Pediatricians endorse gay adoption

[Willowlicious]

Doctors endorse adoption by gays

Parental rights is aim of pediatrics academy
February 4, 2002

BY LINDSEY TANNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHICAGO -- The American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed adoption by homosexual people, saying gay couples can provide the loving, stable and emotionally healthy family life children need.

The new policy focuses on gaining legally protected parental rights for gay people whose partners have children, but it also could apply to gay couples who want to adopt, said Dr. Joseph Hagan Jr., chairman of the committee that wrote the policy.

Citing estimates suggesting that as many as 9 million U.S. children have at least one gay parent, the academy urged its 55,000 members to support measures allowing adoption by gay couples.

An academy report, based on related research, said "there's no existing data to support the widely held belief that there are negative outcomes" for children raised by gay parents, Hagan said.

Critics said the nation's largest pediatricians group relied on flawed data and is meddling in a political issue.

"It's a group of pro-homosexual people . . . who want to further tear down the one-man, one-woman relationship in America," said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian lobbying group.

Sheldon called the policy irresponsible and "a disservice to medicine."

But the academy said it's crucial for pediatricians to get involved because gay households are becoming more prevalent and more doctors are confronted with related issues.

Gay partners often are the primary caretakers, but without parental rights they have no legal say in matters such as granting permission to give a child a shot, said Dr. Barbara J. Howard, an assistant pediatrics professor at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center who helped draft the policy.

Also, children in gay households may lack health insurance if the family's breadwinner is a gay parent without parental rights, Hagan said.

The policy is published in the February issue of the academy's medical journal, Pediatrics.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychological Association also support adoption by gay people.

The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

*******************************************

[Wiccagrrl]

Heard this earlier today. Good news indeed.

[TwiLightJoy]

I saw an article similar this in the papaer this morning too. It made for a happy breakfast. My paper also had postive things to say about second-parent adoptions, perhaps these will become more prevalent in spite of the fact that a handful of states have laws against them. Perhaps I will type some of it up later on.

~Joy

[Kalita]

My only wish is that the media would stop the policy of immediately going to some radical-right reactionary for a counterpoint whenever something gay-positive comes up. I mean, we know wht they'll always say; why give them the soap box to stand on?

If they wanted a real argument for this article, they could have asked an actual doctor whose opinion differed, or perhaps a family counsellor. Someone qualified to argue the point.

Sorry, rant now over.

[wiltar4evr]

Thank you Willowlicious!
This was a very enlightening article. It sure made me think. In the past I've always told peolpe that I didn't want to have children. And after I read this it made me ponder if I've only been saying that to people because I'm gay therefore, how am I going to have a child(artificial insemination doesn't sit well with me).
So now, this just gives me more to think about ...adoption hmmmm never really considered that. Hopefully, if and when that time comes for me we will have gained this right.
So, thank you again Willowlicious
BTW: love your posting name hee, hee!

edited 'cuz I forgot a comma...for some reason it just really bugged me...I'm a bit of a perfectionist I guess. Whoa is me.
------------------
"Life and death, energy and peace...If I stopped today, it was still worth it. The mistakes that I have made, and would have unmade if I could. The pains that have burned me and scarred my soul...It was worth it, for having been allowed to walk where I've walked. Which was to hell on earth, heaven on earth, back again, into, under, far in between, through it, in it and above."

-from the journal of Gia Marie Carangi

[This message has been edited by wiltar4evr (edited February 04, 2002).]

[Willowlicious]

You're quite welcome, Wiltar4evr!

You know, my gf and I have talked a lot about having kids the past couple of years. I used to be interested in adopting until I read horror stories about how hard it was for a gay couple. If we were able to adopt, I would feel like we were doing something doubly worthwhile--raising a child, plus taking in a baby that perhaps had no place else to go. A win-win situation for sure. It makes me crazy that there are still so many people that would deny us and a child that opportunity. Sometimes it blows my mind when I think of how much I've altered what I want to do with my life because I don't have the rights that heterosexuals do. Most of the time I'm well-adjusted, but sometimes it just HITS ME how hard some things are for us, ya know? Like I'll be having a normal day, minding my own business, and then suddenly I'll read something or see a news report and realize AGAIN that I'm considered a total freak in some circles just because I'm in a long-term, extremely happy relationship with another woman. Whatever.

Didn't mean to go on a tangent, since this is a happy article overall. I don't know what my gf and I will do about having children, but I'd like to have as many options as possible.

EDITED TO RESPOND TO SPUCKIE: Thanks for the info. I live in Michigan and it is quite difficult here right now. I know of several people who have had a very hard time. It really depends on where you live and what people you run into within "the system." I know that I can technically adopt, it's just more difficult and that pisses me off. Luckily, we are moving to California in about 2 years.

[This message has been edited by Willowlicious (edited February 04, 2002).]

[spuckie]

FWIW - my sister and her partner adopted two girls (ages 2 and 5) a few years back, with no problems. This was in Orange County, CA tho...

[the literary exterminator]

Ok, I'm going to be a pessimist for a bit ...

Think about the implications of this statement:

quote:

---

The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

---

Now I read this as implying that homosexuality is an environmental, not genetic, product. If homosexuality were genetic, then a parental homosexual orientation would increase the likelihood of a homosexual orientation in the child. All it's saying is that the environmental factors that cause someone to be homosexual are no more present with a parental homosexual orientation.

Of course, the thinking person would argue that whether or not homosexuality is an environmental vs a genetic product is irrevelant. My fear is that some people could use statements like the ones above as ``evidence'' to support certain familiar irrational claims.

I just don't think the findings are necessarily all positive. In the long run, they could be twisted to support negative arguments.

[This message has been edited by the literary exterminator (edited February 04, 2002).]quote:

[Thanatopsis]

Yay to this news. Being adopted myself, I'm very pro adoption. Its about freaking time. Oh well, small steps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the literary exterminator:
I just don't think the findings are necessarily all positive. In the long run, they could be twisted to support negative arguments.

---

Not to be horribly cynical, but that seems to be true of almost anything having to do with people's claims about homosexuality and such. People always seem to take things out of context and mold them to fit their own needs. What's interesting is that its always those anti-gay people. Intriguing that they would need to twist the truth to give themselves a leg to stand on.

T

------------------
DAWN: I gave birth to a pterodactyl.
ANYA: Oh my god, did it sing?quote:

[Kalita]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the literary exterminator:
Now I read this as implying that homosexuality is an environmental, not genetic, product.

---

I was under the impression it wasn't either; it's biological, but not congenital.

I have read no serious findings that imply that the adopted OR biological children of gays and lesbians have a greater tendency towards homosexuality thatn that of the general public. They would certainly be more comfortable being so, in such an environment; but the initial tendencies are unrelated to genetics or environment.

Just making sure that's all clear.quote:

[Saena]

Thanks for the article, Willowlicious! I haven't been on this board for a few days, and it was nice that this was the first thing I got to read. Nothing like good news to reverse the effects of an ugly cold that may turn into a flu soon yeah yeah, I know. I should get a flu shot...

[Banshee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalita:
I was under the impression it wasn't either; it's biological, but not congenital.

I have read no serious findings that imply that the adopted OR biological children of gays and lesbians have a greater tendency towards homosexuality thatn that of the general public. They would certainly be more comfortable being so, in such an environment; but the initial tendencies are unrelated to genetics or environment.

Just making sure that's all clear.

---

Well, I just came back from my LGBT Politics and Policies class that deals w/Consitutional law and cases. One of the main arguments/opposition to the LGBT community having solid cases against discrimination in adoption/marriage is that they cannot meet one of three criteria for "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class status when deciding to fight these cases/laws on a Supreme Court level. The criteria that cannot be met is to prove, beyond a doubt, that they are part of a group with unchangable traits(ie, race/gender--but, let's not get into the issue of transgender because it was only my 2nd class). If the medical community could PROVE that there is the existance of the long rumored 'gay gene' then, it could be argued that it is biological and, therefore, unchangable. Unfortunately, though, that leads to a whole other slew of ethical issues in regards to genetics and engineering of genes.
I applaud the AAP for coming out in support of queer adoptions. This comes a year or so after the American Medical Association came out to say that homphobia is detrimental to the health of LGBT youth. Basically that it reinforced unhealthy choices--ie, drug abuse, suicide, etc.
But, one must remember, that the APA, as a whole, does not speak for the majority. For every member of the APA in favor of this announcement, you will find Pediatricians speaking out against homosexuality. Obviously a sad reminder that, although there is no place for personal biasness in medicine, it is still existant.

-S

------------------
"Believe me I don't want to go,
And it'll grieve me 'cause I love you so
But we both know..."quote:

[ariel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

---

yeah, 'cause that would be BAD.. so I guess the childen are "safe" then?

That was kind of a turn off after such nice news..

[This message has been edited by WillTara (edited February 05, 2002).]

IP: Logged

jitterbug
Doll's Eye Crystal


Posts: 73
Registered: Dec 2001 posted February 05, 2002 10:55               

---

I'm just sitting here thinking how dumb the whole 'environment' issue is; lots of kids with het parents turn out gay,so what would be the difference the other way around??

IP: Logged

nika
Willowhand


Posts: 445
Registered: Jun 2001 posted February 05, 2002 11:42               

---

jitterbug you took the words right off my screen. It's really a pointless argument all the way around...I mean my parents aren't gay and of all my gay friends only one of them has a gay parent. People really do need to get some common sense.

IP: Logged

Sundowner
Blessed Wannabe


Posts: 4
Registered: Jan 2002 posted February 05, 2002 13:42               

---

Mucho good news. A good parent is a good parent. People should focus more on that.

On a side note, the babysitter my sis and I had while growing up was a lesbian. Sad and amusing at the same time is that her parents were careful not to let my mom know, because they were worried it would cost Penny her sitting job - while Mom never cared b/c Penny was the best sitter she'd ever hired.

IP: Logged

Pixie-Muso
Big Pineapple


Posts: 876
Registered: Apr 2001 posted February 06, 2002 01:20               

---

I think it's great that there is someone out there who is willing to support the rights of gay people to adopt.

The whole genetic/environmental thing just baffles me. I mean, my father is completely homophobic - anything of the like just digusts him. He's always raised me with a strict Catholic up-brining. But just look at me (I'm not out with my parents, obviously). I've been attracted to girls since childhood - so I doubt that my environment has had anything to do with my sexuality either. I guess I'm just trying to re-itterate what nika and jitterbug said. Like, het parents have gay kinds... it happens the other way around too... so what's the big deal?

I remember having a discussion about gay-parenting in religion class a couple of years ago, just after Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, wouldn't approve of IVF for lesbian couples. One girl, was saying how she thought that it would be better for a child to grow up with parents who love them - and each other - and really want children rather than abusive parents like the ones that are out there. I know that there was a point made somewhere in that argument (mind you, I can't really remember all of it), because my best friend and I were debating it after class too.

So back to the environmental thing, if children grow up with het parents and end up being gay - it's just as likely that children could grow with gay parents and end up being straight as a stick.

Oh yeah, plus I always wondered if I'd ever have kids. Lately I've been thinking more on the "no" side. I've always thought that adoption was a good thing for kids and parents alike - parents who really want to give kids a good home - kids getting a family - it's win win (of course there are the occasion situations where things don't always work out). But hey, maybe this'll open my mind up more. We'll see.

------------------
"...the hardest thing in this world is to live in it..."
~Buffy, The Gift.

IP: Logged

Cipher
Cool Monster Fighter


Posts: 176
Registered: Aug 2001 posted February 07, 2002 21:10               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the literary exterminator:
Ok, I'm going to be a pessimist for a bit ...

Think about the implications of this statement:

The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

Now I read this as implying that homosexuality is an environmental, not genetic, product. If homosexuality were genetic, then a parental homosexual orientation would increase the likelihood of a homosexual orientation in the child. All it's saying is that the environmental factors that cause someone to be homosexual are no more present with a parental homosexual orientation.

---

I think you might have misread the context of the statement which was referring to adoptive parents more than genetic. It was saying there is no basis for the assumption (made by many opposed to gay couples adopting) that being raised by gay parents would cause the child to become gay. The parental environment does not "infect" the child with a tendency to be gay; that's just a stupid baseless assumption born of homophobia. There's no basis for the assumption that orientation is environmentally influenced by being raised by gay parents. That's all it was saying. The placement and phrasing was a little annoying with the inference that more kids turning out gay would be an undesirable outcome, but I think their intention was to point out how stupid those who feel so are to think that being raised by gay parents would make that happen.

It's not saying it's genetic, either. There has been some evidence that brain physiology might be connected (though which direction of causality the link goes--if any--is not known), but human sexuality is so complex that there is almost certainly no one explanation like a "gay gene" (though a genetic predisposition is not impossible) to explain everything. It's probably different for different people. How could we scientifically explain why people fall in love with those that they do and why some people are attracted to different types of people (short/tall, heavy/thin, etc) than others are?

But let's also consider the statement in the context of genetic parents (which perhaps was in fact meant to be included by the statement as well). It's still true. There's no real basis for the assumption that gay parents would have gay offspring any more often than straight parents. That doesn't mean there necessarily isn't such a genetic link, just that there is no basis for assuming it (no evidence). It's not like it's an easy thing to study either way. Basically, they're trying to counter those who would legislate other people's lives on the basis of their own paranoid assumptions with no rational basis.

But whether it's genetic or environmentally influenced doesn't really matter. Either way it's not something people can just change about themselves. Just decide one day you're going to be attracted to something different, that you're going to have feelings for people of the opposite gender than you do now. Stop loving the person you love, for no reason other than you want to stop (because someone else tells you that you should). Start loving someone you have no feelings for, just because you want to (because someone else tells you that you should). I'm pretty sure feelings don't work that way for any normal person (straight or gay) and it seems like fairly obvious common sense, so what needs to be "proven"? How can people not already see it?

[This message has been edited by Cipher (edited February 07, 2002).]

IP: Logged

quote:

[This message has been edited by WillTara (edited February 05, 2002).]IP: LoggedjitterbugDoll's Eye Crystal


Posts: 73
Registered: Dec 2001 posted February 05, 2002 10:55               

---

I'm just sitting here thinking how dumb the whole 'environment' issue is; lots of kids with het parents turn out gay,so what would be the difference the other way around??

IP: Logged

posted February 05, 2002 10:55                I'm just sitting here thinking how dumb the whole 'environment' issue is; lots of kids with het parents turn out gay,so what would be the difference the other way around?? IP: LoggednikaWillowhand


Posts: 445
Registered: Jun 2001 posted February 05, 2002 11:42               

---

jitterbug you took the words right off my screen. It's really a pointless argument all the way around...I mean my parents aren't gay and of all my gay friends only one of them has a gay parent. People really do need to get some common sense.

IP: Logged

posted February 05, 2002 11:42                jitterbug you took the words right off my screen. It's really a pointless argument all the way around...I mean my parents aren't gay and of all my gay friends only one of them has a gay parent. People really do need to get some common sense. IP: LoggedSundownerBlessed Wannabe


Posts: 4
Registered: Jan 2002 posted February 05, 2002 13:42               

---

Mucho good news. A good parent is a good parent. People should focus more on that.

On a side note, the babysitter my sis and I had while growing up was a lesbian. Sad and amusing at the same time is that her parents were careful not to let my mom know, because they were worried it would cost Penny her sitting job - while Mom never cared b/c Penny was the best sitter she'd ever hired.

IP: Logged

posted February 05, 2002 13:42                Mucho good news. A good parent is a good parent. People should focus more on that.

On a side note, the babysitter my sis and I had while growing up was a lesbian. Sad and amusing at the same time is that her parents were careful not to let my mom know, because they were worried it would cost Penny her sitting job - while Mom never cared b/c Penny was the best sitter she'd ever hired.IP: LoggedPixie-MusoBig Pineapple


Posts: 876
Registered: Apr 2001 posted February 06, 2002 01:20               

---

I think it's great that there is someone out there who is willing to support the rights of gay people to adopt.

The whole genetic/environmental thing just baffles me. I mean, my father is completely homophobic - anything of the like just digusts him. He's always raised me with a strict Catholic up-brining. But just look at me (I'm not out with my parents, obviously). I've been attracted to girls since childhood - so I doubt that my environment has had anything to do with my sexuality either. I guess I'm just trying to re-itterate what nika and jitterbug said. Like, het parents have gay kinds... it happens the other way around too... so what's the big deal?

I remember having a discussion about gay-parenting in religion class a couple of years ago, just after Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, wouldn't approve of IVF for lesbian couples. One girl, was saying how she thought that it would be better for a child to grow up with parents who love them - and each other - and really want children rather than abusive parents like the ones that are out there. I know that there was a point made somewhere in that argument (mind you, I can't really remember all of it), because my best friend and I were debating it after class too.

So back to the environmental thing, if children grow up with het parents and end up being gay - it's just as likely that children could grow with gay parents and end up being straight as a stick.

Oh yeah, plus I always wondered if I'd ever have kids. Lately I've been thinking more on the "no" side. I've always thought that adoption was a good thing for kids and parents alike - parents who really want to give kids a good home - kids getting a family - it's win win (of course there are the occasion situations where things don't always work out). But hey, maybe this'll open my mind up more. We'll see.

------------------
"...the hardest thing in this world is to live in it..."
~Buffy, The Gift.

IP: Logged

posted February 06, 2002 01:20                I think it's great that there is someone out there who is willing to support the rights of gay people to adopt.

The whole genetic/environmental thing just baffles me. I mean, my father is completely homophobic - anything of the like just digusts him. He's always raised me with a strict Catholic up-brining. But just look at me (I'm not out with my parents, obviously). I've been attracted to girls since childhood - so I doubt that my environment has had anything to do with my sexuality either. I guess I'm just trying to re-itterate what nika and jitterbug said. Like, het parents have gay kinds... it happens the other way around too... so what's the big deal?

I remember having a discussion about gay-parenting in religion class a couple of years ago, just after Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, wouldn't approve of IVF for lesbian couples. One girl, was saying how she thought that it would be better for a child to grow up with parents who love them - and each other - and really want children rather than abusive parents like the ones that are out there. I know that there was a point made somewhere in that argument (mind you, I can't really remember all of it), because my best friend and I were debating it after class too.

So back to the environmental thing, if children grow up with het parents and end up being gay - it's just as likely that children could grow with gay parents and end up being straight as a stick.

Oh yeah, plus I always wondered if I'd ever have kids. Lately I've been thinking more on the "no" side. I've always thought that adoption was a good thing for kids and parents alike - parents who really want to give kids a good home - kids getting a family - it's win win (of course there are the occasion situations where things don't always work out). But hey, maybe this'll open my mind up more. We'll see.

------------------
"...the hardest thing in this world is to live in it..."
~Buffy, The Gift.IP: LoggedCipherCool Monster Fighter


Posts: 176
Registered: Aug 2001 posted February 07, 2002 21:10               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the literary exterminator:
Ok, I'm going to be a pessimist for a bit ...

Think about the implications of this statement:

The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

Now I read this as implying that homosexuality is an environmental, not genetic, product. If homosexuality were genetic, then a parental homosexual orientation would increase the likelihood of a homosexual orientation in the child. All it's saying is that the environmental factors that cause someone to be homosexual are no more present with a parental homosexual orientation.

---

I think you might have misread the context of the statement which was referring to adoptive parents more than genetic. It was saying there is no basis for the assumption (made by many opposed to gay couples adopting) that being raised by gay parents would cause the child to become gay. The parental environment does not "infect" the child with a tendency to be gay; that's just a stupid baseless assumption born of homophobia. There's no basis for the assumption that orientation is environmentally influenced by being raised by gay parents. That's all it was saying. The placement and phrasing was a little annoying with the inference that more kids turning out gay would be an undesirable outcome, but I think their intention was to point out how stupid those who feel so are to think that being raised by gay parents would make that happen.

It's not saying it's genetic, either. There has been some evidence that brain physiology might be connected (though which direction of causality the link goes--if any--is not known), but human sexuality is so complex that there is almost certainly no one explanation like a "gay gene" (though a genetic predisposition is not impossible) to explain everything. It's probably different for different people. How could we scientifically explain why people fall in love with those that they do and why some people are attracted to different types of people (short/tall, heavy/thin, etc) than others are?

But let's also consider the statement in the context of genetic parents (which perhaps was in fact meant to be included by the statement as well). It's still true. There's no real basis for the assumption that gay parents would have gay offspring any more often than straight parents. That doesn't mean there necessarily isn't such a genetic link, just that there is no basis for assuming it (no evidence). It's not like it's an easy thing to study either way. Basically, they're trying to counter those who would legislate other people's lives on the basis of their own paranoid assumptions with no rational basis.

But whether it's genetic or environmentally influenced doesn't really matter. Either way it's not something people can just change about themselves. Just decide one day you're going to be attracted to something different, that you're going to have feelings for people of the opposite gender than you do now. Stop loving the person you love, for no reason other than you want to stop (because someone else tells you that you should). Start loving someone you have no feelings for, just because you want to (because someone else tells you that you should). I'm pretty sure feelings don't work that way for any normal person (straight or gay) and it seems like fairly obvious common sense, so what needs to be "proven"? How can people not already see it?

[This message has been edited by Cipher (edited February 07, 2002).]

IP: Logged

posted February 07, 2002 21:10               

quote:

---

Originally posted by the literary exterminator:
Ok, I'm going to be a pessimist for a bit ...

Think about the implications of this statement:

The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

Now I read this as implying that homosexuality is an environmental, not genetic, product. If homosexuality were genetic, then a parental homosexual orientation would increase the likelihood of a homosexual orientation in the child. All it's saying is that the environmental factors that cause someone to be homosexual are no more present with a parental homosexual orientation.

---

I think you might have misread the context of the statement which was referring to adoptive parents more than genetic. It was saying there is no basis for the assumption (made by many opposed to gay couples adopting) that being raised by gay parents would cause the child to become gay. The parental environment does not "infect" the child with a tendency to be gay; that's just a stupid baseless assumption born of homophobia. There's no basis for the assumption that orientation is environmentally influenced by being raised by gay parents. That's all it was saying. The placement and phrasing was a little annoying with the inference that more kids turning out gay would be an undesirable outcome, but I think their intention was to point out how stupid those who feel so are to think that being raised by gay parents would make that happen.

It's not saying it's genetic, either. There has been some evidence that brain physiology might be connected (though which direction of causality the link goes--if any--is not known), but human sexuality is so complex that there is almost certainly no one explanation like a "gay gene" (though a genetic predisposition is not impossible) to explain everything. It's probably different for different people. How could we scientifically explain why people fall in love with those that they do and why some people are attracted to different types of people (short/tall, heavy/thin, etc) than others are?

But let's also consider the statement in the context of genetic parents (which perhaps was in fact meant to be included by the statement as well). It's still true. There's no real basis for the assumption that gay parents would have gay offspring any more often than straight parents. That doesn't mean there necessarily isn't such a genetic link, just that there is no basis for assuming it (no evidence). It's not like it's an easy thing to study either way. Basically, they're trying to counter those who would legislate other people's lives on the basis of their own paranoid assumptions with no rational basis.

But whether it's genetic or environmentally influenced doesn't really matter. Either way it's not something people can just change about themselves. Just decide one day you're going to be attracted to something different, that you're going to have feelings for people of the opposite gender than you do now. Stop loving the person you love, for no reason other than you want to stop (because someone else tells you that you should). Start loving someone you have no feelings for, just because you want to (because someone else tells you that you should). I'm pretty sure feelings don't work that way for any normal person (straight or gay) and it seems like fairly obvious common sense, so what needs to be "proven"? How can people not already see it?

[This message has been edited by Cipher (edited February 07, 2002).]quote:

[jitterbug]

I'm just sitting here thinking how dumb the whole 'environment' issue is; lots of kids with het parents turn out gay,so what would be the difference the other way around??

[nika]

jitterbug you took the words right off my screen. It's really a pointless argument all the way around...I mean my parents aren't gay and of all my gay friends only one of them has a gay parent. People really do need to get some common sense.

[Sundowner]

Mucho good news. A good parent is a good parent. People should focus more on that.

On a side note, the babysitter my sis and I had while growing up was a lesbian. Sad and amusing at the same time is that her parents were careful not to let my mom know, because they were worried it would cost Penny her sitting job - while Mom never cared b/c Penny was the best sitter she'd ever hired.

[Pixie-Muso]

I think it's great that there is someone out there who is willing to support the rights of gay people to adopt.

The whole genetic/environmental thing just baffles me. I mean, my father is completely homophobic - anything of the like just digusts him. He's always raised me with a strict Catholic up-brining. But just look at me (I'm not out with my parents, obviously). I've been attracted to girls since childhood - so I doubt that my environment has had anything to do with my sexuality either. I guess I'm just trying to re-itterate what nika and jitterbug said. Like, het parents have gay kinds... it happens the other way around too... so what's the big deal?

I remember having a discussion about gay-parenting in religion class a couple of years ago, just after Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, wouldn't approve of IVF for lesbian couples. One girl, was saying how she thought that it would be better for a child to grow up with parents who love them - and each other - and really want children rather than abusive parents like the ones that are out there. I know that there was a point made somewhere in that argument (mind you, I can't really remember all of it), because my best friend and I were debating it after class too.

So back to the environmental thing, if children grow up with het parents and end up being gay - it's just as likely that children could grow with gay parents and end up being straight as a stick.

Oh yeah, plus I always wondered if I'd ever have kids. Lately I've been thinking more on the "no" side. I've always thought that adoption was a good thing for kids and parents alike - parents who really want to give kids a good home - kids getting a family - it's win win (of course there are the occasion situations where things don't always work out). But hey, maybe this'll open my mind up more. We'll see.

------------------
"...the hardest thing in this world is to live in it..."
~Buffy, The Gift.

[Cipher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the literary exterminator:
Ok, I'm going to be a pessimist for a bit ...

Think about the implications of this statement:

The academy's policy statement says "there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation in the child."

Now I read this as implying that homosexuality is an environmental, not genetic, product. If homosexuality were genetic, then a parental homosexual orientation would increase the likelihood of a homosexual orientation in the child. All it's saying is that the environmental factors that cause someone to be homosexual are no more present with a parental homosexual orientation.

---

I think you might have misread the context of the statement which was referring to adoptive parents more than genetic. It was saying there is no basis for the assumption (made by many opposed to gay couples adopting) that being raised by gay parents would cause the child to become gay. The parental environment does not "infect" the child with a tendency to be gay; that's just a stupid baseless assumption born of homophobia. There's no basis for the assumption that orientation is environmentally influenced by being raised by gay parents. That's all it was saying. The placement and phrasing was a little annoying with the inference that more kids turning out gay would be an undesirable outcome, but I think their intention was to point out how stupid those who feel so are to think that being raised by gay parents would make that happen.

It's not saying it's genetic, either. There has been some evidence that brain physiology might be connected (though which direction of causality the link goes--if any--is not known), but human sexuality is so complex that there is almost certainly no one explanation like a "gay gene" (though a genetic predisposition is not impossible) to explain everything. It's probably different for different people. How could we scientifically explain why people fall in love with those that they do and why some people are attracted to different types of people (short/tall, heavy/thin, etc) than others are?

But let's also consider the statement in the context of genetic parents (which perhaps was in fact meant to be included by the statement as well). It's still true. There's no real basis for the assumption that gay parents would have gay offspring any more often than straight parents. That doesn't mean there necessarily isn't such a genetic link, just that there is no basis for assuming it (no evidence). It's not like it's an easy thing to study either way. Basically, they're trying to counter those who would legislate other people's lives on the basis of their own paranoid assumptions with no rational basis.

But whether it's genetic or environmentally influenced doesn't really matter. Either way it's not something people can just change about themselves. Just decide one day you're going to be attracted to something different, that you're going to have feelings for people of the opposite gender than you do now. Stop loving the person you love, for no reason other than you want to stop (because someone else tells you that you should). Start loving someone you have no feelings for, just because you want to (because someone else tells you that you should). I'm pretty sure feelings don't work that way for any normal person (straight or gay) and it seems like fairly obvious common sense, so what needs to be "proven"? How can people not already see it?

[This message has been edited by Cipher (edited February 07, 2002).]quote: