Adoption

The debate has raged, the questions have been asked and answered, exemptions have been sought and denied. Finally, the battle has been won. Was it really the good fight though? Could this be just another case of political correctness gone to far? I’m sorry to say that this is one subject on which I just can’t seem to form an opinion, so you’ll have to help.

From The Age (30/01/2007):

Britain will not exempt Catholic adoption agencies from a new anti-discrimination law that the agencies say would not allow them to refuse to place children with gay couples, Prime Minister Tony Blair said today.

 

The adoption agencies will be granted a transition period, until the end of next year, to adjust to the new law, he said.

 

"Everyone is agreed that, above all, the interests of the child and particularly the most vulnerable children, must come first," Blair said in a statement.

 

"I believe we have now found a way through that achieves this and which all reasonable people will be able to support."

 

Despite the fact that there are many who obviously disagree with this decision and the fact that I can’t seem to decide, this is in fact, a very good outcome. It is important to note here that the state has prevailed over the church. The main reason adoption has been denied to the gay population in the past is mostly because of religious doctrine. Not just christian religious doctrine either. It really has had nothing at all to do with any notion that gay people can’t be good parents. That, simply put, is a fallacy.

But despite believing the above and knowing many gay people, I don’t know any that are bringing up children. This is where my quandary lies. Had I some experience with the matter, I may be able to form an opinion, however sketchy. The gay people I know are nice enough people and seem to be perfectly normal to me, but I have to wonder.

You see, I also know quite a few people who have separated after having children. All parents discuss each others children and I’ve often heard it said that this one or that one might need their father or mother. Now if you only have two mummies and need your father, how are you supposed to get that support? Conversely, if you only have two daddies and need your mother, where do find that support? Each are different and provide different aspects to the nurturing of children, or so my experience indicates to me.

So there’s the issue. In the case of a boy who needs his father, for whatever reason, or the girl who needs her mother, or visa versa usually for all the same or similar reasons, how do they cope when growing up with two mothers or two fathers. How do we know if this baby is going to need “her mother” or “his father” and place them accordingly? Do we really need to go that far? Do gay couples parent that differently than hetro couples? Well, all parents are different to an extent I guess, but I just don’t know. Would a heterosexual child growing up in a homosexual environment end up confused or unsure of themselves? Once again, I don’t know and you know how much I hate not having an opinion.

The problem, and the reason I’ve been thinking about it, is that it doesn’t really matter which side you look at the argument from, it all comes down to the kids. Are we doing what’s best for the kids? Some say we are, some say we aren’t. Those that say we aren’t, aren’t all church groups and some even seem to make reasonable arguments as I’ve outlined above. But does being gay really make that much difference when you're being a parent as well?

5:11 PM - 30/1/2007 - post comment

Well said, Plonka

And one that I too have problems with. We had lesbian neighbours some years ago. We got along fine with them, just as we got along fine with heterosexual neighbours. After they moved from here, I heard that one had a baby as a result of I.V. fertilisation. I have no doubt that they will be fine parents.

The relevance to your post is this: I consider it to be no business of mine as to what that couple do. If they have a child by whatever means, then so be it. So, if I consider it no business of mine where a child is born naturally to lesbian parents, then it follows that it is no business of mine if they want to adopt.

So, it seems to me that if I am to say it is OK for lesbian parents to adopt children, then it does follow that it is discriminatory to say that gay parents should not.

But the argument is "What is best for the child?" I have to say for adoption, male/female parents, in full knowledge that in some cases it just may not be. I still think we have to aim at an ideal.



Edited by snowy on 30/1/2007 at 11:19 PM

snowy - 6:14 PM - 30/1/2007

Qualification...

By "gay" in my article, I meant homosexual, lesbian or otherwise. When I was a kid, gay meant "happy". Then it meant homosexual. Now I think it means specifically male and homsexual, but I'm getting confused. Funny how we had a specific name for women first, isn't it...

You make good points Snowy. It does and should, always come down to what's best for the kids. It's a difficult one, that's for sure...

plonka - 6:30 PM - 30/1/2007

A hard one, alright.

Ideally, I suppose a father/mother combination would be the best type of family for children to grow up in... providing that both parents are happy in their own relationship, never fight or argue, have plenty of money, a stable home, can provide a healthy environment, encourage honesty and caring... and can agree that the welfare of the child should always come first and foremost.

But how sad would the world be if this were to be the only acceptable scenario for raising children? What about all of those parents who separate? What about those who lose a partner to accident or disease? What about those children who are forced to live with other family members, through whatever circumstance? What about those who have had one parent leave another because of physical or mental abuse? What about those living on or below the poverty line? What about those who live near nuclear power plants? What should happen to the children in these families? Should they be taken away from their remaining parent because one person can't provide for all of those childrens' needs in the same way... or in a way that the rest of the population considers to be suitable? Would that be the best outcome for those children? I don't think there are too many people out there who could comfortably say 'yes'... at least I would hope not.

So, what's my opinion? Well, as you have mentioned Plonka, the rights of the child must always come first. And each person who is looking at adoption should be assessed on their own merit... not their sexual preference, race, colour or creed. Now, I'm in no way advocating that all 'gay' couples would be good parents, but I have known a few who would have made wonderful carers. I have also known a few heterosexual couples who should never have been allowed to raise children, in my view. You can't just make a decision about a 'group' of people based on public perception, because the public is often wrong. Those who can most effectively raise and care for a child should be given the opportunity to do so... straight or gay.

As for the raising of the child... gay people (as a general rule) have an understanding of both sexes that a heterosexual equivalent might not. For example... gay men are more likely to understand about things like fashion and romance writings alongside more conventional blokey stuff... and many gay women understand about things like cars and football. Besides, in this age of technology, you can google anything you want to know about. I doubt the lack of a mother or father would be too detrimental on a child who was raised in an environment of love and honesty... take single parents, for example... most of them do a wonderful job... and raise wonderful children. I just don't think anyone should have to miss out on the joys of providing a good start for a fellow human being just because people don't understand their lifestyle... doesn't seem fair to me.

The most hurtful thing for the child would probably be the ignorance of those who would tease or judge that child because of the fact that they have two mummies/daddies. And this is not the fault of the 'gay' parent, but the community of mis-guided people who live around them. Changing public perception is the only way to overcome that problem.

tinacee - 6:52 PM - 30/1/2007

Quandary

I understand completely what you're saying Tina. I would add though, that the single parents I mention above all do a wonderful job. It doesn't always help though. Some kids just need both parents while conversly, some do perfectly well without one or the other. It seems to me that it depends on the child.

Where technology is concerned, I have to agree that you can find anything you may need or want at the click of a mouse button, but there is no substitute, none whatsoever, for experience. There is a big difference between the virtual and the real world. It's what you see, touch, smell and hear that most influence a growing mind during its formative years, the real world experience is what makes and leaves the greater impression.

I think your generalisation only helps to outline the problem simply because given the cross section of people I know, I can equally generalise that the majority of homsexuals relate more to their opposite gener and have extreme difficulty realting to their own gender.

That said however, I won't take issue that gay people can be and are just as good as carers as hetro people and wouldn't necessarily make bad (or good for that matter) parents. But as you say, it's society that will tease the kids that do have have two mummies or daddies and make their life a misery, probably more so than anything else, and therein lies another part of to the problem that I hadn't even considered yet...

plonka - 7:23 PM - 30/1/2007

I'm going off on a tangent here.

I personally believe that adoption is not a good idea, under most circumstances, gay or lesbian parents notwithstanding. I have an older half sister that I never even knew about until I was 20 and she was 28. She has been fairly successfully integrated into her biological family, is treated like a natural born sibling and generally everybody involved would call the situation good.

And yet the act of her being adopted out at birth has had far reaching and bitter consequences for her entire family and ours, for 3 generations. It has scarred everybody, affected her personal and professional life, broken up marriages, effected parenting skills and just generally caused so much grief and pain. Not one person, including her, no matter how much love there is (and there is a lot, have no doubt) would think that it has been a good thing and would do it again, no matter what the circumstances. That's gospel from the mouth of the person who matters most - the child.

So, I don't know at all. I think I'm too close to actually have a dispassionate view on this one, no matter how much discussion has taken place in my past about these exact circumstances.

TheKittycatGirl06 - 12:11 AM - 31/1/2007

Good tangent

Thanks Kittycat, excellent comment. It seems there's a lot more to the whole adoption question that I simply haven't considered. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of kids who have lost their parents, but are adopted rather than becoming foster kids, who remain wards of the state. There really is quite a lot to consider here, isn't there?

I can see that this question, when it gets to us here in Aus, as it most assuredly will, is going to cause us some consternation....

plonka - 6:54 AM - 31/1/2007

Real world experience...

That's a funny thing. I do understand that there is no substitute for experience, but people can and do learn things specifically for the benefit of their children... it happens every day. My ex is not a very blokey fellow, and an immigrant to boot, so his experiences at being a boy/young man was vastly different to those of an Australian born male. Appologies to all who may be offended, but it's true. His knowledge of football, for example was non-existant, and his interest was just as low. Therefore, I (despite my own lack of interest) learnt the rules and passed that (inexperienced) knowledge onto my son... simply because it was something that he was interested in. He was a pretty good little player until he grew a little and lost interest in the sport... but my point is that he did ok, despite the fact that neither of his parents had ANY experience with football. By the same token, a woman is capable of teaching a boy to fish, and a man is capable of teaching a girl about her periods... it all depends on the need of the particular child, coupled with the motivation of the parent. I suppose the same could apply to many other things in life too, couldn't it?

This part... "I understand completely what you're saying Tina. I would add though, that the single parents I mention above all do a wonderful job. It doesn't always help though. Some kids just need both parents while conversly, some do perfectly well without one or the other. It seems to me that it depends on the child." ... is also true. I've known single parent families who have produced wonderful, caring children... and by the same token, I have known dual parent families that have produced violent criminals. So yes, it's hard to make an informed decision, especially when so much of the equation depends on future events... it's almost akin to telling the future, isn't it?

As to teasing... every child gets it at some point in their lives. Even in a straight family, an adopted child will be teased by their peers at some time during their life. Not only that, but there are a plethora of other things to tease about... the colour of their hair, the glasses on their face, the clothes that they wear, a physical feature that isn't quite perceived as being the norm. Every child has to overcome that teasing... and much of it makes the child into the adult that they will become. It's the help and support that they get from the 'life-experienced' adults around them that determines the amount of baggage that they carry around with them because of it. The way that they're taught to deal with it determines how well they deal with it. For example... As a child I used to tease my younger sister. I won't tell you what I'd say, let's just say it had something to do with her nose. It wasn't meant to be hurtful, just normal sibling teasing. But our parents never taught her to deal with it, saying stuff like "just ignore her," rather than something like "you are an individual and you are beautiful." Neither did they explain to me just how much I could damage her by my unthinking words... and I didn't see it myself until much later in life. As she grew up she became shy and somewhat beauty-obsessed. Even today she lives with a dislike for her own nose. That's my fault, and I'm ashamed that something I said carelessly has had such a negative impact on her. However, had she been encouraged to be happy with herself she might be a different person today... although perhaps not as nice a one. My point... every child will be teased at one point or another. A parents' job (regardless of sex... this is not solely the job of the mother) is to help their child over the hurdles that they face... regardless of how difficult it may become.

For the record... I personally know several children who have been raised in families with two mummies, and they have all (ALL) grown to become very accepting and understanding adults. They were all teased as children, but they had the help that they needed and got over it, and it made them stronger people. And not a one of them would exchange either of their mums for a dad. They love and idolise their parents... just like most of the rest of the population. So far I don't personally know any two daddy families... because men can't just go out and get themselves pregnant when society says that their parental feelings are wrong. But would they make less acceptable parents? Perhaps in some cases (and this is where the assessment criteria for each individual comes in), but not all. Most definitely not all... parenting skills should not be determined by sexual preference. A gay parent should not be seen as less acceptable... just as a black parent shouldn't... just as a catholic parent shouldn't.

And I'll leave you with another thought... what if we tell a child that they can't be adopted by a caring person who is more than capable of giving them a good life? What if we tell that child that they have to settle for second best just because the parents are heterosexual? Does it guarantee that child the best upbringing? Could you guarantee them that nothing will go wrong in their lives... just because their parents are not gay? And in the end... would that really be in the best interests of the child? Always...??

tinacee - 8:20 AM - 31/1/2007

Football

I don't follow the football, I don't play football and I know very little about football. I played hockey, which funnily enough, my son doesn't really like, but he played football. The sorts of reasons I had in mind that a boy may "need his father" or a girl may "need her mother", have nothing to do with fashion or sport or any other superficial pass-time like fishing. What I'm talking about is influence, discipline, mentoring, etc. These are not things that are quantifiable with specific activities or items of clothing or accessories.

But you said: "it all depends on the need of the particular child"

And that's exactly what I'm getting at. Thanks Tina. I must admit, I know one boy that has two mummies. He spends most his time with his dad because he doesn't deal with having two mummies that well, but he also needs his mum. His mum's partner is wonderful caring person, but can't provide the fatherly influence he needs. Admittedly, his mum becoming gay was what broke up their marriage, so the situation may be a little different, but this is my experience, it's what I know, therefore I wonder...

Yes, I agree that teasing will happen. We say that kids are cruel, this is not necessarily the case. Kids are honest about what they're thinking, that's all and if what they're thinking is that having two parents that are the same gender is wrong, as society will undoubtedly teach them, then they will say so.

plonka - 9:37 AM - 31/1/2007

Gay adoption

I have no problem at all with gay parents adopting.

However, there is one issue that is not readily obvious, and that is what to do in the event of a breakdown in the relationship.

Currently, and I could be wrong about this, our Family Law act really only services married straight couples.

What do we do about separation of gay couples, and of custody of the child?

This is a shortcoming of our current laws that should be dealt with as it represents a very real risk.

dikkii - 12:30 PM - 31/1/2007

Yet more...

More food for thought Dikkii, thanks. The big difference between Britain and here is that they have legislated to make gay marriage legal. We haven't. Once the same laws apply to gay couples that apply to hetro couples, then the same rules of custody and maintenance should apply.

You know, there was a time when just about anyone could adopt a child. From single men to gay couples. Then for some reason that I don't remember, that changed.

Well, I guess I'm closer to an opinion now, thanks to all your fantastic comments and the brilliant discussion with Tina. Thanks Tina...:)

So what do I think? Well like Snowy, I reckon it's probably none of my business what a couple may or may not decide to do where kids are concerned. If or when I hear that a child is suffering however, then I have a problem.

As we've all said here, it's the kids that are important, not the sexual preference of any adult that may or may not want to adopt. If we can keep that in mind, then there can be no problem.

plonka - 2:44 PM - 31/1/2007

adoption

Yes, I think that is a good outcome too. It also means that Howard may not try the same thing here.

beepbeepitsme - 2:47 PM - 31/1/2007

Howard

Thanks Beep. I don't think Howard will get the chance to look at that legislation for Aus. We are still a long way behind Britain where gay rights are concerned. It might effect his popularity, so Howard will probably do everything he can to avoid these issues.

plonka - 3:07 PM - 31/1/2007

I don't think it matters...

...what sexual preference a set of people have. Imagine how many foster and adopted kids are out there at the moment in homes with people who are abusive, who use them as their personal servants, and only really allowing them into their homes because they receive benefits from the government for them, and 100% of those couples are heterosexual.
As long as they can take them out a adoption home where they will only feel sorry for themselves and feel unloved and welcome them into their homes and lives and truly love and care for them, then they are heroes in my opinion.
And while we're at it, that should also go for single people who can't have kids and want one. If they can afford to care for them properly, then why can't they all adopt a child.

tigerlily - 7:11 PM - 31/1/2007

It shouldn't matter...

You quite right Tiger. Anyone should be able to adopt, so long as the same checks and balances apply to everyone. You are, and should be, subjected to a thorough investigation when you apply to adopt a child and anyone at all should be able as long as they are deemed fit.

In Britain now, those same checks and balances are available to the gay community. That is a good thing, as long as political correctness doesn't get in the way and corrupt the system and allow adoptions to take place whithout ALL the proper checks and balances.

Which of course, brings us back to the kids.....

Thanks Tiger...:)

plonka - 11:44 PM - 31/1/2007

Untitled Comment

my mother in law fosters babies. She has had two sisters from the time they were born until they are now 19 and 17. She also has a 7 year old boy she has had from birth who will be there forever as well. There are also sisters aged 1 and 3 there at the moment while a court case goes through. These kids aren't up for adoption as the birth parents didn't want it to be that way. Not that she could anyway. Because about 6 years ago there was another baby who my mother in law really loved and he was up for adoption and she wanted to adopt him but she wasn't allowed to as according to rules she is too old. She would have been 55. So she isn't too old to foster them for their whole life but she is too old to adopt them. It's crazy.

catdog - 2:06 PM - 2/2/2007

Foster...

Now that is crazy Cat. We obviously have a caring person who is more than capable and prepared to be the legal guardian, has proven it any number of times, yet doesn't have the option. Crazy indeed....

plonka - 6:31 PM - 2/2/2007

TINACEE's excellent comment

I'd like to add a little comment about adoption in general but I'm not as close to it a TINACEE. I can see where she is coming from though and appreciate her contribution.

Some years ago Liz used to 10 pin bowl competitively at Geelong. They had a competition where the winners got a holiday after several weeks of head to head games. Up until this point I had a blissfully unaware view about adoption thinking it was all sweetness and light. Then a young bloke in his mid teens was playing a couple of lanes across from Liz.

The poor kid bowled a ball his adopted father was not happy about and the father walked down into the competition area and slapped him hard across the face. There was a shocked silence as nobody could believe what we had just seen.

Management came down and escorted the culprit from the lanes and banned him from attending any more events. Probably a good idea to get him outta there coz there were several folk who looked like they might deal out justice then and there.

I don't know how the rules work on adoption and I personally know some excellent foster parents, but I can't help wondering if this sort of behaviour can still occur.

I know this is a bit off topic but I wanted to add this as a supportive comment for TINACEE.

I don't have a problem with who adopts as long as a supportive environment is found.

petermcc - 6:32 PM - 3/2/2007