November 6, 2002

12:59 AM

Today I found out I'm going to have a family... First the UK's age of consent is equalised for gayers, and now they're letting unmarried couples adopt?! Is this the end of the repugnant "traditional family values" in the House of Lords? (in your FACE, Lady O'Cathain!)
posted by creeky (43 comments total)

Personally speaking, I think gays and lesbians should have priority when it comes to adoption. I mean, How else are they supposed to have children!?

Seriously, I would hope that any compassionate, sane system would prioritize on loving "parents" and a stable home environment, rather than some preconceived morality bias.
posted by salmacis at 1:05 AM on November 6, 2002

"gayers" ?
posted by Spoon at 1:23 AM on November 6, 2002

I'm really knackered from staying up all night trying to sort out my blog [ok, I'm an amateur, so what's new?], but this is the text of a letter I wrote to Gay Times editor 2 days ago:

Re: Gay Adoption.

"Some of the most damaged and needy individuals in the country", according to Theresa May, Tory Party Chairman, should be considered first in this matter. No, she wasn't referring to her colleagues at Westminster, nor about the gay community. She was talking about the young people that are apparently queueing up to be adopted, by lesbian & gay couples, and unmarried mums & dads. This phenomenon was previously unheard of, but is now scaring the pants off politicians of many different stripes.
The provision for opening adoption to the above-named groups, as a solution to the desperate lack of families available for children in care to be either fostered or adopted, wasn't originally going to be in the bill as
debated today: it seems that the clauses were inserted by New Labour as 'an elephant trap' into which the (newly UNnasty) Tory Party blindly fell.

Let me enlighten you, gentle reader: as a gay man and as a father, as someone who has worked as a carer/social worker in children's homes and lives in a, shall we say, lively neighbourhood, 'the kids' described by Theresa May are not queueing up to be adopted or fostered by queer folk. There is no shortage of would-be parents for neglected infants in care: these are not the children we will be offered.

There is, however, a shortage of fosterers /adopters for high-needs children, such as multiple learning or physical disabilities; also available are those in categories such as extreme behavioural difficulty, and in the teen years, the peripheral /persistent offenders.
These latter groups are the largest, and also they contain the kids most likely to be out of school, possessing fewer social skills and lower self-esteem than even the average 'Kevin the Teenager'. Unlike Harry Enfield's creation, though, these kids were not born to competent and loving families: clearly, if they were, they wouldn't be "looked after" (by a very slimmed-down state sector: you wouldn't believe how badly neglected, how
convincing the evidence of abuse, or how at-risk these kids may previously have been. If there's no placement, there's no placement.) Maybe 'the kid' was hurt as an infant, and has spent 10-12 years in fostering already, but the 'acting out' common in adolescence has led to a family breakdown. More than likely, case information is skimpy and incomplete.

Believe it or not, many of these young people do not wish to be cared for outside of an institution, but of those who do, how many do you suppose are comfortable with homosexuality, or even just able to respect homosexual adults, and their choices? In my experience: of the boys - zero; of the girls - next to zero. Those hurt kids won't think rationally: that's not the stage they're at. Indeed, the virulent homophobia often found in the
teenage British male (come on, some of you were too, before your inner gay boy flowered) is almost seen as a natural state of affairs: when the spitting in the face starts, or the assaults on your person, or the incessant verbal abuse and innuendo, or the threats to concoct fictitious abusive events, or the trashing of your dining room, or the ganging up with others in the area to attack your vehicle.... don't expect the Social Services Department to tackle the situation. You took responsibility when
you signed those adoption papers: the fact that social workers did not disclose everything before then is deemed irrelevant.

As a current employee, I cannot describe in full detail the incidents I experienced: I can say that I have had some considerable time on stress-related sick leave , when the kids I worked for found out I was gay at a time, and in a manner, not of my choosing. If the (lack of) support I experienced is the norm, I would pray for those homosexual individuals and couples who do adopt: except I belong to another derided group as well - the irreligious.
Think very carefully about this opportunity we as a community may be offered once the politicians finish kicking it about, once more subliminally linking "gays", "children" and "child abuse".

For those of you who (horrors!) have unfulfilled parental drives, my final two thoughts:
1. Be very careful what you wish for (it might come true!)
2. It may be better in the long run to find other ways to start your family (the old familiar Turkey baster? or holding your nose, and lying back to think of England?). After all, at least then, you have the full service history...

- Aware Parent.

I'll probably come back to this later: I just want gay folk with the wish to parent kids - from the most compassionate of motives - to have their eyes open as they go into what could easily be an adventure, or a disaster. Equal Rights in this case may be a poisoned chalice.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:27 AM on November 6, 2002

"The last thing they need is to be used as trophies in a gay rights crusade."

Because obviously, er... 'gayers' wouldn't want kids for the same reason that hetros want them - [whispered] "...they're different, you know...."
posted by meech at 1:30 AM on November 6, 2002

"Gayers" - someone's been reading too much popbitch
posted by brettski at 1:42 AM on November 6, 2002

While dash_slot raises some worrying points in his thoughtful letter I can’t help but agree with Salmacis’ perspective that the criteria for couples looking to adopt should be based on merit and not arbitrary moral criteria from a bygone age.

That said, what a dire post! Hectoring and polemical – yuck. IMHO, the front page is not the place to make fourth form rhetorical points.
posted by dmt at 3:00 AM on November 6, 2002

Sorry to get all Bit-centric on yawl, but can we just take time to consider how far we've come in the last few years.

Sure, "new" Labour may be Tory-lite in some respects *cough* Jack Straw *cough* but sheeeit guys and gals, gay adoption (and soon to be followed by gay marriages), decrimilisation of the weed, how cool is this?

w/y/h

Hang in there you disheartened US lefties, it can get better.


(I see your popbitch and raise you a b3ta
posted by fullerine at 3:10 AM on November 6, 2002

I'd hardly call gay adoption and anything else involving the livelihood of children 'cool'.
posted by Frasermoo at 3:59 AM on November 6, 2002

I'd hardly call gay adoption and anything else involving the livelihood of children 'cool'.

Nor I.

But I do think that a thorough evaluation of newsy pet-issue posts deserve a little spotlight in MetaTalk.
posted by hama7 at 4:14 AM on November 6, 2002

Livelihood? Are we talking child labour?
posted by Summer at 5:56 AM on November 6, 2002

I do think that a thorough evaluation of newsy pet-issue posts deserve a little spotlight in MetaTalk.

Well, that's because you're a fully-retractable fool-tool, hama7. And as has been noted in MetaTalk, you appear to be the only apopleptic homophobe in the room.
posted by riviera at 6:05 AM on November 6, 2002

Giving kids to gays?... and lesbians??

They'll be giving them to coloureds and handicapts next.
posted by ed\26h at 6:17 AM on November 6, 2002

If you replaced the carbon in a tree with a similar element (say, silicon), do you still have a tree? Would it be alive? Would it continue to grow, make forests, filter the air, and provide materials for construction projects?

If you replaced the family in a society with a similiar group (say, gay adopting parents - or, heck, go why limit it at two - go whole hog and say parenting collectives), do you still have a society? Will it be alive? Will it continue to grow, make civilization, be productive, good, and useful?

Here is the gamble. It's not one I'd be interested in making, myself.
posted by timbley at 6:39 AM on November 6, 2002

Is this the end of the repugnant "traditional family values" .. Don't know about that, but it certainly looks like the end of the Conservative Party. Anyone else getting this morbid thrill from watching them impale themselves? Just when it seems to level out it keeps getting better and better.
posted by grahamwell at 7:06 AM on November 6, 2002

timbley:

That analogy doesn't even work.
posted by ed\26h at 7:21 AM on November 6, 2002

good point, timbley, I agree no one should listen to you anymore.

Also, I don't think anyone is trying to pressure anyone else into becoming a homosexual parent, so if you're not interested in "making that gamble" by all means just sit quietly.
posted by rhyax at 7:22 AM on November 6, 2002

excellent comment. thanks, dash_slot - what you say rings horribly true.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2002

but, thinking a little more, what's the experience been with mixing racial backgrounds? wouldn't similar problems occur there? (i have no idea whether there's "racial matching" during adoption in the uk or not).

and did the conservatives really fall straight into it? heh. when on earth are you/we going to get away from a one party state?
posted by andrew cooke at 7:30 AM on November 6, 2002

I feel pity, for the adopted children of gay parents. Adoption should not be used as a recruitment method, for the gay lifestyle.
posted by Beholder at 7:36 AM on November 6, 2002

Metafilter: Liberal... unless it involves those nasty homosexshulz!

Really. Not that i'm in support of this type of thread, but some of the comments have been truly yucky. Gay lifestyle? How did you ever learn to operate a computer at your age, Senator Thurmond?
posted by sir walsingham at 7:48 AM on November 6, 2002

If you replaced the family in a society with a similiar group (say, gay adopting parents - or, heck, go why limit it at two - go whole hog and say parenting collectives), do you still have a society? Will it be alive? Will it continue to grow, make civilization, be productive, good, and useful?

We wouldn't have much of a society if everyone was old and senile, either. Do we outlaw old senile people? What if society were made up of two-year olds? Or people who never got married? What about Corvette drivers? Would society function if everyone drove Corvettes?

Adoption should not be used as a recruitment method, for the gay lifestyle.

*throws, up* I don't keep up enough to know if you're being serious or snarky, Beholder. I hope it's the latter.
posted by daveadams at 7:49 AM on November 6, 2002

Beholder: W.T.F. are you on about? Do you think my daughter is gonna be 'recruited' to the ranks of the bull-dykes? If gay kids always come from straight families (I did), where did I get recruited? O - that's right: NOT by my parents. Do you think, then, that gay families will buck that trend, and be the only form that do imprint their kids sexuality? Or are you saying that there's something more sinister afoot

Work on that logic, check your prejudices at the door and do some research. You just made a fool of yourself.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:56 AM on November 6, 2002

when on earth are you/we going to get away from a one party state?

When the LibDems sort themselves out. Go CK.
posted by Summer at 7:57 AM on November 6, 2002

Recruitment? Pardon me, that's about the most ludicrous thing I've seen in this thread and that's saying a lot.

What is a heterosexual's reason for adopting a child? Because, I don't know, maybe they want to care for a child, love them, raise them, nurture them, leave their legacy, etc.? Or is it because they want to convert a single human being to a particular political ideology, religion, favorite music genre, or maybe they just seek a recruit for the "heterosexual lifestyle"?

Feh. I'm not gay, I don't want to deal with children, but I think discriminating against adopters by sexual preference makes as little sense as by race, religion, or hairstyle. We wouldn't want children recruited for the mullet lifestyle after all...
posted by Foosnark at 8:01 AM on November 6, 2002

I feel pity, for the adopted children of gay parents. Adoption should not be used as a recruitment method, for the gay lifestyle.

Please learn to use commas and respect gays. Thanks.
posted by Tin Man at 8:05 AM on November 6, 2002

Beholder, are you proposing that gay people have no interest in loving and caring for children--they just want to recruit to perpetuate their gay lifestyle. Do you think that gay people are that shallow and immoral?

In the interest of fairness, I'd sure like to hear how you came up with this hypothesis. I have to admit that it probably won't make any sense to me, though.
posted by ashbury at 8:12 AM on November 6, 2002

Also, Beholder, given that you're clearly a Buffy fan, I guess Willow and Tara haven't taught you much, have they?
posted by Tin Man at 8:15 AM on November 6, 2002

Beholder, get back in your troll cage. Everyone else, ignore.

dash_slot-

I used to hold similar viewpoints to you, but then a gay friend made me realize how much better of a parent he'd be than a lot of the bigotted, ignorant, idiot straight assholes I've met. If people that are horrible parents get to be them, why shouldn't he, if there are children that need homes, and need to be cared for and loved?
posted by gramcracker at 8:21 AM on November 6, 2002

Anybody, of whatever sex preference, who can be a parent to a special-needs child deserves a special place in heaven.
posted by alumshubby at 8:31 AM on November 6, 2002

gramcracker, I think you're missing the point - it's not that gay parents wouldn't often be better parents, but that hurt, adopted teens who live in a homophobic society will often not appreciate the quality of care they're receiving and instead will hold homosexuality against their foster parents, which could reflect negatively on gay parents as a group. In other words, homophobia is rather deep-seated and teenagers who've had a rough life and are hetero themselves can't really be expected to overcome it instantly.
posted by mdn at 8:34 AM on November 6, 2002

People seem to rather proud of their bigotry.
posted by johnnyboy at 8:42 AM on November 6, 2002

Yep, some kids are going to have a problem with gay adoptive parents. But the adoption process is more than just parents and children thrown together and left to sort out their differences: it's a lengthy process, and if the kids and the parents have problems from the beginning that can't be overcome, then obviously other parents are considered. My friend's sister and her husband have been going through this whole thing, luckily with a lot of success and two very happy kids.

That's not to say that children's prejudices should be left intact. If my adoptive kid had a problem with having two dads I hope I wouldn't need to explain why it's not a bad thing, because he would feel properly loved, and not scared or forced into any way of thinking he didn't really agree with. I think children have the potential to realise when they're wrong, although just like anyone else it might take a bit of time.
posted by creeky at 8:55 AM on November 6, 2002

creeky, that's what i was hoping would happen - but you hear so many stories of underfunded social services that it seemed unlikely. is that kind of experience normal?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:59 AM on November 6, 2002

Yes, I like Buffy, but uh, it's a tv show, with vampires,
and magic. It's not real life. As to trolling, hardly. I just don't buy into the agenda, that people are born gay. There is no legitimate scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. It is a choice, and because of that, can be honestly labeled a lifestyle.
posted by Beholder at 9:10 AM on November 6, 2002

There is no legitimate scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. It is a choice, and because of that, can be honestly labeled a lifestyle.

so you make a conscious choice to have hormonal rushes when a cute member of the opposite sex is around?
posted by mdn at 9:23 AM on November 6, 2002

Okay Beholder, now you're not trolling, now you're just *hilarious*.

No, there's no proof, I guess. Did you see the thing about the gay sheep and brain sizes? It applies to humans too. Gay males have different sized brains than straight males.

Then again, there's no proof of a lot of things. Anything called a scientific theory hasn't been proven, either, or else it'd be called a scientific law.

And, just to try and figure out what planet you're coming from... who the HELL would choose to live a life where you can be killed, discriminated against or beaten to a bloody pulp for being gay, disowned by your family, and have a higher-risk chance of getting AIDS? If it's a choice, wouldn't gays choose the easier life?
posted by gramcracker at 9:25 AM on November 6, 2002

"...respect gays. Thanks".

So are people who feel that the gay lifestyle is immoral ever allowed to have thier beliefs respected?

Shouting homophobe at the first sign of disagreement doesnt make you any better. Homophobeophobes.

I think heterosexuals should have priority in adopting since for one, children are conceived through heterosexuality and that is what our society has been built on.

I dont know who is going to determine what makes a good family. Surely the state cant. If people want to adopt and they appear not to be a danger to children or society I dont know by what principle or right the goverment of a free society would have to stop them.
posted by Recockulous at 9:25 AM on November 6, 2002

except of course for the rams.

Perhaps they had a gay shepherd?

(damn you gram cracker, damn you preview!)
posted by lerrup at 9:31 AM on November 6, 2002

There are times when it becomes obvious that someone is going to hold their absurd, false views despite all evidence and argument to the contrary.

At that point, one must simply write the idiot off as a lost and ignorant soul who, hopefully, won't cause any real damage to this world.

Beholder is one of those cases.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:32 AM on November 6, 2002

So are people who feel that the gay lifestyle is immoral ever allowed to have thier beliefs respected?

They deserve every bit as much respect as, say, David Duke, ex-leader of the KKK.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:34 AM on November 6, 2002

If you replaced the family in a society with a similiar group (say, gay adopting parents - or, heck, go why limit it at two - go whole hog and say parenting collectives), do you still have a society?

Wow... replacing groups of people with, um, groups of people... how will that EVAR work?

So are people who feel that the gay lifestyle is immoral ever allowed to have thier beliefs respected?

You're confusing respect with agreement, I'm afraid. I respect your right to believe whatever you want. In return, I expect you to respect my right to believe whatever I want. This includes my belief that what you believe has no basis in reality. If I want to believe that, you have to respect that too.

I'm still trying to imagine how people who believe that homosexuality is a choice have avoided meeting even one gay person all their lives. If they'd ever met one, see, they could ask that gay person whether it was a choice or not for them, and they'd be told "no," and they'd no longer believe that homosexuality is a choice. How does one grow up so sheltered as to never have had the opportunity to ask that one simple question?
posted by kindall at 9:49 AM on November 6, 2002

There are times when it becomes obvious that someone is going to hold their absurd, false views despite all evidence and argument to the contrary.

Ok, aside from the single link about sheep, where is this evidence you speak of?

At that point, one must simply write the idiot off as a lost and ignorant soul who, hopefully, won't cause any real damage to this world.

So I'm ignorant, because I request legitimate proof, before I believe people are born gay? Clearly, your definition of ignorance, is different from mine.

Beholder is one of those cases.

Generally, the people who flame first, are the ones losing the debate.
posted by Beholder at 9:51 AM on November 6, 2002

Any parent who displays sex in front of a child is unworthy of parenthood. So what does one's preference in sex have to do with parenthood? That is what gets me, you can be what ever and separate yourself, but around kids there are rules for all.

PS, Slash you make some worthy views for the children's sake. Thanks for putting them first in your thinking.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:53 AM on November 6, 2002