology is kind of what I'm concentrating on in school at the moment.

*looks around to see if Indiana Republicans will ban etymology by GLBT people too*

[meteast chick]

Driver,

If I may be so bold, I think you are an inexplicable beauty with incredible intelligence. All of your posts and threads are extraordinarily knowledgeable and I continually look forward to what you say next. You continue to amaze me by the simple fact that you come complete with a sense of humor.

In response to your post, I think rumple said most of what I would have, but how can people be so closed minded? I sort of understand on a religious level why politicians and society at large are hesitant to let homosexuals use the term "marriage", but confounded why at the very minimun, civil unions are a problem. Now, the issue of adoption; so many unloved, unwanted, mistreated children in the world, and a person's sexuality is scrutinized before a GLBT can adopt, but (and I mean no offense to anyone) hillbilly rednecked hicks are poppin' them out for state aid, and that's okay. I will never understand all of it, and I don't expect to.

kisses to all xoxoxo
meteast

[JohnnyV]

Hey, on the bright side, classical etymology is kind of what I'm concentrating on in school at the moment.

*looks around to see if Indiana Republicans will ban etymology by GLBT people too*


Hehehe! I am glad that my love of Greek is spreading! Driver 8 had the right etymology. Now I'm wondering what the heck Driver 8 is in grad school for.... You have me curious!

I just had dinner with a fellow scholar of Greek literature this evening, come to think of it. He's gay, I'm bi, and we go out every week after we do our regular joint reading session. We spoke at length about a lot of the issues that are so hot on this listserv these days. And interestingly enough, this week we read through Plato's Crito, and parts of Thucydides' histories.

Now, the only reason why I bring up old Greek texts in the context of a debate about Ohio, other than the fact that (as you point out) I love translating Greek more than a blow job, is that the very nature of "politics" as that which relates to the social nature of a "city" actually can tell us quite a bit about the idea of adoption and same sex parenting.

In the ancient polis, both males and females were inducted into their adult roles of society through a kind of education that bears little resemblance to the Ohio politicians' model of a nuclear family. Boys and girls were basically raised indistinguishably in the female domestic realm until boys reached a certain age, at which point they were gradually inducted into their phratre, phylum, deme, and then the whole city-state. Once boys left their mothers' world, they lived in an all-male world.

So in Athens at least, and probably Sparta, male children were raised, first, in a family setting resembling a lesbian household, and then later, in a family setting that resembled today's version of a gay neighborhood (maybe South Beach or Chelsea!) Males learned about sex when they were courted by older males who taught them how their sensual side worked. Males also became "citizens" or politai of the city and could vote, only after having passed through these two homosexual (literally) environments.

So, "politically" speaking, yes, the entire concept of "politics" has roots in a world of gay adoptions!

Hooray!!!!!

Love,
J

PS. Yes, I love translating Greek better than a blowjob.

[Bicuriousity]

Politics in general suck and both parties blow in my opinion. Although if they blew we might like it.

However don't you kind of think there is a problem in general with adoption rules in this country.

I mean have you noticed how many people go overseas to adopt nowadays (tell me why the hell it's easier to adopt a child from China than here....)

And it's the truth, I don't know about you but I have coworkers who have adopted from overseas and there are countless other examples...

[PeterH]

LOL, that was soooo funny, Driver!!!!

If they have no scientific arguments, here they come:
People who are GLBT are known to have more psychological problems. Social acceptance has a huge impact on psychological problems. Republicans are known to be unaccepting of people who are GLBT. Each child has a significant chance to be GLBT. Putting such a child in a home where it might be rejected and raised in such a way that it will suffer from this kind of trauma, is totally irresponsible.

Just my :2cents:, Peter

[rupertbare]

Well here's my :2cents: !!

Here in the (liberal, huh!!) UK it has just been made possible for LGBT to adopt, as has "Civil Partnership" - marriage by another name that confers all the rights of marriage on a same-sex couple.

But adoption is still made very difficult for any couple seeking to do so - in the UK many couples are also going "abroad" to find babies/children - often Africa or the Far East.

All those couples, all those children, all that bloomin' bureaucracy stopping it!!
Utter and frustrating madness!

Politness, of course, also has its roots in "polis" - manners of the city - maybe our politicians need a few lessons in that!!

Love and Peace from London, UK

Rupe :)

[2ferinindy]

Hey, on the bright side, classical etymology is kind of what I'm concentrating on in school at the moment.

*looks around to see if Indiana Republicans will ban etymology by GLBT people too*

Now damnit, technically i think i identify as republican, but i still thought the joke was funny and i promise I haven't tried to get anything banned lately! :tongue:

[JohnnyV]

And it's the truth, I don't know about you but I have coworkers who have adopted from overseas and there are countless other examples...

Yeah, it's the international trade in infants that I have to say, honestly, worries me. It's one thing if a few straight couples find out they are infertile and then try to help an orphan in another country. But it is another thing if millions of gay and lesbian couples enter into relationships knowing, from the very beginning, that they are going to buy a baby from a Third World country. That is simply too systematic and huge, and it fuels a black market of babies that ultimately becomes harmful to Third World women who become harvested.

The solution, at least in the US, has been discussed on gay.com (you can find the thread if you browse through the news headlines.) I think the solution is to allow gays and lesbians to adopt through the foster care program. There are many children, aged 4-12 or so, who are floating from house to house in foster care and need a home. They are mostly minorities and already too old to be cutesy little "babies" so lots of adoptive couples aren't interested. It would be much better if those foster cases could connect with all these gay and lesbian couples.

The problem I see is that gays and lesbians are trying too hard to mimic perfectly the biological process through which a man and woman conceive a child and raise it from birth to adulthood. Biologically gays and lesbians are in a different situation, so I think that socially their vision of childrearing should also be different.

Love,
J :2cents:

[JohnnyV]

Well here's my :2cents: !!

Here in the (liberal, huh!!) UK it has just been made possible for LGBT to adopt, as has "Civil Partnership" - marriage by another name that confers all the rights of marriage on a same-sex couple.
All those couples, all those children, all that bloomin' bureaucracy stopping it!!
Utter and frustrating madness!

Congratulations on UK's progress. It's depressing that this side of the Atlantic is stuck in the medieval era.

The bloomin' bureaucracy, though, is necessary to stop baby trafficking from becoming an ugly black market, and I wouldn't want gay and lesbian couples to become complicit with such a system. My post above gets at that a little.

Luv,
J

[jo69guy]

I think it sucks that Ohio is trying to ban adoption by gay/bi/trans. parents. Who cares if the parents are gay? That DOES NOT MEAN the children will be. Hell, even if both biological parents are gay/bi, it still will not make the child gay.

I really get sick of the short sightedness in this country/world, and especially get mad at politicians who try to persecute us. :2cents:

(stepping off my soap box now)

:bipride: :bipride: :bipride: :bipride: :bipride: :bipride: :bipride: :bipride:

[searchingbrian]

This is a GREAT idea!!! Maybe we should ban adoption by ANY party if you are determined to be bigotted, biased on any count (ie., racial, sexual, etc.) I like that idea!!






The Republican party in Ohio is trying to ban adoption in homes where the prospective parent or their roommate is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. One lawmaker has responded by proposing a bill to ... ban adoption by Republicans. (http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13950130.htm)

He says that children raised by Republicans are at risk of "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''

Admittedly, he says, he has no scientific evidence for this - but neither do the opponents of GLBT people adopting.

P.S. If you're an Ohio Republican and you want to flame me, fine, but would you at least write a letter to your representatives first and say "I'm an Ohio Republican, and would you quit grandstanding about gay parents and work on something worthwhile instead?"

[Driver 8]

I think the solution is to allow gays and lesbians to adopt through the foster care program. There are many children, aged 4-12 or so, who are floating from house to house in foster care and need a home.
Dan Savage's book The Kid (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281768/sr=8-9/qid=1141162466/ref=sr_1_9/002-8600641-7332822?%5Fencoding=UTF8) tells how he and his boyfriend adopted a child via open adoption. The birth mothers pick the parents they want, and are guaranteed at least some degree of contact with the children later in life.

It's another alternative to overseas baby trafficking; while I agree that kids in foster care need homes, there are probably some couples who could be good parents to a newborn, but wouldn't be equipped to deal with the additional issues a foster child might have.

[JohnnyV]

The birth mothers pick the parents they want, and are guaranteed at least some degree of contact with the children later in life.


I'm not entirely satisfied with "some degree of contact," though I wouldn't want to press the issue too far because I think gays have a right to fight for adoption rights. The problem is that to satisfy the demand for so many gay couples, it always risks turning into an industry. Generally I am opposed to paying a woman to give birth for another couple, if she is signing away the right to change her mind about custody, etc. I think that gays males need to make peace with the biology involved, and adapt to the nature of the foster care system or, at least, understand that their "adoptions" may not take the form of a nuclear household headed by a couple with exclusive rights over the child from birth to adulthood. If birth did not require a womb, the ethics would be clearer. Since a womb is required and two males can't get around that requirement, I fear that there's no way to ensure an adoption system without imperiling the human rights of the women who are going to bear the child.

Just my two cents.

Love,
J :2cents:

[JohnnyV]

Dan Savage's book The Kid (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281768/sr=8-9/qid=1141162466/ref=sr_1_9/002-8600641-7332822?%5Fencoding=UTF8) tells how he and his boyfriend adopted a child via open adoption..

Oh and also, I think Dan Savage is awful. His bigoted militancy is completely misplaced and his aggressive stances aren't well thought out at all. He also seems extremely hostile to everything that bisexuality represents, at least from what I have read. The thought of him raising a child is as frightening as a KKK member doing so.

Love,
J

[Driver 8]

Oh and also, I think Dan Savage is awful. [...] He also seems extremely hostile to everything that bisexuality represents, at least from what I have read.
I can't imagine how I forgot to add "Dan Savage has his head up his ass with regard to bisexuals," which is my usual disclaimer when he says something interesting, and if you had not followed up I would probably have edited my original post.

Dan Savage posts a biphobic rant about once a year for, as far as I can tell, the sole purpose of whipping up bisexuals to write him angry letters so he can act like a victim. In the paper that he edits, they've run pictures of weasels next to his articles on bisexuals. He also gave big play to that bis-don't-exist study without a word about the problems with it. Bah.

That said, I think The Kid is quite the informative book about open adoption.

[Driver 8]

I'm not entirely satisfied with "some degree of contact" [between a birth mother and her child]
I'm guessing that your dissatisfaction is with the idea of cutting the birth mother off, rather than dissatisfaction with her being allowed any contact at all ... right?

My understanding is that in Oregon, the agencies that place children for open adoption negotiate a contract between the birth mother (and father if he's involved) and the adoptive parents that spells out the minimum amount of contract the birth mother (and father, etc.) is entitled to. That's a minimum, and the adoptive parents aren't allowed to refuse that number of visits. Since the birth mother also chooses the adoptive parents, she can ensure that the child isn't placed with a family that won't allow her a lower level of contact than she wants.

[JohnnyV]

I'm guessing that your dissatisfaction is with the idea of cutting the birth mother off, rather than dissatisfaction with her being allowed any contact at all ... right?

I'm worried about the birth mother's standing in all of it. Having been through 7 months of my wife's pregnancy, I see how much a woman goes through when she carries a child. What looks like a benevolent system -- the open adoption system -- probably is benevolent on a small scale. But when it becomes a deliberate industry responding to a clear "demand" scale with an endless potential to increase (namely, because gay men will never have wombs), then I have problems with it.

What are these women thinking when they sign the contract? They may be in dire straits and need the money, then they may find, halfway through the pregnancy, that they have sacrificed too much to give up the baby, even if they get a "minimum" of contact.

Will the system eventually turn into a recruitment apparatus, where gay couples actively "look" for women desperate enough to rent out their womb for pay? A whole system of agencies and bio-realtors could effectively mushroom, cushioning the gay adoptive parents from the gritty process that might involve exploitation, to feed the supply of babies.

My solution is basically to shift the mindset of the gay couples. Rather than telling them that they aren't really parents if they don't raise an infant to adulthood, they can propose new kinship systems that look more like healthy extended families, of the sort that villages fostered for many millennia. By getting away from the nuclear model, they can help our whole culture rethink parenting to make it healthier. Basically this would happen if they turn more toward a foster care system, and attend to the population of children who are already older and need to be looked after, but aren't the adorable, blank-slate, rosy-faced babies who came from the hospital.

This means philosophizing about familial love. Can't it be rewarding to give love to a child, even if the biological parent may come at some point and take the child back? The system should be setting "minimum contact," I think, for the gay couple and not the birth mother. After all, every parent has to deal with the eventuality that a child will become independent and no longer be subject to his/her rules. Gay men may simply have to wrestle with that earlier, and more profoundly.

At any rate, I think the future will hold many interesting developments in family life, and gay parenting will be a key component in changing it. I just think that gay male couples need to think outside the box, not get stuck in a box that is biologically at odds with their reality.

Love,
J

PS. Kudos on your Dan Savage point. I hate him. (I mean, I HATE him.)

[Diddybidaddy]

Congratulations on UK's progress. It's depressing that this side of the Atlantic is stuck in the medieval era.

The bloomin' bureaucracy, though, is necessary to stop baby trafficking from becoming an ugly black market, and I wouldn't want gay and lesbian couples to become complicit with such a system. My post above gets at that a little.

Luv,
J
Speak for yourself Johnny. "this side of the Atlantic" as you call it, also includes Canada and WE DO have gay adoptions -- all the time, as well as gay marriage. Don't be so quick, my friend, to lump all of Canada in with America. I regret to say that many, many Canadians, in fact perhaps, maybe all, are not at all in agreement with what happens south of our border. Many of us in Canada are much more diplomatic in our outlook and approach to both life and foreign policy and strongly disagree with what we see in the United States. Moreover I would ask any Canadian to voice his or her opinion, should they disagree with my sentiment.

[Diddybidaddy]

I'm not entirely satisfied with "some degree of contact," though I wouldn't want to press the issue too far because I think gays have a right to fight for adoption rights. The problem is that to satisfy the demand for so many gay couples, it always risks turning into an industry. Generally I am opposed to paying a woman to give birth for another couple, if she is signing away the right to change her mind about custody, etc. I think that gays males need to make peace with the biology involved, and adapt to the nature of the foster care system or, at least, understand that their "adoptions" may not take the form of a nuclear household headed by a couple with exclusive rights over the child from birth to adulthood. If birth did not require a womb, the ethics would be clearer. Since a womb is required and two males can't get around that requirement, I fear that there's no way to ensure an adoption system without imperiling the human rights of the women who are going to bear the child.

Just my two cents.

Love,
J :2cents:
Johnny: if you carefully examine your posting, you may see a certain degree of homophobia. Your quote that "gay males need to make peace with the biology involved" is a bit dodgy. Look at your statement again and maybe you will see what I mean. Examine your argument.

[Diddybidaddy]

I can't imagine how I forgot to add "Dan Savage has his head up his ass with regard to bisexuals," which is my usual disclaimer when he says something interesting, and if you had not followed up I would probably have edited my original post.

Dan Savage posts a biphobic rant about once a year for, as far as I can tell, the sole purpose of whipping up bisexuals to write him angry letters so he can act like a victim. In the paper that he edits, they've run pictures of weasels next to his articles on bisexuals. He also gave big play to that bis-don't-exist study without a word about the problems with it. Bah.

That said, I think The Kid is quite the informative book about open adoption.
Driver: While I agree with you that Dan Savage can be a bit of a dork sometimes, one must also bear in mind that he is just a columnist. He is also not a therapist, nor a politician. He is also human. And so can say some dumb things. So do you think it may be possible that he may be a bi-phobe, simply because he, as a strictly gay man, has seen other, perhaps "flamers", or gay-bi men access the heterosexual priviliege granted to str8 men and been angered? And then turned that anger on men who also liked cock, but claimed heterosexual privilege, even though they were bi? Ask yourself this: say you're a really light-skinned black man, who could pass for white. How might you feel if some racist white man made nigger jokes? How might a black man, who knew your racial heritage, react to you, knowing you could pass for white and who heard you in conversation with the racist white man who told you the joke? That black man might just be pretty fucking peeved. Now THAT might be the mind set of Dan Savage. D'ya think?

[PeterH]

Here's a reply to Johnny,

Johnny, you raise some good points and I agree with the problems you mention, but not with the solution.
I agree with your concerns about the adoption trade, and that's a problem. But it's not a problem caused by gays and lesbians. it's a problem caused by the commercialisation of adoption.
I also agree with you that gays and lesbians could play a bigger role in foster care. If the couples want that too, that's great. Since it seems that many gay and lesbian children grow up in broken homes, reversely it would seem realistic that many foster children are actually gay or lesbian. That would make gay and lesbian couples excellent foster parents.
What I don't agree with is your saying that, since two people of the same sex can't have children together biologically, it means that they shouldn't. Even if you can't have children together biologically, that doesn't stop you from wanting one. It's not the plumbing that makes people want a baby. And I think the wanting is so essential. If a child is wanted, it will be loved as well. And to be loved is the most essential thing a child needs from its parents.
I think to deny certain people the right to have children is something that causes a lot of pain to a lot of people. As a solution, I've heard of several options, one of them being that a gay and a lesbian couple (4 people) decide to have children together. I don't know how well that works, but it's an option and it happens.

[Driver 8]

Driver: While I agree with you that Dan Savage can be a bit of a dork sometimes, one must also bear in mind that he is just a columnist. He is also not a therapist, nor a politician. He is also human.
Yes, we're all human. But Savage is also very widely-read and very influential, and he's shown some willingness to change his mind on some issues - but not bi issues.

And Savage is also a journalist - he edits the big alternative paper (http://www.thestranger.com) in Seattle, and has for years. When he endorsed the Bailey study in his syndicated column, that was irresponsible journalism, and I think it's completely reasonable to point it out.


Ask yourself this: say you're a really light-skinned black man, who could pass for white. How might you feel if some racist white man made nigger jokes? How might a black man, who knew your racial heritage, react to you, knowing you could pass for white and who heard you in conversation with the racist white man who told you the joke? That black man might just be pretty fucking peeved. Now THAT might be the mind set of Dan Savage. D'ya think?
First off, if you're saying that me disliking Dan Savage for his biphobic history is somehow comparable to me being tolerant of racist remarks, I think that's insulting and unfair. If that's not what you're saying, I hope you'll re-read what you've written here, and clarify it.

And I don't think this is comparable to what Savage does. Savage presents his column as useful advice about sex, based not only on his ideological positions (i.e., "do what you want as long as no one gets hurt") but also on current science. He regularly admits that he's out of his area and goes to, and quotes, experts in other fields (women sexologists for women's issues, BDSM writers for BDSM) but he doesn't do the same for bisexuals.

In the Savage columns about bisexuality that straight people in-fucking-cessantly forward me, he isn't talking about people who have privileges that are denied him. He isn't talking about bis responsibility to support larger issues. He's denying bisexuals exist, he's denying they're capable of monogamous relationships. How on earth could that a justifiable reaction to a gay man's experience of discrimination in this culture? Am I expected to say "Trash me all you want if it makes you feel better. You had a hard life"?

Here are some Savage quotes from the first page Google turned up:

"The sad fact is that male bisexuality is rare, much more so than female bisexuality."

"Even if the bi guy you're dating is single, you're still just his piece on the side."

This doesn't look like a response to straight privilege to me. It's just garden-variety biphobia.

[JohnnyV]

Hey all,

Gees, this convo is so interesting, I've already broken my vow to cloister myself and write. Oh, the sins of a wireless router!

My replies to folks below:

Daddybidaddy: I apologize for overlooking Canada, esp. since I live right next to Canada. But didn't you guys just elect a homophobic conservative leader? About the question of biology, I may have stated it less than perfectly diplomatically. I don't mean to disparage gays but to protect the human rights of women, since women will be the ones burdened with bearing the children for these couples.

Peter: Yes, the solutions are difficult to engineer, and I can't claim that I've come up with anything suitable yet. I just don't think that it's realistic to guarantee every gay male couple a newborn. To do so is to endanger the rights of females whose wombs could turn into incubators. I think of the Handmaid's Tale. The instinct you talk about, to love a child, is unfortunately so powerful that any woman who carries a baby will go through tremendous anxiety and loss if she is forced to give it up after birthing it, and I don't think financial compensation can offset it. I don't doubt that gay parents will love their adoptive children, but the problem is, what do they do with the biological mother? Conveniently get her out of the picture? That's a solution to homophobia but a victory for sexism.

Driver8: I am with you on the Dan Savage column. I don't think we should let other people's suffering turn into a justification for harassment, which is what Dan does to bisexuals. And ultimately, Dan Savage never knows what he's talking about; as Daddybidaddy says, he is not a specialist, he's just some asshole with a laptop and a lot of ranting impressions about things he doesn't understand. My fave quote from his NYTimes editorial "don't let your sons grow up to be ex-gay cowboys": "men cannot become straight," and "any marriage involving a gay male is one web history browser check away from an ugly divorce" and the mark of an ex-gay: "an expired gym membership." He lives on sarcasm and put-downs, then he expects people to sympathize with gay marriage and gay adoption. Yikes.

Okay, now this time I'm REALLY going to force myself to shut up and start writing.

:soapbox: :soapbox:

Love to all and have a beautiful spring!

J

[Driver 8]

Open adoption doesn't seem, to me, likely to lead to the kinds of abuses JohnyV cites with third-world countries, where the economic disparity between Americans and locals is so great.

As I understand it, in open adoption, birth mothers can be compensated for things like housing and medical care, if need be - but they're not given a cash payment. It's different from surrogacy, in which the woman arranges to become pregnant; rather, women who are pregnant and for whatever reason do not plan to raise the children contact the adoption agency to place the children.

Furthermore, birth mothers can change their minds after the birth; I don't know how long they have to make a decision, though, or what the financial consequences are. (The only state that I know for certain has open adoption is Oregon, and laws concerning such things vary quite a bit from state to state.)

As for same-sex parents and alternative family structures ... I think there's already quite a bit of that; lesbian women who recruit gay friends to be male role models for their own biological children, for example, and lesbians who ask gay friends to be the biological fathers or their children and be involved in parenting. (I realize my examples are kind of FF centered, but that's what I've seen more of; I won't pretend it's representative.)

[PeterH]

Peter: Yes, the solutions are difficult to engineer, and I can't claim that I've come up with anything suitable yet. I just don't think that it's realistic to guarantee every gay male couple a newborn. To do so is to endanger the rights of females whose wombs could turn into incubators. I think of the Handmaid's Tale. The instinct you talk about, to love a child, is unfortunately so powerful that any woman who carries a baby will go through tremendous anxiety and loss if she is forced to give it up after birthing it, and I don't think financial compensation can offset it. I don't doubt that gay parents will love their adoptive children, but the problem is, what do they do with the biological mother? Conveniently get her out of the picture? That's a solution to homophobia but a victory for sexism.

Johnny, I am aware of your concerns over the different options and agree it would be totally irresponsible to take a child away from a mother who doesn't want to give it up. And moving the biological mother out of the picture is never the solution, I'd say, as each child will want to know who it's mother is.
However, I feel that you are painting a much blacker picture than is actually there. Also, the maternal instinct is not necessarily as strong in each woman (I had a girlfriend who definitely didn't want children, and there are more women like her). What you are also ignoring is that men can have a very great desire to have a child. Your arguments are totally focussed on women, ignoring men. We don't want a society that is sexist towards women, but also not one that is sexist towards men.
I think overall your fears are too great. As Driver says, several solutions are already being implemented oin practise. We can look at the examples that work and don't work and choose the good ones. By doing that, and thinking about hings properly in advance, all the problems you raise can be taken care of practically with rules that guarantee a biological mother's rights.
Having discussed this all theoretically, I get the impression that committed, responsible adults will find some practical solutions for themselves as well. However, a few laws that ensure that things are done properly can be quite handy when worst comes to worst.

[JohnnyV]

Peter and Driver,

Yes, I may have been overly sensitive to possible abuses that are still more hypothetical results, not imminent ones. I guess my fear is simply of capitalism. Once there is a demand of adoptive couples and a shortage of mothers with coinciding circumstances that would motivate them to go along with the arrangement, then the problem becomes supply-side. I think inevitably there will be pressure to recruit surrogate mothers, rather than simply to recruit adoptive gay households (recruiting the adopters makes sense to me, of course.)

What I am talking about is gay male couples, not lesbians who have wombs and can easily become inseminated. I don't think that sperm and eggs by themselves are particularly emotional issues, but the experience of pregnancy is extreme, and my foremost sympathies are with the mothers who have to endure those bodily changes. The desire of males to have children is a consideration but secondary to my concern for the women who would have to lose something that takes such a toll on them.

Peter, I guess the search will continue for an acceptable answer. For the time being, a few solutions that we've come up with seem to be suitable:

1) when there are mothers whose circumstances prompt them to volunteer their babies, then it is fitting to match them with an interested adoptive home, irrespective of sexuality.

2) if there is a lesbian couple that wants to adopt, they can easily find a sperm donor or get pregnant by someone they know, without an issue.

3) if there is a gay male couple that can't find a #1 scenario, they can try to coordinate a joint pregnancy with a lesbian couple, akin to what Peter said in an earlier post.

4) if a gay male couple cannot find #1 or #3, then I think they can look into the foster care system, where there will always be an excess of children needing care and an undersupply of homes.

5) at no point should a woman be pressured or lured into renting her womb, and then be bound to a contract forbidding her from keeping her baby after she has given birth to it.

6) as a society, we should do our best to move us away from the emphasis on nuclear families.

Love,
J

[PeterH]

Excellent summary, Johnny! I'm glad we can agree.
Love, P

[wanderingrichard]

geesh, how childishly anal! at least someone stood up and slung mud back at them! :2cents: