Homosexual Adoption Rights

So while it’s not really like me to have an opinion I feel strongly enough to want to voice (ahem, yeah… right), something needs to be said on the topic of Homosexual Adoption Rights. There is a good reason for this; I do not agree, even partially, with any single one of the reasons put forth by the ‘against’ party who argue that homosexual relationships are not the ‘optimum’ environment for which a child to be raised in. So, I’m going to systematically trash them all. Woo!

The first argument I seeming to keep hear is that a homosexual relationship cannot provide a ‘stable’ environment for a child. Rubbish.

I won’t pretend to understand gay relationships but by the same token, I don’t understand abusive relationships, masochistic relationships, sadistic relationships, all which take place in a heterosexual partnership. Are we really now calling these stable relationships? If we believe the anti-gay hype then we are. These relationships have a Mum, a Dad. It’s a nuclear family. Therefore, it’s stable! Who cares if Mum can’t cook dinner because Dad broke her arm for the third time last time? Wait, does it even matter that the kids had to see all this, and are now bearing the emotional scars of witnessing scenarios that no children should ever have to see? There’s still a Mum and a Dad, so let’s ignore the other variables.

And what of the children that, while raised by heterosexual parents, have been subjected to a loveless and neglectful upbringings? Is this a stable environment? We’ve all heard the stories of these children, who after fourteen years in such an environment turn to crime, drugs, or prostitution trying to seek that elusive ‘something’ they never quite got from their heterosexual parents. Gender and sexual preference are no measure of any one person’s capability to love and provide. Just like religion isn’t, race isn’t, age isn’t.

The second argument cropping up follows these general lines; a child cannot possibly be raised in an environment in which there is not a dominant figure of each sex. In response to this, I would have to think the most obviously argument staring everyone in the face (albeit smacking everyone in the face with great force, one could even say) consists of two words: Single Parents. A child being raised by a single parent does not have both a male and female parent in the household. This isn’t to say they don’t have both male and female role models, but they most definitely do not all live happily under the same roof sitting in a circle on the living room floor, holding hands and singing The Brady Bunch theme song. Yet we do not see the law makers of this country running to Parliament, standing on chairs and declaring that the child’s rights are being abused, that they are not being raised properly. Hell it is even legal for a single parent to adopt a child. That’s right, even a gay single parent. Even a gay parent who lives with his or her gay partner. But the gay couple cannot legally adopt the child as a couple. Where is the logic? And what is the problem?

Additionally, as if the aforementioned points weren’t already enough incongruities, a gay couple can foster a child, but our laws prevent them from legally adopting that same child, even if they have fostered him or her for years. A gay couple can be a child’s sole providers and carers for anywhere up to a decade and beyond, but our legislation does not grant them the right to legally call the child their own. This means that the child cannot be included in either of it’s ‘parents’ wills as a next of kin. This potentially means that in the case of a death, the child could be left with nothing (except for his or her grief, of course). In my opinion, the foster/adoption distinction is completely irrelevant. It roughly correlates to the differences between a defacto relationship and a marriage. The only difference is a bit of paperwork and a whole lot of outdated views.

Argument Number Three: ‘It’s not nature’s intention’. This argument says same sex couples should not have children because, well, it’s impossible. Well then, if we are taking a stroll down that path, then why are we granting adoption rights to a heterosexual couple that can’t conceive? Conceiving is the natural beginning to the process of life, it’s nature’s intention, the order of ‘things’. So if you can’t conceive, well, there is definitely something wrong with you. That’s ‘unnatural’. Then I guess you WILL be a bad parent, the child will most unquestionably be a recluse, sprout two heads and possess serial killing tendencies.

There is this pseudo-scientific argument circulating that biology has said ‘NO’ to same-sex adoption. This is completely false. Science has come so far that we no longer can even define what it means to be a man or a woman. The respective XY and XX chromosome distinction between the genders is now irrelevant and ineffective in light of sex chromosome abnormalities which occur as a result of chromosome mutations brought on by mutagens (like radiation) or problems that occur during meiosis. We were taught in high school that a person's sex is ultimately determined and defined by one's sex chromosomes. If you have an XX chromosome type, your "true sex", is female. If you have an XY chromosome type, your "true sex" is male.
Persons with androgen insensitivity syndrome, are externally female and have female secondary sexual characteristics, yet also possess the XY chromosome combination. This supports the classification of some XY individuals as females, as well as the traditionalist definition of an XY person as a male.

So, if we can no longer even distinguish between male and female using biological terms, how can we possibly begin to define any one given situation as ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’. Everything on this Earth is not cut and dry, it is not black and white and, though to a great extent it still is, it should not be ‘us and them’. Because, furthermore, even if there was scientific concrete prove that being homosexual was ‘unnatural’ (do we have an accurate definition of what it means to be ‘natural’ or ‘normal’, by the way?) why would this even matter? Humans do totally unnatural things all of the time (such as wearing clothing, typing on a keyboard, bungee jumping, drinking coke, using condoms, actually nearly everything we do is ‘unnatural’ by the Purist bible interpretation) but we don't think that the unnaturalness of these things results in them being immoral. And we definitely don’t make it illegal to adopt a child, simply because you enjoy a nice pair of slacks or drink coke in your household. No. So, anyone that thinks it’s ‘unnatural’ to be homosexual and a parent, you are abhorrent and hateful. No offence.

Who are the law-making politicians in Canberra to have the final say over whether an individual, or a couple, do or do not have a right to be a parent? To become a parent should be A Choice, which last time I checked was one of the most basic of human rights. Just like some people choose to wear black as opposed to wearing white, as some would choose water at a restaurant instead of a wine (these people really exist?). Just like you have an entitlement to become a vegan or enjoy a good steak, obtain a driver’s licence or waste precious hours on public transport, be an atheist, antagonist or PRATICE CHRISTIANITY. And, no, I didn’t have a accidental spasm unfortunately involving the caps locks key, those capitals are in fact there by choice (did I mention that choice is one of the most fundamental of human rights?).

So much of the opposition to these outdated laws stems from religion. That is why these laws will probably be around until there exist no politicians in power who let their (in my opinion) misguided religious views colour their policies. In saying this, I’m not attacking anyone personally for their religious beliefs (well, no more personally than I am attacking anyone else who doesn’t support gay adoption rights, or human rights at all for that matter). I’m definitely not implying that to have religious values is wrong. I don’t disprove of your practices. Quite the opposite in fact, I applaud your ability to have faith. (For the record, I was raised as a Christian) For some reason, we can have an opinion on anything in the world; I’m talking music, environmentalism, literature, politics, feminism, foreign policy, homosexuality; yet opinions on religion remain a taboo topic. I’m certain that somewhere in the world there is probably an army of fundamentalist Catholics mobilising in readiness to punish me for my bigoted writings. And if the reader gets that sort of impression, then I do apologise. I’m not writing this in an attempt to undermine your beliefs, I’m merely suggesting that you and everyone else who does this, regardless of religion or any other variables, do the same and take heed. Live and let live, people.
So who ARE these law-making politicians in Canberra? After all, being homosexual is just a preference. Actually, I’m not sure I like calling it a preference, because that suggests that it’s a ‘lifestyle’ choice, or something people have a say in - ‘Hmm, I think I might take up lawn bowls this autumn’ or ‘Maybe I’ll repaint the kitchen in shades of lavender.’ Again, I am no expert on homosexuality, but from my understanding it is something which is innate and ingrained. A disposition to desire the same sex, no matter how much this complicates their life, no matter how much they wish they could feel differently. My friend Bec for example, she hates tomatoes. Always has. But, she wishes she liked tomatoes. She wishes it with all her heart because, really, if you look at it objectively, tomatoes are the way to go. Tomatoes are the staple of a lot of things – pizza, pasta, your common place sandwich. They are used to beef up the All Day Breakfast plate at the café down the road, they are even used to garnish. Many a time, I have actually mistaken a tomato for an apple in the feeble dawn light as I race to work, and my versatile friend makes a tasty morning tea snack. Let’s face it; life would be easier for Bec if only she could simply like tomatoes. It would be much more practical for Bec to like tomatoes. She wouldn’t always have to request ‘no tomato’ in that Greek Salad and be at the receiving end of the waitress’s shocked accusatory stare. What? You don’t like tomatoes? You can see the disbelief burning in her eyes. Sure, Bec can appreciate what everyone sees in tomatoes. She has tried them, boy has she tried to like them. But she just can’t.

Now take my tomato example, add a generous portion of prejudice, a heaped measure of ridicule, a large handful of discrimination and a pinch of hate crime, and I think we will be on the same page, or at least in the same chapter, as what a homosexual person has to deal with in everyday life.

There seems to be this attitude that gay people should ‘just be happy with their lot.’ Christ, they made the choice to be gay, right? Shouldn’t that be enough? Shouldn’t they just be happy with that? What I don’t understand is that why people should only be ‘entitled’ to differing levels of happiness based on their sexual orientation. Why can’t everyone’s happiness be granted and received based on, in the words of Martin Luther King ‘the content of their character.’ Why don’t they have the right to simply be gay (happy AND homosexual.)

BUT at the end of the day it’s all about the rights of the children. Yes, I completely agree that a child should be, as much as possible, be raised in the best environment feasible. And I truly and fully believe that this environment could well be provided by gay parents. Children should never be deprived of the chance to be raised in a financially, emotional stable household with TWO loving, nurturing and giving parents, regardless of genders. Some children will inevitably be luckier than others. This happens even now, with restrictions on gay adoption or not. That’s the law of the jungle, some things are always inherently stronger and better than others; it’s both inexplicable and unavoidable. There of course will be different echelons of how successful a set of parents are at raising a child, but these cannot simply fall under ‘Good or Bad’, ‘Right or Wrong’, ‘Yes or No’. Like everything in life, there is a big fuzzy grey area smack bang in the middle. And we simply cannot ‘shelter’ children from that area of unknown based on all these unfounded arguments, potentially depriving hundreds or thousands of children in need the right to a devoted, ready and wanting home.

I could rebut the reasons against gay right adoptions all day, because they really are unlimited. But instead I might just exercise my right to an opinion one last time with a message to everyone who feels confident enough to oppose gay adoption rights:

Go jump out of a plane or something. Your opinion is pants.