I am a gay adoptee who has struggled for a long time with the complications that for me adoption caused.
Some of these issues are smaller than others like a lack of trust or lying to family because you do not want to hurt them, showing them the real you.
Other issues are more complicated.
My problem is that I love being gay but hate the idea of gays pushing adoption and saying we should be able to adopt.I know it is everyone to their own,but I loath the idea of adoption and the complications that can arise with this.
All you see are problems and not the huge benefits gay adoption can bring.
Should adoption by straight parents be prohibited because in some cases child abuse and molestation has occurred? If not, why (and more importantly why shouldn't that reason also apply to children being adopted by gay parents)?
Nice troll, OP.
Now please kindly piss off.
So you are gay and adopted by gay people? So a traditional family would have been easier for you?
They did a bad job with your schooling though.
This gay parent won't!
You would think that by now I would not be shocked by the level of stupidity displayed on DL, but OP proved me wrong....
It's woefully naive to ignore the fact that some children might not be emotionally equipped to deal with the social stigma of having same-sex parents.
Or having no parents. Or being the only brown kid in the class. Or not wearing the latest fashions. Or being chubby. Or being indoctrinated into some wacko religious sect by his fundie parents. etc. Kids learn to adapt with great skill, it is after all a survival instinct. They become "emotionally equipped" when they need to, R5.
And you thought you were going to find sympathy on DL?? Seriously, what you "described" is not unique to a child being raised in a same-sex household. As a matter of fact, kids who are adopted tend to have difficulties with self-esteem, and most notably issues with self identity. Sorry to tell you, but these emotional issues are not resolved because of the sexual orientation of parents.
OP, what was your problem with being adopted? My brother was adopted and he is the happiest person I have ever met. Also, I plan on adopting with my bf in a few years.
God - how do we get these freeper cunts off DL?! I've had it with their bullshit.
How strange OP sounds. Mentally ill.
In which countries is gay adoption legal? I am interested in doing this. It is so much better to care for the children we have already here on earth than creating more through IVF.
I don't think OP has a problem with "gay" adoption...he has issues with adoption in general. I'm an adoptee myself with no issues (that I know of) related to being adopted, however, some adoptees do. And it's not just being adopted by crappy parents; for some it is a lot deeper than that. Calling someone "mentally ill", "freeper cunt" is just ignorant.
IF OP IS mentally ill, then calling him/her so is valid.
Who says he/she is mentally ill?
"I loath the idea of adoption"
Well, what do you consider a better alternative? I can understand why some adopted kids might have issues about it, but would you have preferred to be tossed in a dumpster as an infant, or shuttled from one foster home to another? Maybe life in a Dickensian orphanage would have suited you? Prohibiting adoption wouldn't force every pregnant girl/woman and her baby daddy to keep the kid and raise it well, you know, and it's doubtful your childhood would have been better had your adoptive parents been unable to adopt you.
I am not a freeper or mentally ill.
I do not have a problem with gay adoption as opposed to straight adoption at all
I have a problem with adoption,the process,the expectations, the problems associated with this.
If you potentially spend thousands of dollars getting a baby and that baby is less than perfect will you be happy with that? If the child wants a relationship with its natural parents are you going to be hurt? How will you cope if the child acts out.?
There are a lot of issues with adoption that I think need to be worked through.To be readily embraced by the gay community in saying we want a piece of the pie is valid,however when the issue itself is flawed,that is where the problems are.
The whole you would be in a dumpster or a Dickensian orphanage may in some cases be true,though we have come a long way since Dickens. But the idea you have saved a baby is dangerous to me as it breeds the idea that somehow that child should be grateful for being saved.That is where things go wrong.
What is wrong with your keyboard, OP?
Why no spaces?
Did your adoptive parents mistreat you? Did they have any other children?
Oh, OP is afraid of the "buyer's remorse" syndrom when kids disappoint their adoptive parents. Way to go and put orphans on the same guilt trip conditional loving parents put their biological kids on.
[quote]If you potentially spend thousands of dollars getting a baby and that baby is less than perfect will you be happy with that? If the child wants a relationship with its natural parents are you going to be hurt? How will you cope if the child acts out.?
OP, I know there are some shitty adoptive parents out there, but I am sure that most people who adopt children have thought through all the issues you raised above; in most cases, they have to go through counseling that forces them to do so.
And while adoption raises some unique issues—such the as birth vs. adoptive family issue you mentioned—rest assured that natural parents and their kids have plenty of problems, too, that can be just as ugly as the ones you listed. Hell, kids who act out, and parents who feel disappointed in their child or guilt-trip him for not being as grateful as they think he ought to be can be found in plenty of bio families.
No, adoption is not perfect, just as families in general are not perfect, but again--what do you feel would be a better alternative? What do you propose should happen to children whose bio parents can't or won't raise them?
r20's the best post in this thread.
I agree although OP I agree with what you say too but you must remember that even parents who don't put you out for adoption, are indoctrinating you to fulfill their dreams they have made for you before you are even born.
People think it's 'cute' when a Mum says 'oh, I hope it's a girl' or 'He'll be a scientist' or 'she'll be famous' but it isn't. Imagine having the life of child stars?
I can't claim to understand their pain but I do understand being a disappointment to my parents because I wouldn't they wanted me to be.
R18 my typing is atrocious because I am on a bus on an iPhone and every bump makes my typing screw up.:)
No I had a great upbringing and l love my family and love my natural family as well.I am very lucky.
So why do I have problems with adoption?it is because I have met many adoptees who have problems.Ones that were happy,absolutely,but scratch the surface and the Issues are there.
In some cases it seems simple,identity and feelings of rejection.Feelings of getting the reasons for being abandoned on one level but never really getting it on another level. Having to live a lie to maintain the perception you are a)fine with what happened b) you have no issues.
I have spoken to many adoptees,my natural mother has worked with hundreds of adoptees and relinquishing mothers.Women who may have never had another child and mourn their loss,who remember each birthday of their child.
I am not saying every adoptee has it bad.I am not saying there is a solution.What I am saying is looks are deceptive.To everyone on the outside I am the person whole smiles a lot is always cheerful and happy.
OP, in your most recent post, your second sentence directly contradicts your last.
Can you explain?
And how far are you going on that bus!
I still have no fucking idea what the OP is saying. Is English your first language?
Lol I am just off the bus.
Let me explain the seemingly contradictions.If this was an issue just with me I would say I had some self esteem issues and identity issues,but on the whole I was happy.
Having met quite a few adoptees and heard their stories,I realise that compared to other adoptees I had a very priviledged upbringing and really compared to some others relatively few issues.But do I believe adoption has screwed up a lot of people's lives yes.
When we discuss non adoptees and also gay people having issues when they grow up this is true.But the adoptee has all these issues right at the beginning.It is not an issue of if an issue raises its head but in a lot of cases when
Don't underestimate identity,to someone without it,the very building blocks Of who they are have been mixed up.Worse they feel they need to feel grateful about the fact they have been saved from the potential dumpster as someone previously suggested.
This can mean that an adoptee is more likely to not snap back at their parents,will try and be the perfect child because they fear rejection.They are in some ways the eternal Pinocchio trying to be the real child.
OP how is your commentary on adopted children related to gay issues?
Are you gay?
Are you saying gays shouldn't adopt?
It is not clear.
And now that you are off the bus, your spacing is still odd. (At least one space after every comma and period, please.)
OP has made himself perfectly clear. Too bad there are so many selfish/tiny-brained people here who refuse to listen to what he's saying.
OP, what is the alternative? What about rape victims, and mothers who grew to hate the father? Should they just be forced to care for a child they can't stand the sight of? Would that make the child happier or better off? I sometimes think some adoptees romanticize the situation, thinking only of their own point of view to the point of idylic fantasy, not knowing the grim reality at all. There's a reason the parents gave the child up, they didn't want it. It's not safe to keep an unwanted child with people who might not care what happens to it. One of the most common reasons for death in a child is death by stepfather. Nowadays, drug abuse is a common reason for losing custody too.
Some people just don't want their kids, period. My mom had a child very young with her first husband. He had an affair. She got a divorce when Sis was a baby. Mom wouldn't let him see Sis, and had a very adversarial relationship towards Sis. Sis has issues about it to this day.
Sis says she thinks mom was so disapproving with her because she was angry with her father, and spoiled her second daughter because she loved her father. Sis thinks this is more common that people realize.
Parents are separate humans and their feelings are not always about what's good for their kids. A kid from a failed relationship is a reminder of that failure and that's how they sometimes see it. Detachment and dislike towards innocent kids is not "motherly," and not spoken of, but it's a reality.
$18 down the drain.
OP, adopted children are luckiest, because they were chosen.
I still don't understand OP's point.
What's the alternative to adoption?
OP makes complete sense if you are willing to listen to someone with experience outside your own. Those who are mocking him should really ask why.
The problems of adoption are glossed over - the adoptee is encouraged subtly and overtly to pretend everything is fine. It's not - the rates of substance abuse, depression, criminal behavior, suicide, etc. are all higher for adoptees - who presumably are being placed in "better" family environments.
There are alternatives. Australia strives to keep children with their families, and has issued an apology to adoptees and their birthmothers for past practices. The UK prohibits private adoption, so private companies religious institutions can't make money from selling babies.
As a gay adoptee, the challenge is to be supportive of gay rights when one of those rights is freedom to adopt children. I support the equality to adopt, if there needs to be an adoption. But using the child as a marker of class - which gays as well as straights sometimes do - is really distasteful. We should have policies that discourage adoption and encourage families to raise their children.
OP, you need therapy.
R36, people give children up for adoption for very good reasons. Forcing them to suck it up and raise a child they can't and/or won't care for is certainly not in the best interest of the child.
[quote]the rates of substance abuse, depression, criminal behavior, suicide, etc. are all higher for adoptees
Thank you r37!
OP, why do you loath the idea of adoption? And do you think that these feelings are common to many if not all adoptees, and not just those adopted by gay people, let alone gay adoptees adopted by gay people?
Until we know how you feel on these questions, it's difficult to know how to respond to you, accept to say that I empathize with your frustration.
I think the point of the OP is that adoption seems to cause issues within an adopted person (gay or not) and OP is pondering this in all facets of adoption, but of course notes gay couples adopting because OP is gay, surely has gay friends adopting, may have considered adopting, and then there’s the fact this is a forum for the gay community. It makes perfect sense OP would reach out here for thoughtful dialogue on the subject.
That said, I believe all adoptions should be outlawed regardless of the sexual orientation of the would be adoptive parents. (This goes for using sperm donors/egg donors too…same issues). A few notes (facts) on my reasoning below. I’m here to share knowledge and open minds folks. I won’t be engaging in pointless arguments.
Approximately 97% of mothers who lost their children to adoption were forced in one way or the other (usually many more than one way). It is the very rare minority that actually wants to “give up” their baby to strangers and who have done so with fully informed consent.
The “burden” on the welfare system is simply not a valid argument. Any burden on the system is due to the way the system is designed and the lack of support/resources that can make a lasting difference for families for generations to come and in that, less burden on the system as time goes on. It’s really rather simple.
However, I will not go into that avenue since the most glaring issue with this argument is the underhanded assertion that poor people are not entitled to their own children; as if by being poor one is somehow subhuman or unworthy to parent his/her offspring. This is not a new view, especially in the adoption industry, however repugnant.
Re: obtaining one’s documentation of birth, et al. not being a Civil Rights issue…how so? These are human beings we are talking about. Adoptees have every right to their OBC and any documentation having to do with THEIR adoption, natural origins, etc. It is THEIRS.
There are far too many lies, deceit and secrets in the adoption industry. And it is all surrounded by big business. The PAPs haven’t dealt with their infertility so they want to live in denial of it. They want to live in rainbow-farting unicorn land where they pretend the adoptee is born to them. If the adoption agency can’t promise them they are 100% legally the parents (including altering the OBC which personally I think should NEVER be done to start with) and the natural family can’t/won’t “interfere” then those PAPs won’t pay upwards of $30,000 (FACT & nothing short of baby selling on the backs of poor/frightened/beaten down young mothers) for their pretend offspring.
Sealing these records does not now and NEVER HAS had anything to do with promising mothers confidentiality of any kind. The idea that natural parents have ever been promised confidentiality is a FALSEHOOD. It’s just another smokescreen to get the ignorant masses into a political frenzy about something they know nothing about though it is high time people start paying attention because you are all perpetuating the abuse of power, human rights violations out the wazoo, and a blight on our country as huge as slavery and I dare say, even genocide.
In the event that an adoption absolutely HAS to take place I do not think the child’s name should be changed, nor should the child’s birth certificate be altered & most certainly no files should be sealed from the child once he/she is an adult. Adoption should be outlawed completely & a kind of guardianship or permanent custody used in the cases that are absolutely 100% unavoidable. There is zero reason for secrecy when all is on the up and up, as they say.
All people should know their roots, their history, their heritage, their ancestry. All people should be able to wear that natural history proudly in the form of their given name/surname.
And in closing, two other points I’d like to note:
1) no one wants to have a child just to hand it over to someone else. it is devastating. any woman who has given birth knows this.
2) another issue with all this baby selling secrecy is the need to know if you are about to marry and procreate with your sibling! can we please return to some level of common sense and human decency?
I STILL don't understand OP.
Why call this thread GAY adoptees and GAY adoption when what it really seems to be about is ADOPTION, period.
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the defenders and also for some of the meaningful discussion.
Just to clarify some points,I am 100% gay. I am discussing gay adoption as this issue is something that the Gay Community is striving for and I am normally very supportive with the idea of striving for equality and Gay Rights.
The process of adoption itself to me is the concern and how this has been processed by the Gay Community as though all we are talking about is our rights rather than the process of adoption.
r40, that is the most deranged horseshit I've read in a long time.
OP, what I'm about to say might sound like I'm belittling or disregarding your feelings, which is not my intent.
My take is that adoptees may have a different set of issues, but I'm not convinced they're any worse than lots of biological kids have with their parents. Parent / child and familial relationships in any circumstance are fraught with complicating factors and can take a good while to sort out. Vast numbers of biological children (including many gays) have issues and emotional baggage from feeling like a disappointment; wanting to please their parents; or live up to the accomplishments of their siblings.
Therefore, the fact that adoption can create issues is not something I see as a reason to shy away from it. Just something to watch for and get help dealing with as needed.
Many parents abuse their familiar bonds with their children.
My post has been ignored. My parents were shit. What is YOUR point?
And I know many women who wanted to have abortions but their family or society forced them to keep the baby.
In all honesty,I wouldn't know if I was aborted or not.
"OP makes complete sense if you are willing to listen to someone with experience outside your own. Those who are mocking him should really ask why."
No, OP does not make sense. Those of you who are defending him should ask why.
OP has no reason to use logic and reason. I was adopted and I am not happy, therefore all adopted kids will be miserable! Did it ever occur to you that a lot of people raised by their birth parents are miserable, too?
"no one wants to have a child just to hand it over to someone else"
Uh, lots of women have no problem giving up babies they know they won't be able to raise on their own.
And what about orphans? Where do they go? Do they just stay in orphanages?
Who are you talking to, r46?
OP, your issues weren't caused by being an adoptee, they were caused by you being a crazy fuck.
OP, I feel for you. Half of the people on this thread don't even begin to understand you, even though your language is clear. And you have lovely charmers like r50 and r47 (you have "no reason to use...reason"?) who are attacking regardless of their minimal understanding.
Women who surrendered their children during the great baby giveaway after World War II and before Roe v. Wade were largely pawns of the middle class agenda. After World War II, there was a new middle class that was anxious about its position - and pregnant teenagers threatened the idyllic model family. Some women had no idea what was happening as social workers or their parents forced them to surrender their babies. White women were encouraged to surrender their children, non-white women were encouraged to take welfare and have their tubes tied. A lovely period all around.
Adoption since 1973 doesn't seem to have changed. Birthmothers have more knowledge and power and more resources available to help them raise their children, but there are still many problems. The promises for visits or letters in open adoptions are ignored once the child is firmly in the adoptive family. Birthmothers get back on a solid footing, and they have tremendous regrets about giving up their children.
If the US actually valued families and children, adoption would be extremely rare. That's more true today - but religious organizations are still pushing hard for young women to give up their children.
Those who cannot conceive children - whether because they are gay or because they are infertile - do not have a right to raise other people's children as their own. Thank God the days of the baby mills are over.
I'd really like to hear what the alternatives are to adoption, OP.
Wow. r1. You are deranged.
R51 is nuts, too. "Middle class agenda"? "Baby mills"? WTF are you on?
Woops I meant r51!
Have you studied the 1950s, r54? Social workers and religious institutions were quite open about their intentions. When asked for help, agencies humiliated and shamed single mothers. They often showed them pictures of the doctors and lawyers who wanted their children, and asked the mothers what they could provide. Parents would take their teenage daughters to institutions states away, only taking them back if they came back without their babies.
Even in the early 1970s, women would be fired from their jobs if they became pregnant out of wedlock.
If it this wasn't an agenda to promote middle class nuclear families, what was it?
What on earth is so awful about middle class nuclear families?
r53, the year is 2012.
You wouldn't hear much about adoptions that are happening in 2012, though, until the 2020s or 30s when the adoptees are adults and . You probably will hear plenty - but it's going about transnational adoptions and open adoptions.
I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. I don't think it's worth arguing this with you, though. You clearly feel being raised by people who are not related to you is not a big deal. Maybe it's not - have you tried it?
r51, let's correct our numbering
Ma chatte pue.
"That's more true today - but religious organizations are still pushing hard for young women to give up their children."
Um, no. Religious people think being a mother is the most important thing a woman can do. So young and dirt poor women who aren't fit to handle motherhood insist on keeping their babies because abortion is bad, bad, bad (according to society) and people like you say it is evil for women to give up their kids. If you want to see what happens when women and girls who shouldn't be moms INSIST on keeping their kids you should watch Teen Mom on MTV.
You still haven't said what shuld happen to unwanted kids. I bet you want to stick them in orphanages like Newt Gingrich.
"Those who cannot conceive children - whether because they are gay or because they are infertile - do not have a right to raise other people's children as their own."
Says who? You? Who the fuck are you to tell people how to live their lives? Adoption is legal in the US.
You still haven't said what should happen to unwanted kids if they can't be adopted.
One thread here rips single moms to shreds and another rips single women who give up their babies to shreds. And of course fundies here rip women who have abortions. You people are crazy.
"Women who surrendered their children during the great baby giveaway after World War II and before Roe v. Wade were largely pawns of the middle class agenda. After World War II, there was a new middle class that was anxious about its position - and pregnant teenagers threatened the idyllic model family. Some women had no idea what was happening as social workers or their parents forced them to surrender their babies"
Some people are incapable of understanding that many women choose to give up their kids because they are broke, don't want to raise a kid without a husband, or just don't feel like they would be good moms. Or maybe they are focused on school or a career.
OP, another adoptee here, I agree, adoption sucks. I'm not talking about adoption from the fostercare system, but domestic or international infant adoption. I'll write more when I'm at a computer.
"OP, another adoptee here, I agree, adoption sucks"
Still too dumb to realize you'd be just as unhappy if you had been raised by your natural mom?
r63/r64, please provide a link to stories ofmothers who gave up their children so blithely, and went on in their lives, unburdened by the children they surrendered. I haven't met any, but I have met many, many grown women who break down in sobs of regret that will never leave them.
My own mother claimed she was giving me up because she was too young, and had career goals. In reality, she had no options - the agency never directed her to social services that would help her keep her baby. She didn't dare tell her mother, and no one gave her any hope other than to hand over the baby. She described it as a deal with the devil. They were going to fix the problem, and she had better be grateful.
In reality, she shut down for years and married a man she never loved. She was more functional than most - see Ann Fessler's book "The Girls Who Went Away." And - three or four years later - she was in a position where she could have raised me.
So that's my perspective. It's not just my story - I've met hundreds of adoptees and birthmothers. The people who respond in anger and pull out horror stories about orphanages and abortions tend to be the least informed - and, frankly, are usually adoptive parents.
Adoption is the only crime I can think of where we, the victims, are expected by society to be thankful.
OP, dear, with a fair amount of respect for you as a human being, fuck you.
You have not said anything about anything that does not apply to any adoption matter, regardless of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent(s). Your suggestion that potential gay adoptive parents are focused on their right to adopt rather than the other priorities involved with adopting and raising a child is an absurd point. Of fucking course that's what we're focused on first - if we can't adopt in the first place we can't focus on being good adoptive parents.
My harshness stems from your piddling and personal confusion being used as a blind for the same old homophobia. Think through that thoroughly before you plague us with your thoughts - from the bus, plane, train or as your drive down the highway.
"Adoption is the only crime I can think of where we, the victims, are expected by society to be thankful"
Adoption isn't a crime. A crime is something that is against the law. Adoption is not.
"R63/R64, please provide a link to stories ofmothers who gave up their children so blithely, and went on in their lives, unburdened by the children they surrendered."
My aunt, for one. She became pregnant at 19. She was a waitress making hardly any money and she was not ready to be a mom at that point in her life. So she gave up her baby. No regrets -she knows she wouldn't have been able to raise the kid on her own.
"The people who respond in anger and pull out horror stories about orphanages and abortions tend to be the least informed - and, frankly, are usually adoptive parents."
The people who make up things in anger - like saying women never chose to give up their babies - are usually the ones who are the least informed. Lots of women do not want to be moms, but some people can't accept that. You people are just biased because you were adopted and had a bad experience. What you don't understand is that your life wouldn't have been any happier if you hadn't been adopted. You are too biased to see the truth.
And you still haven't said what should happen to unwanted kids. If they aren't adopted, what happens to them?
r69, with a fair amount of respect for you as a human being, learn how to read.
OP is against adoption. Period. He thinks children should be raised their natural families.
OP is unequivocally for gay rights. Gay rights include pushing for adoption. He hears friends talking about adopting and cringes.
He is conflicted. That conflict is the subject of this thread.
[quote]And you still haven't said what should happen to unwanted kids. If they aren't adopted, what happens to them?
I am waiting for an answer to this too.
r70, I have never said I had a bad experience being adopted. My parents were loving and provided a stable environment for me. I'm closer to them than many of my friends are with their parents. My problem is not with my adoption, it's with the practice of adoption.
I think the general arc of my life would have been largely the same regardless of who had raised.
What should happen to "unwanted" kids? First, their mothers should be able to make a fair decisions - resources and support for them to make it through the first years, as in France. Second, if the mother still does not want to raise the child, every effort should be to made to keep him or her in the family - as Australia does, and I posted earlier. Third, as I also posted earlier, private adoption should be banned - it's billion dollar industry in the U.S. There will still be children who still do not have home. Then, I believe adoption - handled responsibly - is appropriate as a solution. The children's needs should come first, not those of someone who can't conceive and thinks they should be able to go out and buy a baby.
Maybe your aunt didn't want to have a child. Or maybe she really doesn't want to get into with you - given your compassionate, open minded approach.
[quote] First, their mothers should be able to make a fair decisions - resources and support for them to make it through the first years, as in France.
How does it work in France? How does the system in France differ from our welfare system?
"The children's needs should come first, not those of someone who can't conceive and thinks they should be able to go out and buy a baby."
You are just embarrassing yourself by attacking adoptive parents, by saying they are merely people who want to "buy a baby". You silly queens keep saying that adoption is a "crime" and that people don't have the right to raise someone else's baby. You keep forgetting that adoption is legal in America. Move to France, if you hate the system here so much. Oh, and not all adoptive parents are people who can't conceive or gay people. You are proving that you know nothing.
"Maybe your aunt didn't want to have a child. Or maybe she really doesn't want to get into with you - given your compassionate, open minded approach."
There are plenty of women who do not want to be moms, but given your compassionate, open-minded approach maybe they don't want to get into it with you! You are a nasty person who keeps attacking adoptive parents and saying they have no right to adopt a child even though they do. You are also a jerk who assumes that you know what all women want. Stop lecturing other people about their families and their needs.
You're clearly not listening, r76, so I'm going to stop engaging. I have not attacked adoptive parents, two of whom I love very much, and I do not presume to speak for all women. I simply listen to them.
But I'll end with a pair of questions. If adoption is so beautiful, and has no effect on the child, why do people freak out about children getting mixed up at the hospital? Why is getting mixed up just fine for adoptees, but no one else?
Thank you r75. I'm guessing that France spends a lot on social programs, but not much on military compared to the US.
I wish the US would spend less on military and provide a national health care system. Maybe if the US quite trying to be the world police and pushed European countries (like France) to beef up their military we could afford a national health plan.
Op, you're crazy. You're against gay adoption and not straight adoption. Don't try and BS people.
[quote]It's not just my story - I've met hundreds of adoptees and birthmothers.
Where? Adoption support groups? Online anti-adoption message boards? You're pulling from a very extreme and narrow pool.
[quote]please provide a link to stories ofmothers who gave up their children so blithely, and went on in their lives, unburdened by the children they surrendered.
Your arguments about the evils and devastation of adoption are very black and white, akin to pro-life homilies about the preciousness of every zygote. There are many paths to abortion, and there are many paths to adoption. The feelings that birth mothers have with regard to giving up a child are complex and rarely "blithe". It is not a decision made lightly or without regret. But it is likely the right choice at that time for that woman in those circumstances.
France and Australia have universal health care, which is what makes your utopian alternative to adoption possible. When the U.S. achieves that, we can talk. In the meantime, adoption is a very important option for women and the children they cannot or will not care for.
And before you tell me to "try being raised by people not related to me", I am adopted. My adoptive parents are as related to me as related gets. Genes don't make for relationships. Love and support do. The birth mothers I've met unselfishly made a painful choice to give their child a better shot at life than they could provide. The adoptive parents I've met have been both wonderful and flawed, just as any set of birth parents are. Not every adoptee fantasizes about their birth mother swooping in to reclaim them.
No one is guaranteed a perfect life or perfect parents, and blaming the institution of adoption for the lack of such is ridiculous.
This is why most A-Gays are using surrogates. Who wants a pre-owned baby anyway? Look what it did to Angelina.
Wow OP here I opened some raw wounds here sorry about that.
As someone stated before I an not against gay adoption I am against adoption in general.
I am not being homophobic I love being gay and believe in gay rights,equality.I am conflicted by something embraced by the gay community as something good.
I have never said I had a horrible experience worse than other people,I have not.
What then happens to the thousands,hundreds and thousands of infants unwanted.Well I don't know about the US,but in Australia where I come from it is quite difficult to find an Ausralian baby up for adoption.Babys who are up for adoption in Australia are difficult to find,not impossible.As someone suggested the trash can maybe people should check there.lol
Unless you are adopted you have no idea what I am talking about,so don't worry.you don't need to be conflicted,I said I was.
But thanks for the hearing
I can't believe some of the loons in this thread. What about the children who lost their parents due to circumstances such as war or natural disasters? They shouldn't be allowed to be adopted into a loving home?
[quote]Unless you are adopted you have no idea what I am talking about
You know, OP, one could easily turn that around and say, "Unless you were raised by your biological parents, you have no idea what THAT's like" and in fact, for many people, it's pretty shitty ... but I don't think that would make a compelling argument that all or most children should be removed from their birth homes and raised elsewhere, and you aren't saying much to convince me that most adoptions shouldn't happen. Adoption is an imperfect solution to some unfortunate problems, I will grant you that, but you have said little to convince me that the most adopted kids would have been better off with their birth parents, even if they do, understandably, have issues around being adopted.
It's not the 1950s any more, and most babies and kids up for adoption here in the U.S. were not torn from the breast of some unwed Catholic girl whose only serious problem was getting knocked up outside of marriage. If an American infant or child is up for adoption, it most often means the mother is a young teenager, is addicted to alcohol and/or drugs, or suffers from serious mental illness. in many cases, there is also a history of child abuse/neglect in the family. While I agree that there should be more support and resources for young, troubled or impoverished parents to get their lives together and raise their own children if they want to (not to mention a LOT more support and education around preventing unwanted or inadvisable pregnancies in the first place) in a lot of cases, that's just not going to work out. And I'm sorry, but I don't think that just knowing your mom and dad are related to you is always enough to outweigh whatever else might be going on in their household (including the possibility that they are unwilling to raise you and have consciously chosen not to).
Those shows like "Adoption" where the poor, religious teenager hands her baby over to the rich white couple make me extremely uncomfortable. Both adoption and surrogacy seem to be built on the foundations of exploitation. Private adoption is particularly sketchy.
OP, I'm Australian too, so perhaps this is a cultural issue.
Is anyone posting from an aboriginal perspective?
[quote]If you potentially spend thousands of dollars getting a baby and that baby is less than perfect will you be happy with that? If the child wants a relationship with its natural parents are you going to be hurt? How will you cope if the child acts out.?
The OP raises some valid points here. I would never adopt out of fear that I got a less than perfect child. (less than perfect = moody, mean, a bad character etc)
"I have not attacked adoptive parents, two of whom I love very much, and I do not presume to speak for all women. I simply listen to them."
Yes, you are presuming to speak for all women when you say no women could ever want to give up her child. You are only listening to the ones who tell you what you want to hear. You accused my aunt of lying to me and I think I know my own aunt better than you do.
"If you potentially spend thousands of dollars getting a baby and that baby is less than perfect will you be happy with that?"
What if your biological child turns out to be less than perfect? Were Jeffrey Dahmer's parents happy that he turned out to be a serial killer?
"If adoption is so beautiful, and has no effect on the child, why do people freak out about children getting mixed up at the hospital? Why is getting mixed up just fine for adoptees, but no one else?"
Getting "mixed up" at the hospital isn't the same thing as being adopted. Duh. If it is so "beautiful" for mothers to raise their biological children then why do some women kill their offspring? Do you think Caylee Anthony wouldn't have been better off if Casey Anthony had accepted that she wasn't ready to be a mom and put her up for adoption?
[quote]Unless you are adopted you have no idea what I am talking about
You should be saying "Unless you are AUSTRALIAN you have no idea what I am talking about". Your country is still dealing with the aftermath of 100 years of tearing Aboriginal families apart "for their own good". The U.S. has largely avoided such invasive policies and, as a result, adoption is not the least bit controversial. Its a good thing, and we're all for it.
This thread should have been titled "Australian Adoptees and Australian Adoption".
thank you, r91.
[quote] I would never adopt out of fear that I got a less than perfect child.
Well, exactly, r89. You would NEVER. Most people who WOULD are okay with the inevitability that the kid will be less than perfect. Here's a tip for you: don't ever have bio kids, either. They will not be perfect, any more than an adopted kid would be, and you obviously can't deal with that.
Do we have this right? Because you're a) gay, b) adopted, and c) have unresolved personal issues surrounding b), you're saying that you think gay people shouldn't adopt?
[quote]Wow OP here I opened some raw wounds here sorry about that.
I love it when posters here convince themselves they've "struck a nerve" or "opened a wound" just because others strongly disagree with their opinions. OP, I find it hard to imagine a way that adoption has wounded me, considering that I
was raised by my birth parents and among my birth siblings in a totally ordinary nuclear family setting
have never adopted a child, nor tried to, nor had any interest whatsoever in doing so
have never given a child up for an adoption, either
don't want kids and have been careful/lucky enough never to have become pregnant accidentally (i'm a bi woman, so it's not out of the question) or in any other way had a kid foisted upon me
And still, I think the anti-adoption posters here are largely--not entirely, but largely--full of shit.
Studies show adopted children of gay couples do better. Is this because only rich gay couples are able to adopt? probably.
R95, you know what's really full of shit? Jumping into an arena with which you admit you have no personal or relevant experience and judging people who do. It's like a straight pontificating about menstruation.
Straight man pontificating. They really like doing that.
R97, your post does not make a lick of sense.
First, I'm going to assume you meant to say a straight MAN pontificating about menstruation, but even then, you make no sense. What does sexual orientation have to do with menstruation? Men don't menstruate, period (pun intended) and women do, regardless of sexuality, so it makes no sense to single out *straight* anyone as uniquely unqualified to discuss menstruation.
Second, it makes no sense to compare a biological process with a social and legal institution. Should I have no opinion on, say, gun control laws, just because I've never shot anyone or been shot at? That's not how it works; we don't enact laws and social policies based exclusively on the opinions and desires of those who've got their own personal dog in the fight.
I don't have to have *personal* experience with adoption to know how it works and why it happens in my country, what the demographics are on the groups involved, what friends and colleagues who have adopted kids or were themselves adopted have experienced, etc. Additionally, because it's not deeply personal to me, and I don't have "raw wounds" around the issue, I can think about it more objectively than someone who's been personally affected.
Third, I'm not judging the OP. I don't agree with his opinions on adoption, and I have said so, but I have no ill thoughts about him as a person and I have not indicated otherwise.
r96, could you link to the study? I think you're referring to a well-publicized study that children do better in gay households. But these were kids in lesbian households, and were not adoptees. So what you say - that adopted children of gays, presumably rich - really has not been proven.
[quote]Do we have this right? Because you're a) gay, b) adopted, and c) have unresolved personal issues surrounding b), you're saying that you think gay people shouldn't adopt?
This line of question really bothers me. First, it clearly places the needs of the adopters before the children and the mothers. Second, I've posted a lot, but haven't suggested completely banning adoption (OP kind of does). If people would promote mothers keeping their children whenever possible and then recognize and deal with the trauma adoption often causes (rather than going on about how "beautiful" it is and how lucky adoptees are not to have been aborted or poor), I'd be happy. That's not the world I've seen.
Demented, crazed, full of shit adoptee who speaks up
r100, your argument is based on the assumption that adoption is a horrible thing. It's not. If you're traumatized about being adopted, please seek therapy to come to terms with the emptiness in your life that you think only a genetic match can fill. Please stop trying to convince people that "your world" is universal.
What I object to here is that we jump onto the adoption bandwagon as Gay people with both feet and say yea let's take a piece of the pie, because we have a right. This is without any concept of what this might do to the child, except in our minds believing it will either be a good thing for teh child, or they should be grateful for being saved.
I find it telling that a couple of adoptees have come on here and discussed being adopted and what they have found is people coming back with
"your argument is based on the assumption that adoption is a horrible thing. It's not. If you're traumatized about being adopted, please seek therapy to come to terms with the emptiness in your life that you think only a genetic match can fill."
Seriously, seriously you say to someone who has been traumatised by something you have never experienced and say get over it, we had it bad too.
I don't care personally what you say about me, but leave your opinions about someone kind enough to share their thoughts alone.
The fact that several adoptees have come onto this site and said how they feel, is more than generous to me. That some people have willingly ignored the fact that some of these adoptees didn't have a great experience, you dismiss as aberration, or perhaps something that happens to Australians only.
Really? well thank god it only affects Australians and not other people. Please
It's interesting that our little thread about gay adoption is invaded by a troll who is against ALL adoption, knowing full well that no effort will ever be made to stop hets from adopting. Now we see that the similar argument used against hate crimes, when all other groups were already protected but gays were not, is receiving a repeat application. Derail the issue by saying adoption IN GENERAL is a bad idea, and maybe you can fuck the gays over. Well fuck you troll, you are not going to stop us.
[quote]Seriously, seriously you say to someone who has been traumatised by something you have never experienced and say get over it, we had it bad too.
I AM adopted, OP. We are not all inherently damaged by being raised by parents who are not blood related. I'm giving voice to the rest of us who are not victims of a system you describe as putting the child last. Maybe your Australian system is truly as evil as you describe, and for that you have my sympathy, but American adoption is not like that. The trauma you describe is not something we all suffer. I don't doubt you have deep issues about it, and therapy will do you a world of good.
r105, you're really out of line. Many have questioned adoption for many years - and they are not trolls. Gay adoptees are in a particularly unusual position, and I'm glad that the OP has brought it up.
r103, with all due respect, it may be you who could benefit from the therapy you have repeatedly suggested others get. Andrew Breitbart - a classic case of adoptee rage - said very similar things. You have tried to suggest that anyone who thinks being separated from their family at birth is a bad thing has deep issues, which you magically escaped. Have you ever looked at why you think that?
One of the characteristics of trauma is that it is blacked out and not remembered. So how would you know if you suffer or not without seriously listening to others and looking at your own life?
I don't mean to suggest that only adoptees suffer, or that one can't have a great life and be adopted. But shutting down these questions - and condescendingly suggesting that those who question the practice have "deep issues" - says that you don't want to have discussion. Why is that?
I thank you for your concern, r107, but I assure you that I am not suffering from a trauma so deep that I dissociate when even considering the idea of adoption. But if you feel that you have suffered such a primal wound due to being adopted, what is wrong with the suggestion of seeking help for that pain? It's a much more constructive way of dealing with it than insisting that the entire system is rotten to the core, and that those who have "magically" escaped its clutches are most likely blacking out from the severity of it all.
I have no problem talking about adoption and issues unique to adoptees, despite your claims. What I do have a problem with is that we are locked into your narrative, where adoptees are fucked up because they were torn from their true families and that is why adoption is a terrible thing that should be avoided at all costs. Adoptees have a wide range of experiences, strengths, and shortcomings, as do children raised by their biological parents.
Not everything boils down to being adopted. Breitbart's rageaholic nature could be because he never felt loved, certainly. What's Rush Limbaugh's excuse?
OP here r105 I am not a troll.
If adoption exists then if it is heterosexual or gay does not bother me. What bothers me is the way we embrace something that can be In some cases destructive to the child involved.
But as some of you feel I am just a troll after a homophobic thrill,I won't stop you.
Believe what you want.Believe it only happens in rare cases or that I am actually straight and really come onto gay sites to get a thrill by discussing adoption for gay people or better still it only happens to Australians.
But I want say that some of you have great opinions and I loved hearing them.Thanks
It's interesting that what you describe as "my" narrative, r108 - is actually one you construct. I don't thing adoptees are damaged, but they share a common experience. I have never said that, and I have never said most of the narrative you describe. It's your defensiveness and anger that are creating a story no one told.
How do you know whether I've addressed these issues in therapy or elsewhere. If I haven't, you say I'm empty and should. If I have, you insist ipso facto that I should not have the opinion I hold. Maybe you've really delved to conclude that bring separated from your family has had zero effect on your life?
Gay people are not all the same, and we come with a wide range of experiences. But to separate us and insist that being gay is no different than being straight, that homophobia and the closet? I have a problem with that. It would shut down and deny an important part of our selves l, which is what I feel you are doing.
Yet, again and again, you choose language like "not everyone is wounded," suggesting the problem is everyone but you. It reminds me of an adoptee who snarled that he doesn't have a problem with anger - just with his birth mother. On the way to his anger management class.
I just knew Maddox, Pax, and Zahara have been looking at me with barely concealed hatred.
Angie - looking to unload 3 ungrateful brats
Has it right!
I have no doubt that adoption can cause major emotional trauma. But so can all the alternatives for children born to people who can't raise them - foster care, orphanages, being raised by people who don't want a child.
Adoption gives the best chance of suffering any emotional trauma in a financially and socially stable environment.
OP, each of your succeeding posts is paragraph after paragraph of "look at me! I had it rough! Pay attention to me!"
One, stop painting entire issues with just your particular corner of them.
Two, seek help. I know we say this a lot, but seriously, it's time to be an adult and gain perspective on how you feel.
Three, get a fucking blog.
Wow. I've been professionally involved in adoption in the US for over 30 years. It's so complex and involves such deeply personal issues that it really doesn't lend itself to internet discussions all that well.
One thing I've learned over the years is that just about everyone has an opinion about adoption and most of them don't actually know anything about it.
OP, questioning adoption as an institution is perfectly normal. Challenging the way it's practiced is healthy. Adoptees and birth parents standing up for themselves is how progress has been made. As adoption is dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, it is becoming less secretive, less based in fantasy and more humane.
To those attacking the OP, you're aiming at the wrong target. Within the triad, the enemies of gay adoption are straight adoptive parents. They're the ones pouring money into anti-gay ballot initiatives and legislation. They're not necessarily homophobic, they just don't want the competition. Adoptees and birth parents have supported gay adoption for years. It's the troublemakers and those willing to question the status quo in adoption who have been the strongest allies for the gay community.
Interesting, R117. I work in adoption from a regulatory/policy perspective (not in the U.S.). Gay people are allowed to adopt where I live. I can see the attitude about 'competition' - there can be a great sense of entitlement amongst people who want to adopt. I find that especially prevalent amongst the so-called 'Christians' who are out to save babies. I think it should be easier for mothers to actually keep their babies instead of having no other choice but giving them up for adoption. The 'Christian' sense of entitlement, I think, keeps that from happening in the U.S., too. It'd be interesting to talk to you.
R117 here. Sorry that I didn't make it clear, gay adoption is legal in my state.
I know what you mean regarding the great sense of entitlement among adoptive parents. Right now gay couples are less obnoxious and entitled than the straight couples. Sadly, I can see a more pronounced sense of entitlement creeping into their attitude.
I agree, it should be easier for people to keep and parent their children. With the way things are going here in the US, that seems unlikely. Both gay and straight pre-adoptive and adoptive parents resent young, single mothers and young couples who keep their children. That resentment is widely shared by those outside of the triad.
Pregnant young women are seen as "bad girls" who will, of course, be "bad mothers." There's a belief that they should have their children taken from them if they won't willingly give them up. People don't even bother to hide their contempt for birth parents, often constructing elaborate substance abuse, physical abuse and anti-social behavior scenarios as well as alleging "danger to children" where none of those things actually exist. There is definitely a strong Christian, particularly a strong American Puritan Christian, streak running through this.
They also don't bother to hide their contempt for working-class people. Even when birth parents are supporting themselves and their children, the fact that they are not middle-class is seen as reason enough to take their children and give them to "more deserving" middle-class couples. I have actually had to explain to people that being working-class or poor is not a valid reason to terminate parental rights.
As for the "baby saving" Christians - don't get me started. They're anti-abortion, anti-gay fanatics. Alongside their insane savior complex, it's all about retribution. Young women should be punished for having sex and punished for getting pregnant. That punishment should take the form of forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term and culminate in having their children taken from them by any means necessary. If they could bring back the American version of the Magdalene Laundries, I swear they would do it.
They see gay couples as evil, godless, child molesting perverts who can't be trusted with children. Gay couples must not be "rewarded" by being allowed to adopt. They hate adoption equality every bit as much as they hate marriage equality. This attitude is absolutely based in their "Christian" belief system. So much for loving thy neighbor.
Happily, we can rely on these would-be saviors to be openly stupid and disqualify themselves from being considered good candidates. Most agencies don't place children with birth parent-hating bigots who will inflict their "savior" craziness on adoptees.
I don't mean to imply that progress hasn't been made in American adoption. I've seen it and participated in it. We have moved forward in many ways. It's just frustrating that we haven't made more progress. Adoptive parents still come first, with adoptees coming second and birth parents a distant third.
Sorry, this post has gone on a lot longer than I had intended.
They need to have the gay babies raised by gay parents and the straight ones raised by normal parents.
To that great number of you - most of you gay it seems - who have taken umbrage at OP's concern about adoption: you all have no idea what you are talking about. Of course, gay people should be as free to adopt children as straight couples, but this is not the issue at hand, nor what I think OP is arguing. Adoption for most adoptees (not all, but most) causes lasting, deep psychological trauma...if any of you bothered to look at the tonnes and tonnes of research available on the net (since well before the 1960s even), you would begin to get the sense that separation anxiety does not equal "having a few issues" here and there; it means chronic self esteem problems, inability to negotiate relationships, either through a constant and sometimes imperceptible fear of abandonment or through consistently choosing likely abandonners, and confusion about one's identity. These problems are enormous, hard to solve and painful - in fact, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that adoptees are much more likely to suicide than other people. So gay adoption, like all adoption, should be about the almost inevitable trauma that it will cause the child, not about the commitment of the potential parent. Of course there are kids who end up needing families, and those families should love them, but if you are naive enough to think you, as an adoptive parent, are that powerful that you can overcome the trauma that separation from birth mothers causes, you are both naive and as stupid as people who were disgusted by unmarried motherhood in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were. Oh, yes, I am adopted, and I am gay. Please think before you opt for self-righteousness...
Agree completely r121. Society views adoption as wonderful instead of the trauma that it is.