Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I think that if something happened to me that required my children to
    need foster parenting, I would far rather have them raised by an
    intelligent, compassionate gay foster parent of either sex, whether
    single or part of a couple, than I would by some of the blatant
    sexists who are foster parents in this community.  (For example,
    the neighbor who is sending his three sons to Dartmouth and Syracuse
    and hence only has enough money to send his daughters to UNH, even
    though the youngest daughter is by far the brightest.)
    
    --bonnie

    
    I wouldn't deny them the right, but I wouldn't envy them the task,
    either.
    
    DFW

    I have never, ever been able to understand what all the flack is
    about gay parenting.  What's the difference if the person(s) raising
    the children are loving and caring???  Since I was a kid, my family
    has always had gay friends, and still does.  So I guess that for
    me there is no mystery.  As with anything else, there are good and
    bad gays.  I would far rather see a child raised by a gay couple
    who honestly loves each other and that child, then by a straight
    couple who are not loving of themselves and the child.  It breaks
    my heart to think that there are so many unwanted children who would
    benefit so much by having loving parents;  also that there are many
    gay couples who would love to have a child, and can't adopt because
    of some stupid rulings.
    
    Jane

To me, on the surface, there should be nothing wrong with it.  However, I 
too, have to get over stereotypes.

Next door, we have a gay couple.  One of the men has his two kids [14 & ~9] 
and his lover.  When I first found out about it I thought "That's 
different" but nothing wrong.

When I SAW the father beat the older kid and almost send him down a flight 
of stairs, I was angry.  I then found I had to separate the WHYs behind 
what I was feeling.

You see, his lover used to work at a video store around the corner.  I knew 
him and we got along.  At the time I didn't know about his lifestyle [nor 
did I care, he was just a nice acquaintance that I knew].  Well, after he 
quit, I discovered he lived next door with a roomate.  Still, no big deal.

Then it happened.  He got the crew-cut, the leather and chains and studs 
and, all of a sudden, I didn't know this guy.

The whole building [I live in a converted apartment/now condo] wants them 
out.  We've called the police when the eldest was shooting out the windows 
of hi aunt's boyfriend's car [claimed it was ok because his aunt told him 
to do it as she had just thrown out her boyfriend].  It's all a big mess 
now.

In addition to this, I was abused by a gay relative [not sure how, all I 
know is I can't remember 4 years of my life when said person was taking 
care of me during the days].

The upshot of this is that, although I know there MUST be caring gay and 
lesbian couples, I can't easily get over the predjudices that have been 
reinforced by bad experiences.

I wish I could.  There SHOULDN'T be a problem.

    
    
    I guess they need to be as trained and as interested as biological
    parents.
    
    (Set flame low)
    
    	What the **** is the issue?  Do they (Gay and Lesbian people)
    have two heads or something?
    
    (Set flame almost off)
    
    I really do not understand the problem.
    
    _peggy	(-)
    		 |	People who love other People make good Parents
    

The issue is that the current official policy on foster parenting does
not agree with you Peggy. The policy says that two parent heterosexual
families with kids should be found (I believe).
	Mez

  The problem is that many people believe that homosexuality is a learned
  behavior and that people choose their sexual preference.  The fact that
  these beliefs contradict all scientific evidence on the subject doesn't
  change the problem...

  JP

    Most of the gay people I know are much more in touch with their
    own feelings and are more ... "hearing", I guess... of others feelings
    [as a result of the introspection involved when they (my friends,
    any way) came out to themselves...] than most of the straight people
    I know.  Personally, I'd trust a gay couple to be better parents
    than a straight couple, but then again, I guess I'm prejudiced.
    
    Lee

    
    
    Is this a policy across the country or just in Massachusetts, which
    has other problems with who is or is not a good potential parent.
    
    _peggy	(-)
    		 |	Biological reproduction does not
    				make one a good parent

    
    I tend to think that children that are up for adoption have already
    had a difficult enough time without the possible added burden of
    being raised by parents that don't fit the general populations
    definition of a normal family. Please understand, I am not judging
    anyone or their ability to be parents. At this point in time
    however, I feel that these children do not need any further social
    stigmas to deal with. Their feelings and what they might be subjected
    to by other children and society alike must be considered.
    
    Again, I judge no one and am NOT claiming one group is better or
    worse than another regarding parenting. No offense to anyone intended.

re: .8 (Lee)
>    Personally, I'd trust a gay couple to be better parents
>    than a straight couple, but then again, I guess I'm prejudiced.

    I wouldn't say you're "prejudiced", but that you've actually thought
    about it, and met some of the people involved, and have an open mind.
    The people who make the policy aren't so open.

    There was a letter in the Boston Globe yesterday from someone who said
    that kids need role models for "love relationships", and they need them
    for heterosexual relationships.  I'd say that folks like that, and the
    folks who make the policies, are the prejudiced ones.

    re. .8 and .11 - I wouldn't say that's an "open-minded" opinion
    either.  It's just as closed-minded as the policy-setters who say
    that straight people make better parents than gays.  All you are
    doing by saying you'd trust a gay couple to be better parents than
    a straight couple, is the EXACT SAME THING they are doing, only
    you've picked a different side to defend.
    
    I thought the "open-minded" opinion was that sexual preference has
    no bearing on how good a parent one will be.
    

    
    re. .12
    
    I think an "open-minded" opinion would be to take all the factors
    that connotate what would make a "good and effective" parent into
    consideration.  For instance - 95% of all child sexual abuse is
    committed by heterosexual men.  That fact would certainly make me
    consider the "appropriateness and logic" of placing a child in a 
    heterosexual family.  So...there are definitely pluses and minuses
    in considering the "sexual orientation" of the proposed parents.
    I feel that gay and lesbian parents - because of the life experiences
    they have had - add a great deal to the quality of a childs life.
    
    

    The reality is that there are not enough 'normal' families to care
    for the large number of foster children.
    
    If one uses the argument that children are better off in families
    that meet the norm one has to go one step further.  Exhausting all
    resources ('normal' families) what is the next best alternative?
    
    Living in the community as part of a loving family is far better
    than living in an institution.  The logic behind this restriction
    borders on the ridiculous.

Massachusetts has an offical policy stating that the foster
setting of choice is with a heterosexual, married couple with other 
children, preferably extended relatives of the foster child(ren).    
The requirements are such that gay (and single) foster parents are 
pretty much eliminated.  The policy is set by the governor for the
Department of Human Services, and at present does not have the force of
law.  There are people working on trying to get a law passed to that 
effect, in spite of the fact that a Dukakis-appointed commission came 
back with a recommendation that the policy be revised to "the best 
interests of the child".  Incited by the situation in Massachusetts,
New Hampshire just passed a law banning gays from being foster or 
adoptive parents.  

For those of you not up on it, this Mass. policy is the result of a 
piece of Boston Globe "investigative" journalism where they reported 
that a gay male couple were foster parenting two small boys.  Although 
both men had been extensively investigated by the state human services 
and found to be quite suitable as parents and the children seemed to be 
doing very well in that setting, the human services department 
immediately yanked the children from the home, and Dukakis came up with 
his famous policy.  The children were placed in the perfect home: 
heterosexual married relatives, where they were then sexually abused.

I am totally outraged by the situation.  I feel that there is a very 
small step between this policy and taking away custody of one's own
natural children because of sexual preference.  Believe me, when a gay
person decides to have children, they do it with a very clear understand
of themselves and what is involved.  Gay relationships are chosen, and
remain stable in spite of enormous social pressure and lack of support. 
People who have gone through the process of examining themselves and
their relationships in the extensive detail that a most gays need to do
in order to come to terms with themselves, their identity, and their
society make very good parents.  One takes nothing for granted, and is
considerably more inclined to be tolerant and respect of human
differences.  Of course there are screw-ups, but I'd be willing to bet
these are more often natural parents who are having a lot of other kinds of
difficulties, some of which may center around being very unhappy with a
parent role that they may have undertaken without much feeling of choice
or understanding of their own identity at the time.  A foster/adoptive
parent is making a very deliberate and well-considered choice.

The idea that children of gay parents are going to have a necessarily 
harder life is so much sh*t.  Growing children in a glass jar amid 
perfect lawns and houses full of married white people in suburbs does 
nothing whatsoever to guarantee a good quality of life.  Everyone needs 
to deal with the hardships and unfairness of society, and if one has a 
loving family you can learn to grow through the experience.  You 
might as well say that children shouldn't be allowed to grow up in black 
families, who have such a harder life in America than white ones.

Children in gay families understand in a much more direct way the need
to respect other human beings' differences, to strive for justice, and
to value love, goodness, and friendship on an individual basis. They
learn to be much more open than is typical in straight families about
their own and others' feelings.  If they are loved, they will grow up 
secure and healthy, and probably a little wiser than most.  

As far as the terror of children becoming gay because they are raised in 
a gay family, that is quite an absurdity.  First of all, it presupposes 
that to be gay is a defect of some kind, rather than an attribute, like 
blue eyes.  Secondly, most gays come from heterosexual families.  If 
heterosexuality isn't contagious, what makes everyone think 
homosexuality is?  In a gay family, parents are much more likely to be 
supportive of whatever kind of sexuality a young person develops.  
Children are not likely to be beaten, disowned or otherwise denied 
because they come out as heterosexuals, which is much more than I can 
say for children of some heterosexual families.

    I think people who love children and want to be parents make the
    best parents, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, number
    of heads, etc.
    
    As .-1 says, most child molesters are men.  Should we assume from
    this statistic that *only* lesbians should be able to be foster
    parents?
    
    Perhaps it would be nice to put all children into a "perfect"
    _Leave_it_to_Beaver home with 2 children and .7 dogs, but there are 
    not enough of those kinds of homes.  A loving home of any kind,
    where the children are not abused, is preferable to no home.
    
    Elizabeth
                                                

    ....and what about gay foster kids, who might need some stable role
    models ??
    
    There was a good film on PBS this week called "Not all Parents are
    Straight" - interviews with kids and their gay parents. Very good.
    
    Funny, but I think this is a much bigger deal to the "general public"
    - people who have ideas about how OTHER people ought to live their
    lives, people who have high moral standards for *YOU* to live up
    to - than it is to the kids involved. There was another film on
    PBS chronicling the lives of a few "Gay families", and one foster
    kid said basically, "hey! I'm happy here, I'm productive, I'm cared
    about. Why should it matter if the people who are caring for me
    are gay, straight,purple-with-pink-polka-dots, or whatever." This
    kid had gone from a real trouble-maker to a well-behaved, involved,
    teenager due to the care of the Gay foster parents. 
    
    The kids I've heard, have always said "So what's the big deal"
    
    It's *TOTAL STRANGERS* who get upset about the kids' lives.
    
    So go figure. Beats me.
    
    Dawn
    

    One thing that concerns me. A gay couple might be
    perfecly capable of providing a warm loving envi-
    ronment for a child, but what happens when that
    childs' peers find out about his parents lifestyle?
    Children have an awesome capacity for cruelty, often
    inheriting/absorbing nasty attitudes from parents.
    A child who hears "Johnnys' parents are queer, nyah
    nyah!" in the schoolyard is sure to suffer. This
    may be one reason for the official bias towards
    heterosexual fostering.

    <--(.18)
    
    Yah, Dana, but you get that same perverse cruelty no matter WHAT
    the distinguishing characteristic is.  Or even isn't.  Kids are
    just plain cruel when they don't know who they are and are scared
    that someone will find out.
    
    						=maggie

    re .13  
    Even IF 95% of all child sexual abuse is comitted by heterosexual
    men, this does NOT mean that 95% of all heterosexual men abuse
    children!  The DSS should investigate all potential parents for
    the potential to abuse.
    
    re. 18 and .19
    I agree with .18.  Admittedly, children will tease about any
    "differences" they can find between themselves and their playmates,
    but I believe the intent of the DSS is to minimize these difeerences,
    for the good of the kids.
    
    (BTW, although I feel that children need to be placed in the most
    "normal" environment (as society defines normal), to try and
    minimize any future trauma (since they have been through enough),
     I agree that a
    loving home is far far better than no home at all, regardless of
    the foster parents' sexual preference.)

    
    
    Children who are cruel to other children are usually mistreated
    in their home - by their "loving" parents.  
    
    If we judge which home environment is best and we use the "normal"
    described by society then we are doing harm to these kids.  The
    accepted version of a good home is one that in reality fosters the
    degradation of females and the supremancy of males as well as a
    whole lot of other social ills.  For over a century Western society
    has been judging "normal" behaviour and "mature" actions on the
    study of white males - who are very far from the norm - they are
    not the ones who outlook I understand and for over 5/6 of the world
    population the life experience of white males do not correspond
    with reality.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	A loving Parent is a good Parent
    

 
 
	    NOT ALL PARENTS ARE STRAIGHT
	    Produced and Directed by Kevin Whit
	    Full Frame Productions
	    aired recently on some PBS stations
 
	    Review by Judith Pasternak
 
Six families - three headed by lesbians, three by gay men - are the
subject of "Not All Parents Are Straight," a touching and unabashedly
supportive video documentary [...] Its intimate picture of gay family
life, primarily from the perspective of 10 teenage children of gay
parents, poses questions of interest to audiences of every sexual
background - and reveals some surprising answers.
 
Children of gay parents watching the program, for example, might be
most interested in seeing how the young people deal with being
"different."  Gay parents may want reassurance that the children will
emerge undamaged, if not unscathed, and that they won't grow up to
hate the parents who made them "different."  And of course there are
many people, still, whose first question is, "Will the kids grow up
gay?"
 
According to the program, approximately 25% to 35% of US lesbians and
15% of gay men are parents, for a total of about 4 million gay parents
with about 8 million children.  The families shown - all white and
evidently middle-class - include single parents with one child, single
parents with two children, one female couple with a child, and,
somewhat surprisingly, a male couple with three teenage sons.  Most
are Californians.
 
The makers of this documentary clearly searched for families with
articulate young people who could speak openly and with precocious
clarity about their feelings in some sensitive areas.  Still, the
viewer is left with the startling idea that there may actually be
enriching aspects of having gay parents, including, in the words of
one mother, a heightened ability to understand, deal with and love
people as they are instead of as we - or society - imagine them to be.
 
Ranging in age from 13 to 19 most of the young people in [the show]
appear to be unharmed by having gay parents, though all of them have
had to struggle, at least with the outside world.  Their accounts of
their experiences range from the wrenching to the casually cheerful.
Some have has to struggle within themselves to accept their parents.
Thirteen-year-old John, whose father kidnapped him in the course of a
painful custody battle, says, "I had to learn that my mother wasn't
some kind of monster just because she was a lesbian."  Today, though,
he says he thinks his family, which consists of himself and his mother
Jean, is just about the way it should be.  Others have gone through
less anguish on the way to acceptance, like 19-year-old Heather, who
says of her father, "When Dad told me he was gay, I thought, 'Wow!
This explains everything!'"
 
"Not All Parents Are Straight" has its share of tragedies as well as
triumphs.  [...] Its most poignant moments come during the story of
Sabina and her father Paul.  We see Sabina first as a strong-minded,
independent 18-year-old woman who say of her gay father, "I think we
have the best parent-child relationship of anyone I know."  In a
subsequent interview, two years later, she describes his death from
AIDS, and her inability to deal with her grief.
 
Toward the beginning [...] a short clip from the Phil Donahue Show
shows a woman describing gay parenting as "the very worst form of
child abuse."  Later on, 13-year-old Satya, the program's most
extraordinary protagonist, says thoughtfully, "I know people hate gay
men and lesbians because they're different.  What I don't know is, why
they hate what's different."  Then she pauses and says, with
determination, "But we have to change that."
 
Pleas for tolerance like this program rarely convert bigots like the
woman on the Donahue show.  But it may be able to reach and reassure
the better-intentioned folks who are the real silent majority.  It's
worth watching, certainly for gay parents, their lovers, and their
children - but also for grandparents, teachers, and everyone else
whose life is touched by the issue.  If decent people stop worrying so
much about what will happen to the children of gay parents, the Bible
thumpers and gay baiters will find themselves shouting in a vacuum [...]
 
Oh, yes - do the kids turn out gay?  For those who care, none of the
young people in "Not All Parents Are Straight" identify themselves as
gay so far.  But as Satya says, all of their gay parents canme from
straight homes anyway, so in this respect at least, it doesn't seem to
follow that "like parent, like child."  Perhaps that, too, will
reassure some people.
 

    
    Re: .21 "for over a century western society has been judging
            "normal" behaviour and "mature" actions on the study
    	    of white males- who are very far from the norm...."
    
    	Could you kindly elaborate please as I don't understand.
        What is the norm(al) then?
    	Where did you get info. supporting the statement that the
    	accepted version of a good home supports degredation of women
    	and the supremacy of males?
    	And are we talking adoption in the US or global adoption?
    	In that context what does the life experience of the rest
    	of the world have to do with adoption practices here?

    re .23 re .21
    What I believe was meant was that standards set by psychological
    and physiological researchers were based on studies on college
    men - a ready source of research fodder in the past. As a result
    certain types of behaviors/responses have been considered "abnormal"
    when they were quite normal for the people expressing them - who
    didn't happen to be male and/or in their early twenties.

re .22

Thanx Catherine.  I KNEW there had to be some caring 'non-standard' couples out 
there.  I just haven't seen them yet.

Sorry I missed the documentary.  I would have been glued to the set.

I was one of those kids who endured cruelty when I was small.  I was 
"different" because I spoke with "big words", but even with the abuse, my 
parents did not bring me up to act dumb.  

I knew a girl in 5th grade who was half black, half white.  Her attitude kept
anyone from bothering her.  She acted as if she were proud of it, and if 
anyone had anything negative to say about it, they knew that they would have 
trouble from her for saying it.  We grew to accept her family's being different
as her family's being "neat".  "Wow!" we said.  "Really?"

I firmly believe that if you bring a child up with a good sense of right and 
wrong, and pride and love, then the child will be okay.

I do not know what all the laws are outside of Massachusetts.  Some places, like
California, do not discrimate, much.  Nevertheless, it is hard to adopt a child
if you let the agency know that you are gay.  Even if they let you adopt, it is
likely they will let only one of you adopt (if you are in a couple), even if 
you have been together 10 years.  Some places, especially where gay love-making
is illegal, will not even consider a known gay person to be a foster or adoptive
parent.

I will probably find out how tough it really is in a few years, when my SO and
I look into adoption in our state.  We are planning on being open, and seeing 
what happens.  In the meantime, we will practice with "homegrown" kids.  :-)

                   Carol

    	The qualities needed to be a good parent have nothing whatsoever
    	to do with a person's sexual orientation.  Caring, responsible
    	people (who have much to offer a child) can be found in the
    	gay community and among the heterosexual population.
    
    	As far as kids being "different" -- no matter what you do for
    	a child, other kids will always find ways in which the child
    	is different.  It's something that no one has any control
    	over.
    
    	My son was considered different in Hawaii because he had blond/
    	whitish hair in grade school.  He was different in Hawaii,
    	Arizona, California and Colorado because he was the youngest
    	kid in the class *and* the tallest.  He was also a somewhat
    	non-aggressive kid (so smaller boys were constantly trying
    	to challenge him to win the distinction of having "taken" a
    	bigger boy.)  Ryan could defend himself, but it annoyed the
    	h*ll out of him to be hassled just because he happened to be
    	tall and muscular.  
    
    	Children need parents who love them.  It's wrong to deny a
    	child the love of a good parent because the parent happens
    	to be gay.  
    
    						    Suzanne... ;-)

    Choosing foster parents based on sexual orientation has no basis
    in reality and is based on an unenlightened idea about why people
    are gay.  If you believe that people learn to be gay than you would
    conclude that gay foster parenting is bad (assuming that you also
    think being gay is bad).
    
    We need education and maybe some research to prove to people that
    sexual orientation is not learned.  I applaud efforts like the
    TV program in an earlier reply.
    
    This is not to say that all gay households are perfect for placement
    of a foster child.  I can imagine that much damage could be caused
    by an extreme "Man Hating" lesbian foster parent.  Young minds might
    not be as able to decide the truth for themselves.  This danger
    should be dealt with in the selection process the same way that
    would be used to detect any other form of bigotry.

    
    					MJC O->

    I think the hysteria arose because of society's view of gay _men_
    rather than lesbians.  Sort of a triple whammy: 1) as men they
    _can't_possibly_ be good parents, after all only a woman can be
    a "real mother" [NOT my opinion, no flames please]; 2) as homosexuals,
    they _must_ be sick; and 3) as male homosexuals, they _must_ be
    promiscuous.  
    
    I still think it stinks.
    
    Lee

    re .29:
    
    4) as male homosexuals, they _must_ be pedophiles.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I know great, good, adequate, and lousy parents who also happen to be 
    straight people.
    
    I know great, good, adequate, and lousy parents who also happen to be 
    gay and lesbian people.      
    
    (The difference seems to be that straight people have to do something 
    overtly abusive before they are considered poor parents.)   
    

    Given that most of the child abuse I've heard about is done by
    heterosexual men who are married one might say that the current
    policy is asking for abused children. I think homosexuals should
    be allowed to be adoptive or foster parents. Too bad there's not
    a law requiring biological parents to be upstanding citizens. liesl

    RE: .28
    
    Could we PLEASE put to bed (no pun intended) the *^&% stereotype
    of the "Man-Hating Lesbian". In a society in which women are regularly
    raped, beaten, murdered, stereotyped ("woman driver") AND the term
    "Woman-Hater" doesn't compute, it is outrageous that the term
    "Man-Hater" is applied to ANY woman. The chauvinism involved here
    is that she is lesbian becuse she hates men, not because she loves
    women - once again, the subject is the male, and female is only
    secondary.
    
    Dawn
    

    RE: .33
    
    Bravo!
    
    One small point, there are "Women-Haters" amoung men - most of them
    heterosexual and married.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    RE: .34
    
    Yes, there ARE "Women-Haters" among men - many of them. My point
    was they aren't a)called that , B)noticed as such, or c) whatever.
    The point is: women are treated badly, but there is no verbalization
    of "Woman-Hater". Women need only make a remark which is construed
    to be negative toward men, and the term "Man-Hater" surfaces faster
    than JAWS.
    
    Dawn
    

RE:< Note 364.35 by VINO::EVANS > and .33

There is a term for one who hates women:  Misogynist.  I don't know of any 
similar term for one who hate men (I was looking for an adjective to describe
some of Dorothy Parker's stories, some of which attack men quite heavily, but
all of which are worth reading.)

That the word Misogyny has been used for a long time and man-hater (the closest
equivalent I know of ) seems to have appeared quite recently tells you either
about what was going on in society, or, more likely, that hating women was
accepted enough to be talked about, while hating men was not accepted.

--David

    The root of misogynist is "gyne" from the Greek "gune", meaning
    woman.  "Aner", or as an adjective "andr-", is the Greek for man.
    This would unfortunately put two vowels together as misoandrist.
    So would it be misandrist?
    
    							Ann B.

< Note 364.37 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >
                             -< Cynical?  No,... >-

    The root of misogynist is "gyne" from the Greek "gune", meaning
    woman.  "Aner", or as an adjective "andr-", is the Greek for man.
    This would unfortunately put two vowels together as misoandrist.
    So would it be misandrist?
        							Ann B.

I don't know.  Neither of your suggestions is in my (lousy) dictionary, I'll
check the OED when I get home.  Misandrist is close to "misanthrope" meaning
someone who hates all people.  This may be the case where men suffer through
having the masculine pronoun double as the generic one, so there is a word
for hating women, and one for hating everyone, but none for hating men.

--David

I went through this convolution about four months ago. According to
the two scholars with whom I consulted, the "male" equivalent of
mysognist is misanthrope (I hope I spelled this right).

In todays liberated usage, this means "hater of people", but back then
"people" implied "men".

 For futher details, consult Jon ERIS::Callas.

			Nigel		

    Oh yeah, the word "mysognist" has been around for a long time. I
    even know people who use it. Still, it seems odd to me that NO term
    describing woman-hating is used near as much as "Man-hater", and
    never is it used A) as quickly in describing actions, or B) as such
    a sanction.
    
    Of course, I'd bet if you asked "the person on the street" to define
    "mysognist" you'd be lucky to get 1 right answer. But "man-hater"??
    Heeeeyyyyyy! Nooooooo problem.
    
    Dawn
    

    Re: .33  The Man-Hating stereotype
    
    > ...she is lesbian because she hates men, not because she loves
    > women...

    I know many women who are lesbians including my sister and I don't have
    any illusion that they all hate men or that they are with women because
    they hate men.  Even though many of my lesbian friends are also radical
    feminists I wouldn't clasify them as "man hating" either.  This is not
    to say that I don't think that there are some people who might come
    close to fitting the stereotype. (Just because a man is paranoid does
    not mean that there isn't someone out to get him) Take Andra Dorkin
    (sp?).  In her book "Intercourse" she tries to make the case that *all*
    acts of penetration by a man are acts of violence against women.  I
    would hate to see a young girl grow up in a household that believed
    this thinking that her boyfriends wanted to commit a violent act upon
    her.
    
    I agree that some people would like to place the "Man Hating"
    stereotype on all lesbians.  I hope that my use of the term
    is not helping to perpetuate that stereotype though that might
    be unavoidable.
    
    					MJC O-> 

    Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I didn't get from your original
    note that you were so cognizant of the stereotyping.
    
    Regarding extremists such a Dworkin, I don't know that kids can
    be protected totally. What if they were placed in a right-wing
    fundmentalist home, or with "survivalists"? 
    
    By the way, speaking of Dworkin - there's a good review of her book
    by Karen Lindsay in SOJOURNER this month. She brings out a lot of
    the points that some of  us have made in this conference.
    
    Peace, Dawn
    

    Re. .42:
    > Regarding extremists such a Dworkin, I don't know that kids can
    > be protected totally. What if they were placed in a right-wing
    > fundamentalist home, or with "survivalists"? 
    
    Indeed that is one of the dangers of this kind of thinking.  The
    people who make the foster home selection spend so much time trying
    to protect the children from a benign gay homelife that they put
    them into a home that hides much greater dangers behind the curtain
    of current fashion.
    
    					MJC O->

    
    
    A lot of good points have been brought up here. And it got
    me to wondering.....Does anyone know the actual process and or
    criteria used for the selection of foster parents. Some folks
    I know tried to adopt but the "red tape" and other obstacles
    resulted in waiting periods that stretched out over months and years.
    They finally adopted children from another country. I have often
    wondered just what the qualification process is. Anyone know?

RE:L .5

"Do they (Gay and Lesbian people) have two heads or something?"

Would it make any difference if they did?  What are you, prejudiced against
people with birth defects??? ~/~ :-}

RE: .7

"The fact that these beliefs contradict all scientific evidence on the subject
doesn't change the problem..."

I think that's a generalization.  Every time someone says *all*, I get uneasy...

RE: .9

"Biological reproduction does not make one a good parent"

True, but it is the normal way of becoming a parent. 
                        

RE: .13

"For instance - 95% of all child sexual abuse is committed by heterosexual men."

That's a misleading statistic.  This statistic is swamped into noise by the fact
that there are something on the order of 10 heterosexuals to every homosexual. 

RE: .15

"I feel that there is a very small step between this policy and taking away
custody of one's own natural children because of sexual preference."

It's a substantial difference in my mind, but close enough to make me leary...

"Gay relationships are chosen, and remain stable..."

Oh, I had not heard any statistics that indicate that homosexual relationships
are any more stable from bang to zip then homosexual relationships.

"Children in gay families understand in a much more direct way the need to
respect other human beings' differences, to strive for justice, and to value
love, goodness, and friendship on an individual basis...." 

Other then the fact that I would say that *some* gays have given more thought to
their persons, and the fact that *foster* parents *choose* to have children, I
would not say it makes a difference.  You're generalizing again.  It should be
the intropsectiveness, and desire to be a foster parent that make the
difference. 

RE: .21

"The accepted version of a good home is one that in reality fosters the
degradation of females and the supremancy of males as well as a whole lot of
other social ills."

I don't accept it...  And I don't think it's as bad as all that! :-} Perhaps
'the riffraff' do that, but *we* certainly don't *here*... ~\~  Again, this
is not diferentiated by sex preference.

RE: .*

'If hetrosexuality isn't contagious, why should homosexuality be contagious?'

From the comon frame of mind, because health is not contagious, but sickness is.

Seriously, if, as certain people have mentioned, homosexuality is set by genetic
programming before birth, why should it not be treated as any other genetic or
birth defect?

RE: "Not all parents are straight"

I would not think that this is any better propaganda then the propaganda from
the opposite side...  It also portrays a one sided view.  But then I didn't see
the flick.  "Never believe your own propaganda." 

RE: .29

You got that...

RE: .32

"Too bad there's not a law requiring biological parents to be upstanding
citizens."

You got that... :-)

RE: .33

There are both Woman-Haters, and Men-Haters.  The Man-Haters may have more
reason to hate, but that does not make it right, and the female of the species
is allways vicious...

RE: .40

"Of course, I'd bet if you asked "the person on the street" to define
"mysognist" you'd be lucky to get 1 right answer. But "man-hater"?? Heeeeyyyyyy!
Nooooooo problem."

Of course you wouldn't think that it easily recognized because it's in English,
now, would you?? ~\~ :-)

Jim.

    
    Re .45
    
    > "For instance - 95% of all child abuse is committed by heterosexual
    >  men."

    > That's a misleading statistic.  This statistic is swamped into
    > noise by the fact that there are something on the order of 10
    > heterosexuals to every homosexual.

    This sounds like you're assuming that that 10% (note this percentage
    only relates to males) is responsible for the other 5% of abuse.
    
    Please note that the other 5% also includes abuse by women.
    
    						{clb}
    

RE .45 by Yoda::Baranski


    >'If hetrosexuality isn't contagious, why should homosexuality 
    >be contagious?'
    >From the comon frame of mind, because health is not contagious, 
    >but sickness is.
    
    >Seriously, if, as certain people have mentioned, homosexuality is 
    >set by genetic progamming before birth, why should it not be treated 
    >as any other genetic or birth defect?
                             
    
    I think that the use of the words sickness and defect in relation
    to homosexuality is extremely homophobic, and I am personally offended 
    by it.  I sent mail to the author, and my sense of his response was
    that he's merely repeating public sentiment not describing his own 
    feelings about gays and lesbians.  I think we reached a stale mate
    there, and he and I may need to agree to disagree, but I wanted
    to bring up the issue of homophobia here.  Maybe there should be a 
    separate topic to talk about homophobia at DEC or in the Women's
    movement, but I wanted to respond here first because I was very angry 
    when I read those words.  Other responses?  I think that homophobia
    hurts all women, Lesbian and Non-Lesbian.  The fear of being thought
    a lesbian sometimes keeps women from doing things they want to do:
    sports, science, math.  I once attended a workshop on Homophobia
    within the Battered Women's Movement, and one of the workshop leaders
    posed the question, "After all, can any woman really prove that
    she is NOT a lesbian?"
    
    Justine

    re .45:
    
    > RE: .13
    > "For instance - 95% of all child sexual abuse is committed by
    > heterosexual men."
    > 
    > That's a misleading statistic.  This statistic is swamped into noise 
    > by the fact that there are something on the order of 10 heterosexuals
    > to every homosexual.                            
    
    If the average population is 90% heterosexual and 10% homosexual,
    then one would expect the same proportion among child molesters.
    As it is, 95% are hetero- and only 5% are gay. You sound like you
    believe that homosexuals are by nature child molesters. When in
    fact they totally unrelated.

      
    > Seriously, if, as certain people have mentioned, homosexuality is
    > set by genetic programming before birth, why should it not be
    > treated as any other genetic or birth defect?
    
    Not all genetic traits are defects. Why don't we treat negroidism
    as any other birth defect? Who are you to judge it as a defect?
    Some of the greatest minds of history were homosexual.
    
    re .47:
    
    You say that Mr. Baranski told you he was only repeating the "public
    sentiment". Well, I would believe that of the statement, "From the
    comon [sic] frame of mind, because health is not contagious, but
    sickness is." But not of the statement calling homosexuality a birth
    defect. He prefaces the statement with "Seriously,..." This I take
    to indicate the shift from sotto voice to expressing his own feelings.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
        

    re: .47, .48, and Jim's original comment -- 
    
    Recent experimental research on rats indicating that inadequate or
    overly abundant supplies of certain hormones in utero affects the
    sexual orientation of the offspring has produced results that could
    lead one to honestly believe that at least some homosexuality is caused
    by a birth defect. 
    
    This research is at present merely suggestive, certainly not
    conclusive.  The experiments have been done mostly on rats and it is
    not clear that it applies to human beings, who go through much more
    complex development.  At least one of the scientists involved in the
    research has gone on record as saying he thinks that even if their
    research turns out to say something about human behavior, it doesn't
    explain all homosexuality. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    
    I can feel the fames at my feet.
    
    re: illness and homosexuality.
    
    This probably needs its own note.
    
    Sexuality in humans includes the intellect as well as physical
    reactions - from the reseach I have done over the past year, looking
    at early civilizations, it appears that human sexuality has been
    both homosexual and heterosexual for many thousands of years and
    that anti-homosexual attitude came along with the invasions from
    the north uncivilized Aryans.  The people of the civilized worlds,
    where the climate was better had developed system of goverment that
    valued females and males (I am not sure about the status of slaves).
    The society was matrilinal (heritage traced through the mother).
    
    I therefore conclude that Homosexuality is no more a defect that
    heterosexuality.
    
    _peggy
    			(-)
    			 |	The Goddess is in all
    

RE: .46

"This sounds like you're assuming that that 10% (note this percentage only
relates to males) is responsible for the other 5% of abuse."

I try not to make any assumptions... *but* if I were forced to make assumptions,
I would assume, all other things being equal, that "95% of child abuse is by
hetrosexual males" is a meaning less statistic without the rest of the abuse
distribution, and the distribution of homosexuals to hetrosexuals.

As it is, I assume that sex preference has nothing to do with abuse.

RE: .47

"I think that the use of the words sickness and defect in relation to
homosexuality is extremely homophobic, and I am personally offended by it."

I can assume you that I am *not* homophobic, nor was the comment meant to
offend.  ( Obligatory, "Some of my best friends are...") However, I personally
think that you are dodging the question. 

"I think that homophobia hurts all women, Lesbian and Non-Lesbian. ... After
all, can any woman really prove that she is NOT a lesbian?"

Hogwash.  That's a raving statement if ever I saw one.  No one *needs* to prove
it one way of the other. 

'After all, can any man really prove that she is NOT a gay?' By the same
rationale homophobia hurts everybody, and generalized even further, prejudice
and bigotry hurt everybody.  Big Deal.  I knew that.  Quit acting like you are
being singled out.

RE: .48

"You sound like you believe that homosexuals are by nature child molesters."

See above.

"Not all genetic traits are defects."

True, as I asked .47 in mail, 'What's the difference between a Birth Defect,
Homosexuality, and Blue Eyes?'

To continue the argument...

I would have to say that I would consider someone who was physically, or
mentally incapable of concieving, bearing, and raising an offspring in a natural
fashion, to have a problem.  Note that this is not a problem if you are
bisexual.

"He prefaces the statement with "Seriously,..." This I take to indicate the
shift from sotto voice to expressing his own feelings."

To be honest, yes, that is my own feeling.  But, it is also a serious question,
put seriously.  

I do not consider it "homophobic": 'fear of homosexuals'.  I treate someone of a
different sexual preference the same as I would treate someone of a different
religious preference. 

RE: .49

Thank you for posting that explaination.
            
RE: .50

"re: illness and homosexuality.
    
 This probably needs its own note."

Oh yah, this is supposed to be the "Gay and Lesbian Foster Parenting" Note.
But, it boils down pretty easily to 'What do you think about homosexuals'.

"it appears that human sexuality has been both homosexual and heterosexual for
many thousands of years and that anti-homosexual attitude came along with the
invasions from the north uncivilized Aryans."

Then how do you explain the antihomosexual attitude of the Semites?

"I therefore conclude that Homosexuality is no more a defect that
heterosexuality."

Nonsequitor... 
     
Jim.

    re .statistics comments
    
>    If the average population is 90% heterosexual and 10% homosexual,
>    then one would expect the same proportion among child molesters.

    Statistics are meaningless if you don't manage to incorporate
    all the variables. That has not been done with the 90%/10% versus
    95%/5% argument herein.
    
    For one example: sexual abuse of children generally requires access
    to children - and since presumably a higher percentage of homosexual
    men live in households without children than is true for
    heterosexual men, the percentage of abuse by homosexual men would be
    expected to be lower even if the inclination to commit abuse was
    the same for both categories.
    
    Remember: there are three kinds of lies: lies, d*mned lies, and
    statistics. We may draw limited conclusions from them (e.g. it's
    not obviously skewed either way, which means the statistics can't
    be used to blame either "camp"), but no more.

    RE homophobia (the term): to pick a small nit, I'm not sure it's
    valid to term anybody who views homosexuality as abnormal to be
    "homophobic", since the "phobic" suffix implies an irrational fear
    (a la the Lyndon LaRouche camp). It's certainly possible for some
    people to take the view that something is abnormal without being
    afraid of it. When this view degenerates into name-calling and other
    forms of knee-jerk reactions, you've got evidence of a phobia. 

    A child doesn't ask to be born: given that it is however it has a
    biological right to have parents: a mother and a father.
    
    Of course things go wrong and many children find themselves deprived
    of one of their biological parents. Some are deprived of both, and they
    come into foster care or adoption.
    
    Personally I feel that they are still entitled to two parents: one of
    each, a mother and a father.
    
    This is not to say that they cannot be gay, indeed they could both be
    gay. But there must be one of each. 
    
    ie (bottom line) if a homosexual male and a homosexual female cohabit
    and have a stable relationship in which they can provide a caring and
    loving home for a child then they should be allowed to be either foster
    or adoptive parents.
    
    However I am totally opposed to the concept of two adults of the same
    sex who cohabit being allowed to be either foster or adoptive parents.
    
    /. Ian .\

    re .53
    I see absolutely no reason why a two people of the same sex cannot
    be as good parents as any others. 

    Bonnie, I held off for 52 relies, and then prefaced my remark with
    "personally I feel". I am not sure that this issue is capable of being
    debated strictly logically _BY_ME_. We are after all largely influenced
    by the environment in which we grow up.
    
    Several factors influence this, amongst which are the following
    
    1) during my childhood [male] homosexuality was illegal
    
    2) during my career homosexuality was reason enough for denial of security
    clearance and end of career.
    
    3) I heard repeatedly from priests during Sunday Sermons that homosexuality
    is an abomination in the eyes of God
    
    4) I heard repeatedly from priests during Sunday Sermons that a child
    needed to be nurtured by both a Father and a Mother.
    
    5) English law required two people of opposite sex in a stable relationship
    to qualify for foster/adoptive parent status (and as far as I know it
    still does)                                  
    
    6) During my childhood any child without a Father and a Mother was
    considered an outcast by other children.
    
    7) thoughts of two adults of same sex being parents bring to mind multiple
    music hall jokes ("shall I be Mother, or will you?")
             
    .
    .
    .
    
    Given these and other prejudices, I am left with a dilemma: I am a
    creative, well educated, reasonably balanced adult, sufficiently free
    of prejudice, or at least controlling it, that in the past I have had
    a stable relationship with a lesbian, and have had, and still do, strong
    friendships with both gay males and gale females. If despite that I
    am still aware of the strong cultural prejudice against gay foster/adoptive
    parents, can I in fairness support such a case? I didn't say, nor do
    I believe that two gays (of either sex) or even, one, three or more,
    cannot effectively parent a child. BUT I wonder how the child will be
    perceived by peers, and I wonder how the child will assimilate the
    experience during early childhood, the severe doubts and pressures of
    puberty and adolescence, and even later life.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    

    re .53:
    
    How would you feel if two unmarried people of the same sex who were
    both asexual (or heterosexual who had lost or couldn't find a suitable
    partner), had been in a stable roomate situation for awhile, had
    given up hope for marriage, and wanted to take a foster child?
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re.55
    
    Ah.  Thanks for the explanation; I was a bit more aggravated by
    that last bit in .53 than I needed.
    
    But you know, one could have similar prejudices about children of
    any sort of partnering where one or more members belong to a denigrated
    minority.  Myself, I used to be terrified that the stigma of divorce
    would be discovered and publicized, when I found out it *had*happened*
    at the grandparent level (and even though my genesis traces back
    to pre-divorce in both cases).  Now, of course, I look back at this
    as important family history that disputes the fallacy of The Tradition
    of the Nuclear Family.
    
    I had a fat, ugly girlhood; my peers invariably taunted me, although
    I also found friends.  I could do as little about my appearance
    as I could about my parents.  To me, not being "popular" (read it as
    your teenager knows it to mean) is less important than having a
    horrible home to have to return to.  A loving, supportive home life
    will better prepare one for a happy adulthood than will being voted
    most popular being on campus.  On the other hand, an abusive home,
    for example, one with an uncontrolled alcoholic parent, may harm
    one's center.

    Thank you for your reply Ian I understand better where you are
    coming from.
    This is a bit tangential - often when people talk about marrying
    a person of another race the response is "what about the children"?
    We have been raising children of mixed-racial hertitage for fourteen
    years, eight of in a small town and things have been remarkably ordinary.
    As a result of my own experiences I think the question of children
    dealing with growing up in a 'different' family is blown a bit out
    of proportion. Tho I recognize that not everyone has had things
    as easy as we have.
    
    I would think that a committed gay couple who wished to have children,
    or a parent who wished to live with a same sex lover should be able
    to find communities that are supportive of their lifestyles. 
    
    Bonnie

    Not long ago, many people were horrified at the idea of a black
    and a white person marrying. The "reason" given was "What about
    the children? They'll be teased, taunted, made outsiders" THAT
    situation seems to be changing, maybe others can, as well.
    
    Children pick on other children. The pecking order is alive and
    well and living in the schools. IF there is nothingobvious about
    the child, the other kids will find something NOT obvious to pick
    on them about. EVERYONE will be picked on eventually. 
    
    Why should a "normal" home live be created and engineered for certain
    foster kids, when NO other kids have one. What the *^& is "normal"??
    Believe me - the state doesn't know.
    
    RE: Who's the Mother? 
    
    HOpefully, we are learning about PARENTING. What a child needs is
    PARENTING not MOTHER-ing or FATHER-ing. Nurturing. Gender and/or
    sexual preference, the number and/or type of adults living in the
    household - none of these have anything to do with the ability to
    nuture or parent.
    
    Children with a strong,loving home-life and nuturing,supportive
    parents can withstand anything. Some of us had "normal" families.
    Yep, one person of each gender, employed, solid citizens. And we
    got damn little nuturing. And we turned out OK anyway. Seems to
    me kids in an "abnormal" but nurturing situation are WAY ahead of
    the game.
    
    Dawn
    
    

    Re .56 (re my .53)
    
    Elizabeth,
    
    I'd feel the same way: to me the issue isn't whether the people involved
    are homosexual or not (though people might perceive them to be so if
    they chose to enter a joint parenting arrangement). I feel, for reasons
    deep in my background, cultural, moral and religious, that "parents"
    involve a man and a woman in a common supportive role, each providing
    different facets of the whole family relationship.
             
    /. Ian .\

    re .59
    "Hopefully we are learning about PARENTING.  What a child needs
    is PARENTING, not MOTHERing or FATHERing.  Nurturing."
    
    While I agree with the nurturing part, I have to disagree about
    kids not needing MOTHERing or FATHERing specifically.  Like it or
    not, there ARE very specific differences between men and women.
    A child needs, I believe a permanent role model of each type in
    order to fully develop.  I don't feel the role of "male parent"
    can be filled by a close family friend or an uncle.  Same thing
    for the role of "female parent."  Children need to learn to relate
    to adults (and people of all ages) of the opposite sex.  I can't
    help but think that a little girl, for instance, raised by 2 women 
    would have some problems relating to men.  She would probably be
    shy and maybe frightened, because this was something she wasn't
    used to.  I can't back this up, it's just my opinion.
    
    "Some of us grew up in 'normal' families and received very little
    nurturing...kids in an 'abnormal' but nurturing environment are
    way ahead of the game."
    
    Some of us grew up in 'normal' families and receiived a great deal
    of nurturing!  I get the feeling sometimes, that gay parents are
    being praised as a great alternative to an abusive or non-nurturing
    "traditional" family.  I really think the issue should be gay vs.
    straight people as parents, but only those who are capable of
    providing good family lives.  Too often the discussions put down the 
    traditional family as abusive or otherwise unhealthy, and it's sort of 
    annoying.  I think the discussion should center around "capable"
    parents and their respective sexual preferences.  Obviously,
    abusive people are NOT good parents!
    
    Lynne
    
    

    Abusive people are NOT good parents. Right. And gay parents are
    not BY DEFINITION abusive.
    
    Lynne, you voice a concern that the "normal" or "average" family
    is being criticized a lot lately. The gay family is criticized a
    h**l af a lot more than THAT. 
    
    There's no such thing as a normal family - only what individuals
    believe is normal. This note started with a mention of data regarding
    this subject. I wish I had some at hand. I do not believe that kids
    brought up by two same-sex parents are any more dysfunctional than
    kids brought up by mixed-gender parents, or single parents. I'd
    LOVE to see data on that.
    
    Dawn
    

RE: .62

"And gay parents are not BY DEFINITION abusive."

And a 'normal' family is not *by definition* abusive.

"The gay family is criticized a h**l af a lot more than THAT."

Yes, and criticizing a 'normal' family is not a solution to the criticizing of
the gay family.

"I do not believe that kids brought up by two same-sex parents are any more
dysfunctional than kids brought up by mixed-gender parents, or single parents.
I'd LOVE to see data on that."

I sincerely doubt that such data is available, but I imagine with time we will
find out.

Jim. 

    Ian, (may I call you Ian?)
    
    I respect your attitude about gay parents even though I disagree
    with it. However, I'm curious about one thing, the bottom line.
    Given your feelings about gays being parents, do you feel that
    prospective foster parents should be denied if they are gay?
    
    Do you feel that children of gay parents should be removed to foster
    care? (Say that a widow or widower with children becomes involved
    in a gay relationship.) Do you believe it should be illegal for
    avowed lesbians to become pregnant? Should it be illegal for gay
    men to hire host mothers?
    
    Assuming for the moment that I believed, for historical and cultural
    reasons, that blacks made better parents than whites. Would it be
    moral to deny white prospective foster parents?
    
    What about transsexuals? Should a man and his transsexual wife be
    allowed to adopt? How about a woman and her transsexual husband?
    What's *really* the issue here, and how can one judge?
    
    	-- Charles

    Ian:
    
    	Thank you for .53 and .55.  The challenges you are receiving
    for admiting your values are the result of your experiences, something
    all people have in common, will not get the better of you.
    
    Douglas

Lesbians and Gays, who are denied the right to be foster or 
adoptive parents, are very aware that the next step is to be 
be denied the right to parent their natural children.

As a lesbian mother I am VERY concerned about this issue.
The various views expressed in this note, are often frightening
to me.  They seem, at times, to be based on very little real
knowledge of what children experience in lesbian and gay households.

I have two sons - ages 18 and 16. They have both offered to have
a dialogue with anyone who would like to speak to actual *real*
children (young men really!) who have grown up with a very "out"
lesbian mother.

The rule in our house is that any of their friends, who are going
to come into the house will be told about our relationship.  I
have kids going in and out of the house constantly!  We act the
same way any "couple" would act who loves and cares for each other
and their kids.  

My sons still walk down the street holding my hand.  They are 
affectionate with both of us....many of their friends envy the 
relationship we have. My older sons girlfriend, when she needed 
someone to care and support her after a classmate committed suicide, 
called us to bring her to the house (my son was out of town).  When 
a friend of my younger sons was beaten by her husband, he brought her 
to our house.  She spent two weeks with us until they could get into 
therapy.  

My sons feel they have GAINED from my difference -  They know they
can be different and feel good about who they are.  They do not
have to conform to a set of arbitrary rules about what "others"
expect from them.  They have room to grow and an environment that
supports them.  They are feminists, humanists - loving sons.

    RE: .66
    
    Thank you. Well said.
    
    As I've said, also, "talk to the kids". Any examples I've ever seen
    of kids brought up in gay households are very together, very accepting,
    non-bigoted, caring individuals.
    
    Makes me wonder what *some* people are afraid of.
    
    Dawn
    

    Flora, what can I say.  As usual you've said it all.  I love your
    kids, their very warm, human and gentle human beings.  I've gained
    by knowing them and you.  
    
    I'm afraid that with the increase of legislation around the Foster
    Parenting, Gay and Lesbian parents will be at risk for losing their
    children.  In fact they are at risk of losing their children.  The
    courts are more often than not giving custody of children to the
    "non-gay" parent.
    
    Being gay or lesbian has never been an easy path.  There now appears
    to be a vocal minority of people who want gays and lesbians to be
    declared non-persons, and non-parents.  
                
    I can't speak for others but, I will not let government legislate
    who I can love.  They will not tell me that I cannot have a child.
    They will not force me back into the closet.  I've worked to hard
    to get out.  After all the years I've spent educating people about
    being a feminist, a lesbian, a person, I will not stop being me.
    
    I realize that DEC has an open door policy, that does not mean that
    the person has an open mind.  I realize that someone can expend
    energy in hating me for being a lesbian, I can't do much about that.
    I can and will fight them in court, when my basic human rights are
    denied based on their prejudices.
    
    

    An apology:
    
    I had a bad day yesterday and this topic struck an open wound. I was
    noting in an aggressive mood and without really thinking of how my remarks
    would be read. That said, though I regret injecting my views, I must
    say that my experiences are as I stated them, and frankly my views are
    as I stated them: just that I should have kept them to myself.
    
    Three things came to conjunction, and perhaps you should be aware of
    them:
    
    1) I recently married a Thai woman: and Thai women are colored (actually
    being sun tanned I am darker brown than Ann but still...)
    
    2) As I said I had a relationship with a lesbian: I had known her since
    I was 5 and she was 4, and whilst we were at college we shared an
    apartment. All was going well until my parents discovered her orientation.
    They then broke up our relationship. Whilst I retain my friendships for
    her, and her lover, and indeed friendships with other gays and trans-sexuals
    of both biological sexes, I am bitterly aware of the way many in the
    straight middle class community react when it comes close to them.
    
    3) yesterday I received a letter from my father in which he "accepted"
    my marriage to a "colored girl" and expressed the hope that we wouldn't
    have children, in terms that I find deeply hurtful, and to which I was
    reacting.
    
    In summary: I was reacting to being reminded of the way people in
    "different" family relationships are treated, and how the children
    of such relationships are treated by their peers and by adults with
    whom they have contact.
    
    It shouldn't be: provision of love, affection, nurturing and a meaningful
    positive environment are the important things. But, the fact is that
    society is far, far from perfect, and in general, through no fault of
    their own it is the children involved in atypical families that suffer.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Ian, in many cases what you say is true about the children suffering.
    I am truly sorry for the insensitivity and prejudice you have just
    experienced.  Have your children (if you would like to), Ian, and
    raise them with pride for both sides of the family.  You may have
    to control some of the influences around them (if your parents were
    to give them a hard time, for instance), but I'm sure that you and
    your spouse would do your best to make sure that the children felt
    loved and secure.
    
    You have my support.
    
                Carol

    Ian, my parents have often said, "We just want you to be happy"
    I believed them, I'm happy being "out".  I've learned to accept
    myself.  I've learned to accept others.  Just be happy, the rest
    will take care of itself.  
    
    MaggieT

RE: .64

Please, no *flames*, I'm trying to get this straight in my head...

I guess I'd have to say that I think that no parent should lose their children
because of a sexual preference...

I'd have to say that children should be placed in families similiar to their own
families, or families similiar to themselves.  Other dissimiliar families,
including homosexual families (in the case of hetrosexual children?), should be
considered as alternates, because as has been stated, any loving family is
better then no loving family. 

"Do you believe it should be illegal for avowed lesbians to become pregnant?
Should it be illegal for gay men to hire host mothers?"

I've thought about this a great deal...  because I have had to think about if
lose my children, I may want to have children whom I have a sole claim to,
children who cannot be stolen from me... 

I guess I have to say that I find the whole practice of host mothers, or
artifical insemination repugnant, in my case, or in a homosexuals case, and I
would advise adoption rather then having a baby by artifice, which is really
adoption on demand.

RE: .66

Yes, well said...

RE: .68

"In fact they are at risk of losing their children."

Where is that true?

"The courts are more often than not giving custody of children to the "non-gay"
parent."

As I mentioned (see above, please read it before flaming), I feel that is
the right thing to do.

Jim.
               

	Ian made a strong point about how prejudice can hurt children.
	I don't know how old you are Ian but it's obvious the prejudice
	of your parents has hurt you. That said I'd like to ask a possibly
	flaming question. 

	If no one ever goes against the status quo and risks hurt to both
	themselves and their children why should the status quo change?
	Would Blacks have freedom if other Blacks (often children) had not
	taken the risks and the hurt to fight for it and defend their
	rights? Will gays ever be allowed to live in peace if no one takes
	the chance and lets the world know who they are?

	I have a friend who is a white married to a Black. I have heard
	many mutual friends make comments along the lines of "they never
	should have had children, think how awful they will be treated".
	The people who would treat them wrong will be fought by me and 
	others. My friends children will never be treated badly while I'm
	around and there are others like me. Growing up is full of hurtfull
	experiences. Look at all the white well off teenagers who commit
	suicide. lets face it, the world can be ugly. That doesn't mean
	we have to give in to it. As long as we give in it will stay ugly.

	liesl

    
    
    WELL said, Liesl!  Spot on!
    
    						=maggie

    Ian, I am - humph - I want to be empathetic here, without being
    "gooey". I'm not really "sorry" for you because I don't believe
    that your parents' views of your marriage and/or possible parenthood
    need affect your life negatively. If that's how they feel, that's
    how they feel. How do *you* feel? THAT;s what's important. 
    
    Trust me. If you have children and teach them that they are as good
    as anybody, and *BETTER* than anyone who would be so crass as to
    put them down for their skin color or parents sexual orientation,
    they'll be MORE than able to handle whatever comes.
    
    Kids need to know one thing and one thing only. That their parents
    love them and think they are just fine. As I said in a previous
    note, kids *ALL KIDS* will be teased, "dumped-on" about something.
    They ALL have to learn how to deal with it. They learn this from
    their parent(s). If a kid *knows* her parents love her and approve
    of whoever she is, she can handle anything.
    
    It's *you* who'll create the loving environment which will teach
    your kid(s) that they are terriffic. Don't let anyone make you believe
    that A)You aren't (teriffic) B) your chosen mate isn't and C) your
    kids aren't.
    
    Some general comments: We can't give in to a bunch of people who
    don't give two hoots about our lives otherwise, who wouldn't care
    if we dropped of the face of the earth, got sick, or whatever; but
    whom *once we decide to raise kids* (whom they also don't give two
    hoots about otherwise* GET VERY INTERESTED IN OUR BUSINESS, and
    have the colossal gall to infrm us that it's in the kids' best
    interest. I have the strange feeling that the people they say will
    harass our kids for being different are *THEY, THEMSELVES*. Otherwise,
    it wouldn't occur to them in the first place.
    
    
    (BTW - my comments on kids come from having known ~3000 of them)
    
    Dawn
    

    I don't have any statistics, but I've found both in teaching and
    in life in general, that those people who had some hard times to
    work through (not "fitting in" with the crowd) as kids and teens
    
    turn out to be the most "together" and sensitive adults.
    
    The old "steel is tempered by fire" I think, is a wise saying, as
    is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger".
    
    If we don't all learn to live together, this planet's in a LOT of
    trouble, adn "ghetto-izing" (!) people by parent-hood is not the
    way to live together. One more trite phrase "If we don't hang together,
    we'll surely all hang separately"
    
    (I don't know where these sayings came from - some dusty corner
    of my brain in which the synapses fire only on Saturdays, I guess)
    
    Dawn
    

Well, I've already expressed my opinion on this subject, and like Flora, 
in the end I can only say that my kids seem to be reasonably healthy 
human beings.  They've had their share of adversity, but it hasn't done 
them any harm.  

I think I've done a pretty decent job of making my kids feel loved for 
themselves, and as a result they feel more comfortable living with me
than with their fundamentalist Christian father, his homemaker wife, and
their 5 children.  I'm sure that household looks much more "normal" than
mine, being a single working lesbian mother, and it terrifies me to think
that my kids could be taken away from me and awarded to their father
strictly on the basis of his sexual preference.  I've done all the real 
work of raising them, and to suddenly decide I'm not allowed to anymore is 
too outrageous for words.

My kids know about prejudice and intolerance.  They hear from their 
father that homosexuals are a plot by the devil to destroy society.
But for all their talk of Christian love, it's not that household that has 
taught my kids to be proud of themselves and accepting of others.
It's not their father who's put bread on the table and read them stories,
or talked to them about their fears in the middle of the night.

I don't buy the line that kids of "unusual" families suffer because of 
it.  One gains a lot of useful perspective from the outside, and a 
sensitivity and compassion for others that kids who are never challenged 
may not experience.  My kids feel loved and secure, they've been able to 
handle the flak pretty well.

As far as placing "heterosexual" children with similar families: how do 
you know?  Most people don't really understand their own orientation 
until at least late adolescence, and sometimes later than that.  I do 
feel sorry for gay teenagers in heterosexual families -- adolescence is 
full of so much agony and insecurity anyway, and having the usual kind 
of denial and rejection that occurs in so many families is pretty 
terrible for kids struggling to come to terms with themselves.  Gay 
families have the advantage usually in promoting a sense of acceptance
about differences.  I don't know any gay parents who would reject their
kids on the basis of their sexual orientation.  This would seem to 
suggest that if you don't know a kid's orientation, they're better off 
with a gay family... :-)

    from what i heard on t.v about this whole thing it seems like it
    is only aimed at the male homosexuals.
    almost like they (the state) dont take women seriously.
    
    wasnt miss sunshine(anita bryant) just concerned about men bothering
    little boys???
    
    i watched a movie a few years ago about two lesbian parents fighting
    to keep their children,i fell asleep so i didnt see the end.
    
    something to think about is that we hear more about incest than
    "gays" bothering children.now if incest dosent screw a child up
    i dont knoiw what does.
    kelly

    Thanks for the support folks .. Ann and I appreciate it. In my case
    fortunately the Atlantic Ocean effectively stops my parents from
    interfering in our life. We are determined to make things work. Again
    thanks.
    
    Now to the topic: I know of a case of a very "unusual" family that not
    only raise their own children but foster young children satisfactorily,
    in Britain (I won't say exactly where - you never know who's reading).
    They are a happily married couple, but.. he is a homosexual transvestite,
    and so is she. They have completely reversed roles, and he dresses as a 
    woman, acts as a housewife and stays home looking after their three 
    children and 2/3 foster children at any one time, whilst she wears 
    men's three piece suits and has a successful career in finance.

    The atmosphere in their home is very loving and nurturing, and I believe
    the children are growing up well balanced.
    
    As for the comment in .-1 about the heat being aimed at male, rather
    than female, homosexuals, I believe that the "establishment" argues
    like this: male homosexuals are queer - they want children to pervert
    them to their own weird ways. Female homosexuals are essentially women
    and all women have an unquenchable mothering instinct: lesbians who
    want to foster are simply satisfying their natural urges.
    
    (As an example of this dichotomy remember that in England male homosexual
    behaviour was a felony until the 1960's whilst lesbianism has *never*
    been a civil crime: today male homosexual behaviour is legal if both   
    participants are over 21. Lesbianism is still legal at any age, though
    may be prosecuted under statutes pertaining to incest and child abuse).
                                                       
    /. Ian .\

    

    Lesbian's aren't illegal in England because Victoria refused to
    let them state that explicitly, because she said women would never
    do such a thing.
    
    Ian, if you want to give your father a bad time, you could refer
    him to me!  :-)  I volunteer to remind him about how you only have
    so many children and you must cherish them, and grandchildren are 
    a blessing not given to all, etc.  And Ann and Ian, if you have
    kids, you must make sure pictures make the rounds of any womannotes
    parties, if you can't be at them yourselves.
    
    My grandfather probably had to do some stretching when my uncle
    married a woman from the Philippines.  I don't have any cousins
    on that branch yet, though, darn: my grandfather won't get to meet
    them now.  Your father should count himself lucky if he can.

    There was a case that happened about a year or so ago near Boston,
    sorry I don't remember all the details, but two children were removed
    from a foster home because the foster parents were "gay". The children
    were then placed in a "normal" foster home. A short time latter
    is was discovered the children were being abused by the "normal"
    foster parents, which wasn't the case when they were with the
    gay foster parents. The last I heard the gay parents were trying
    to get the children back. Perhaps someone out there has more info
    on that incident.
    
    dave

    RE: 81
    
    This is the case which spawned (no pun intended) the (in)famous
    "ruling" by the (oh heck, I forgot the acronym. Not to mention the
    name) Foster Case Government Bureau-thingy. It was supported, if
    not actually instigated, by Gov. Dukakis. (I can just *hear* his
    aides saying "Mike if ya wanna be president, ya gotta shut Kitty
    up, and keep those f*gs from being Foster Parents")
    
    Anyway, the ruling is that gays/lesbians cannot be foster parents
    in Mass. The ruling stands. The two guys have not gotten custody
    of the kids back. (I believe they were going to adopt them before
    the defecation hit the air-conditioning system.)
    
    Groups are currently demonstrating against this policy, when Dukakis
    gives speeches, etc.
    
    Dawn
    

re: the Duke, the DSS and "Fostering Equality"
    
    When we did the AIDS walkathon this year, I didn't expect Gov. Dukakis
    to make a speech as he did the previous year. He did show up, and was
    soundly (pun intended) heckled. Even more so than the year before. (The
    slogan is "Foster equality". Good pun, eh?. The logo is that slogan
    across an inverted pink triangle. I didn't know what the triangle was
    for, but someone told me that the Nazis made gays wear it like they
    made Jews wear a Star of David. It's now a symbol of pride instead of
    shame.)

    At first I was impressed that he'd come to this forum to speak to this
    crowd (which obviously had a large percentage of gays). After thinking
    about it, I changed my mind. A little heckling is no big deal, and
    hardly shows up. The newspapers probably carried a line like "...and
    some members of the crowd chanted slogans while he spoke...". I suspect
    that the negative aspect of that is less important than the positive
    aspect of his giving a speech, and being in favor of AIDS support
    (which I believe he's pretty good about).

    I wrote a letter to Dukakis when the DSS (Department of Social
    Services) came out with the ruling, and got a nice form letter back
    saying nothing in about 5 paragraphs.

    Didn't they just do something to strengthen the ruling? Or reaffirm it?

    					-- hs

    As I recall the case of the homosexual foster parents to which you
    are referring, the natural mother even okay'ed her kids placement
    in that home.
    
    	-Ellen

The "pink triangle" was used by the Nazi's to mark homosexuals.  See
the original version of "To be or not to be" (film with Jack Benny
playing Hamlet *and* Hitler).  Possibly the earliest popular film mention
of an explictly homosexual individual.

As I understand it, the current situation is that DSS (Dept. of Social
Services) has a rank-order for foster parents.  Gays are on it, at
the bottom of the list (down there with single people).  The assumption
is that gays may still be chosen as foster parents if nobody else
can/will take the kid.  This was not seen as a victory by the local
gay community.

Martin.

Off -- somewhat -- the topic.  Remembering "To be or not to be" reminded
me of one of the best 1930's films: Peter Lorrie's "M" ("The murder
among us") -- a German film with Lorrie as a child murderer.  When the
police start turning the city upside down, things get so tough for the
criminals that they start looking for the killer, too.

Not sure if this is connected to the ongoing discussion.  Of course,
to those of us who grew up in the '60's, everything's connected.

You should be able to find both films at a good video store.

    Wow! I am really astonished at my lack of perception after
    reading all 85 replies previous.  I think this notesfile was
    great for me to read!  Before I read the replies I felt strongly 
    against foster kids in gay homes.  Now I have realized that
    gay people are human too and probably great parents as well.
    I see a real problem with people feeling the same way I did 
    and not really looking at the situation objectively.
    
    The key word is "objectively".  I had never thought about a
    gay family being loving and caring because I had never looked
    at their side of it.  Just like people don't look at interracial
    marriages objectively either.
    
    There is a family in my neighborhood of three women and a couple
    of kids.  Everyone makes fun of them.  Why?  Because they don't
    understand.  You can bet that I will be sticking up for them in
    the future.
    
                           Thanks for opening my eyes and mind!
                                             - Sue :^)
                                   

    RE: .86    
    Thanks, Sue.  It is so nice to know that at least one person has
    come to understand gays as people first.  That makes all the
    difference.

    It has been interesting to note the response (and lack of it) when
    people find out that I am pregnant.  If they know that I am gay
    then it really takes them aback.  Many "don't approve", and therefore
    say nothing about it; others have been wonderful about congratulating
    both me AND my spouse.  I try not to concentrate on the ones who
    are silent, but I wish they would see us as people, and appreciate
    all the love we have to give to this child.
    
            Carol

    re:364.66  
    				YOU are NOT in this alone
    
    	I know exactly how you feel.  My SO and I tried for 5 years
    to become foster parents.  After all the red tape, classes and
    meetings, they decided that we would be "wonderful" foster parents.
    Needless to say when they found out about our sexual orentation
    they decided not to place a child with us.
    
    	Here is some brief history: we have been together for over 11
    years..pretty stable huh?  After trying other avenues to become
    foster parents, we GAVE UP!  We both went to the health center to
    decide if one of us could be inseminated.  They knew of our sexual
    orentation and put us thru 2 days of counseling....They decided
    that we would make wonderful parents.  On Nov 8th 1987 my SO gave
    birth to a baby girl.  Her name is Chelsea Dawn and she is the most
    wonderful addition to our home!  Becoming a parent is even more
    exciting than I could have ever imagined. I look forward to the
    years ahead and also the challenges with her.  I'm also nervous
    about the cruelity of childern and other groups but we will work
    one issue at a time with her.  DON'T ever give up your dreams of
    parent hood.
    
    							DEB