Ambrya wrote:
Spoken like someone who's never been called a "n*gger-lover" for having black friends.
Lol. Yeah. But is he more or less likely to get his butt kicked as the friend of the black kid, or as the black kid? It's all about degrees here. And even more to the point, the kid *chose* to befriend his black friend in your example. The adoptee doesn't get to choose to have gay adoptive parents. We (society) make that choice for him.
Quote:
Arguing that being the target of bigotry makes someone unqualified to be a parent is idiotic. Arguing that it's the ONLY "legitimate" reason to deny gay parents adoptive rights means there IS NO "legitimate" reason to deny gay parents adoptive rights. Case closed.
Hold on there sister! I'm not arguing that that's a good reason to deny gay's adoptive rights. Pay attention. I'm arguing that's it's a legitimate reason for there not to be a whole lot of social traction on the idea. Sometimes the "right" thing doesn't get done, not because it's not "right", and not even because most people don't see it as "right", but simply because there isn't enough reason to do it in the first place.
Can we agree that there's a world of difference between opposing something, and going out of your way to push for something? My whole point has been that there really isn't a consensus on this particular issue because no one sees it as a "win" situation. It's not just one thing. It's a combination of things. Politically, you'd be pushing for something which would open up a whole range of debates that you maybe don't want to get involved in (those lose-lose situations I discussed earlier), all so that you can place children into homes in which they are guaranteed to be ostracized by their peers later in life?
Like I said. Not a whole lot of political motivation behind this. The gains simply don't justify the political cost, and that's ultimately what's going to determine if it'll ever happen.
Outside of gay family members becoming legal parents of a child and wanting their SO to share that status, there isn't a whole heck of a lot of push for this even among gays. I kinda place this into the catagory of issues that'll get resolved eventually, but we're not ready for yet...
And since I'm editing this. There is one other scenario that I've seen. It's not uncommon for lesbian couples to have children through some process of insemination (turkey baster in some cases). There's certainly some desire there to be able to adopt eachother's children. Right now, the most you can do is establish the SO as a legal guardian, which opens up the possibility of a family member taking the child away at a later date in the event of the death of the mother.
But honestly, there are custody battles even in cases of hetero couples where a spouse of someone with a child from a prior relationship has to fight to keep the child after the death of the biological parent. And it's not always due to challenges from the other biological parent either. One of the fallacies of the gay rights movement on this issue is the implied presumption that this only occurs due to gays not having certain rights. The fact is that it can happen to *anyone*, even married couples. Some states consider blood thicker then marriage, and will award custody to viable grandparents and siblings of the deceased if they challenge the spouse's claim. The primary sticking issue for gay couples is that since it's impossible for them both to be biological parents of the same child, this condition is going to apply to them at a much higher rate then among hetero couples, but it's based on the same basic legal approach.
Heck. What did you think the Schivo case was about? The blood relatives of the woman in the coma were able to fight for custody of her once she became incapacitated for over 10 years. Obviously, that's an extreme case, since the husband wanted to remove support mechanisms and end her life, so there's a whole different aspect to it, but the basic legal ideas are the same. Who has legal control over someone? Is a blood relation of greater precidence then a civil contract (like marriage)? It's incredibly misleading to imply that only gay couples have these sorts of problems.
Edited, Wed Oct 19 00:38:06 2005 by gbaji