Now to be clear, these were good movies and good actors, but Philomena and Judi Dench were at least as good. The truth is that a film with no sex/vulgarity/violence about a mother's love for her son and a great social injustice wasn't something mainstream Hollywood could relate to. True the cause of Philomena's grief and her son's misery was unsanctioned sex--but it didn't take place on the screen. And Dame Judi Dench, 79, is hardly eye candy for the typical lusty male audience.
The fact that many Hollywood notables have adopted children couldn't have helped put Philomena in the winners' circle. Given what we know about adoptive parents--even today's younger ones--a lot of them make it abundantly clear that they do not want their (adopted) children to give a hoot about the women who bore them. The story of a mother involuntarily stripped of her child by a corrupt church, then denied the right to even know about him, and him denied the right to know about her may pull at heart strings, but ultimately gets set aside as sort of a genre film. Or maybe a "woman's film." Sad, but so what? In some way it's a wonder the movie was made at all.
Women are still losing their children to forced adoption, paying the ultimate price for unsanctioned sex, or for simply being too poor to raise another child; adoptees are still searching fruitlessly for their kin folk despite often unsurmountable odds (like sealed records, sealed original birth certificates) but these topics are not sexy enough, or perhaps the opposite--too daring, too outragous--for those who vote on who wins the most coveted prize in Hollywood.--- jane
Even as the likes of A-List Adopters such as Brandgelina, Charlize Theron, Calista Flockhart, Sandra Bullock , Meg Ryan, (to name but a few) paraded down the red carpet, long before Ellen stepped on stage, I knew in my heart Philomena would not win. Oscars are voted on by members of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), fellow actors/peers of the above named. Why would they ever wish to call attention to the industry they fuel or heaven forbid, risk tainting their image as saintly rescuers of "abandoned" children? Even worse, who wants to think of the mothers as human beings who could possibly be experiencing unbearable loss? What a "downer" on Hollywood's biggest night! If Brangelina truly cared about those kids, they alone could likely afford to BUY their children's native villages and provide a better life for those children, their natural parents, their entire communities.
ReplyDeleteWow what a post tittle Jane, lol. Everyone wants to talk about the truth in adoption, emphasis on truth, so concerning modern day PC the truth needs to also be spoken. First of all, the truth about gays who adopt is not being told. They only want kids to be equal with straight adopters while not really caring about the babies they adopt and I read an article by a gay man in Italy who said this recently. Secondly gays don't care about what straight unwed mothers went through/go through because again they want their kids. Gays have to be the victims, that is their agenda so that is why they ignore how first parents and adoptees feel. The same can be said for straight adoptive parents. They are the victims because they can't have children, and since other people can make big money off of them they get all the sympathy. We are used. By both sides. So I guess until some gay adoptee starts complaining about no OBC access or someone will actually listen to a famous :birthmother's" horror story we will continue to be slighted and remain unimportant.
ReplyDeleteSo your favorite doesn't win and the fix is in, eh? All sex, drugs and rock and roll? Of course it didn't win because of powerful Adoptive A'listers......
ReplyDeleteJudi Dench won Best Supporting Actress at age 64 along with Margaret Rutheford, age 71 and Peggy Ashcroft, age 77. Eye candy?
Best Actress and Actor awards have gone to Kathryn Hepburn at age 74, Shirley Maclaine, Helen Mirron, Shirley Booth, all over 50 and beyond. None probably qualifying as "eye candy" at that stage in their careers. (if ever)
Best Actors Al Pacino, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Duvall, John Wayne, Jeff Bridges, etc....all in their 50's, 60's or 70's....
Flashy movies only getting the nod?
Schindler's List ( nothing sexier than that!) *frown*
A Beautiful Mind
The Sound of Music (gasp)
Ben Hur
Out of Africa
Driving Miss Daisy
Slumdog Millionaire
Ghandi
There are more.....
Yes, clearly the Oscars only cater to cheap flicks that feature empty violence or violations. OR those that serve to suppress adoption's true victims.
Just keeping it real.
Oscar Buff
Thanks, Oscar Buff!
ReplyDeleteIt was a huge honor and boost to getting adoption issues before the general public for Philomena to be nominated out of all the films that came out this year. That is a win, not a loss or suppression of the subject by any means. Cheer that it was nominated at all, rather than getting crude and rude about your favorite not winning the Oscar. Nobody's team wins all the time, no plots or fixes involved.
The best film won. That does not make the other nominees or other actors losers, nor victims of a dastardly adopter plot. That is not how it works and not what the Academy Awards are about. Believe it or not, the whole world does not revolve around adoption, pro or con, even in Hollywood.
Anon 4:07, your ugly homophobia is showing. I know quite a few gays and lesbians active in adoption reform, adoptees and birthmothers, not just adoptive parents, and those I know who are adoptive parents support adoption reform and adoptee rights.
I think this might be reading much into what isn't there. I didn't watch the Oscars this year because, frankly, I see one, two if I'm lucky, adult movies a year, so there's little point in it for me. This past year, I saw Mandela and was so incredibly moved by Indris Elba's performance- I felt as though I was watching Nelson Mandela himself. The movie itself was "eh" with a script that rushed through 70 years at lightning speed, but Elba was phenomenal. He wasn't nominated.
ReplyDeleteThe Oscars is a toss-up, really. Many excellent movies and performances are overlooked every year, and there are always nominations/wins that seem seriously undeserved (Lost in Translation for best screenplay?! Did anyone even stay awake through that movie??). I still haven't gotten over Saving Private Ryan losing to American Beauty.
I think Philomena didn't win simply because voters felt that 12 Years a Slave was the superior movie. Don't forget also the shameless marketing and pandering for votes that goes into these movies. Brad Pitt was a there was an unbelievable amount of buzz around Lupita Nyong'o comparable to Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone the year she won. Incidentally, Winter's Bone lost out for Best Picture to The King's Speech, which is hardly what I would describe as a sexy movie.
In Hollywood, sex sells. But in the Academy, this is not the case. The Academy highly values artistic endeavors that seek to tell a moving story, and I completely and wholly disagree with your assessment that Philomena lost out because it wasn't sexy or because the small number of adoptive parents (compared to non-adoptive parents) in the Academy were able to sway voting to such a great degree as to keep it wholly out of the nominations. Dame Judi Dench is a highly respected and decorated actress, with five of her MANY Oscar nominations happening in the last 13 years. Stephan Frears is also a highly respected and decorated director. I read nothing but positive reviews from the media regarding this movie, but there is no doubt that 12 Years a Slave eclipsed everything else, and I think it is simply because it hit home for every single person who viewed it.
The fault here is simply there were many good movies this year, and taste is completely subjective.
Goodness, I should fact check myself before hitting publish! I really didn't pay much attention this year.
ReplyDeleteI shouldn't have said that Philomena was kept out of the nominations for best picture as it was nominated. It didn't win.
My sentence is also incomplete- "Brad Pitt was a producer and..."
As part of the Oscar discussion: We all have our opinions and Jane has hers. If I had been voting for Oscars, kill me now, but I personally would have voted for American Hustle. I saw them all, plus.
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere that the movies get the biggest boost from simply being nominated--not which movie gets the nod. A friend of mine in Colorado said Philomena was back in her local movie theater and that alone does a lot of good. People want to see it. People are learning from it. Attention to our issue does a lot of good, just as Milk pushed the dialogue about gay rights.
I thought 12 years was a "worthy" movie but taught those of us who know anything about the horrors of slavery nothing new and somehow, in its episodic fashion, I found the movie not that compelling. Yes, the horrors were real, but the direction kept the audience at a remove. Okay, kill me. As Ellen Said, if you didn't vote for it, we are all racists.
That was a joke, and Oscar Buff, you are priceless with the detail! But I wouldn't compare older male actors to the women, whose list of older women in good roles will be much skimpier. Roles for women after 40-45 fall off a cliff, metaphorically. Nothing new here, this has been written about a zillion times but makes little impact. Directors say: we want a younger woman, and guys can be romantic leads in the 50s...
And women (esp. older women) are typically paid HALF as much as men! Sandra Bullock apparently broke the sound barrier (pun intended) with Gravity and with part of the profits is expected to reap $70 million, putting her on a par with men. You go girl!
Oh! And I would have voted for and so much wanted Judi Dench to win. One for our team, The First Mothers of America.
ReplyDeleteMy best friend raved so about the Oscarcast that I just watched in on YouTube--no commercials! I was happy to see that the real Philomena Lee was there to be applauded.
ReplyDeleteSadly, we all know that she gladly would have traded all the Hollywood hoopla for just one afternoon with her Anthony, and better yet, more.
I think it would have been very difficult for Philomena to win. I am glad that the film is bring attention to issues of first mothers and adoptees, but there's still so many people who believe positive cultural narratives about adoption. Everyone [I hope] can agree that slavery was and is a bad thing that damaged and hurt a whole lot of people. I don't think that there's much mainstream understanding that adoption also hurts and damages people in different ways that are sometimes more difficult to see. This seems particularly true in celebrity culture, where people adopt children as lifestyle accessories. To understand the damage adoption did and still does would require a level of collective introspection that I'm not sure society at large is capable of at the moment. Changing people's views of adoption is going to be difficult [although strong media representation like Philomena helps] because it would put society face to face with the awful, awful ways that first mothers and adoptees have been wronged and bring about a massive degree of collective guilt and shame over the ways society have treated these people. I don't think anyone is quite ready for that yet, but I hope that someday people look back on the social engineering experiment we call adoption and wonder how anyone thought this was a good idea.
ReplyDeleteJust thoughts...
Anyone watch Mom, the sitcom? Today's new adoption forum...the 16 year old having a baby...wants to give to gay couple.
ReplyDeleteLots of interesting thoughts here! I had a feeling Philomena was not going to win, but at least it was nominated.
ReplyDeleteI do not watch the Oscars. I rarely go to the movies and I am not into TV, Hollywood, or celebrities, etc. But, for what it is worth, my adoptive mother is VERY into it all. She watches TV all day long and loves award shows. I know she has seen Philomena herself on The View, and other talk shows.
Interesting that when I was with her the other day, we briefly talked about the movies nominated for awards. I mentioned Philomena just to see what she would say. I quote: "let's change the subject". That was the best she could do.
When she doesn't want to talk about something that is her famous line. So that was that. End of story.
@ anon 4.07
ReplyDeleteYour homophobia is showing.
First mothers are so often dismissively stereotyped, or regarded through a wall of harsh, judgemental assumptions. And you are happy to do the same to others? Ugh.
@Maryanne
ReplyDeleteI think you might find this article interesting. The views stated in it are from a gay man.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activists-aim-to-destroy-the-family-impose-totalitarianism-gay-p
Also, YOU aren't the one who has two men or women listed on your amended birth certificate are you? No you have your natural parents listed on your real obc don't you?
Here is another link you should see. Once again from a gay man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=EUGdEVigA8I#t=10
Here is his facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/walter.hampton41xx?fref=ts
In the video he is warning straight parents not to let their teenage sons around gay men. Why? Because of what he has seen and heard being involved in the gay community and because a gay man got arrested lately for rape of a minor male.
You know, I am SO sick of the overuse of the word homophobia. Do you really think that gay adults feelings are more important than the well being of a child or an adoptee? I guess you don't. Not all gay people are harmless & it is not prejudice to dislike some people because of the bad things they do or the bad way they act. I would think that you as a first mother would be very concerned about all adoptees being safe concerning who they are adopted by but I guess not! I guess you only care more about your left wing PC agenda huh? How would you of liked it Maryanne if your son was raped by those who adopted him? Seriously, would you care more about gay rights then? You should really learn to think before you type and see the whole picture before you start whining.
Off topic somewhat but this FMother is a movie buff:
ReplyDelete12 Years a Slave apparently narrowly won over Gravity and did not connect with audiences in a major way....."climbed into the history books without ever truly igniting the audience....though it has performed well internationally," sez the NY Times this morning. Personally, I found Gravity kind of an intellectual snore, admired mostly for its technical achievement. And 12 Years was, to this viewer, more like a textbook of depictions of the horrors of slavery--but the emotional pull of a story got lost somewhere in there.
Though 12 Years and The Butler dealt with different eras of black experience in America, and a movie like 12 Years needed to be made, Lee Daniel's The Butler was in many ways a better story, a more engaging movie. I am sorry that it was overlooked this year--probably because only one movie about the black experience could be in the winner's circle. Both movies should be shown in high schools as part of the history or social studies classes.
And let us not forget Fruitvale Station, which won the Independent Spirit award for best first feature. That movie says a great deal about the experience of being black today in America--and is a very moving picture at the same time. It was also based on a true story.
But excuse me, Oscar Buff, you put The Sound of Music in the same category with Schlindler's List and Ghandi? 12 Years does belong in that serious list but Ben Hur and Sound of Music? Com'on.
Oscar voters generally love movies with big serious themes and you know the saying in Hollywood for actresses--you want to win an Oscar? Play a victim. I wanted Judi Dench to win simply because it would have elevated Philomena even more, but Cate Blanchett's performance as a woman (and an adoptee!) on the way way down was ultimately more challenging for its demands of a woman in flux and fucking brilliant.
Speaking of that, it was interesting that Woody Allen chose to make the two sisters of Blue Jasmine--whose lives could not have turned out more differently--adopted. Though that theme was not explored, it did make their two extreme life styles seem more likely than if they were blood sisters.
I don't think we need to jump to the "homophobia" accusation every time someone questions gay adoption. It is a valid discussion that can be engaged in without resorting to dehumanizing stereotypes of gay couples.
ReplyDeleteSomething troubling I see in gay adoption is the age-old desire to alter the birth certificate. Can two gay men give birth with one being the "mother" on the OBC? Should both be listed as "father?"
There have been lawsuits by gay APs demanding these types of birth certificate changes without any discussion of whether a birth certificate should ever be altered in the first place. I think this is where we can have a civil discussion on the issue of gay adoption.
Agreed, Anonymous. I agree with all your points. Gay adoption adds more pressure to the adoption industry to come up with more "designer" babies. But bring this up, and you are immediately homophobic, etc.
ReplyDeleteI do understand why so many people post anonymous comments here, though it is confusing and easily corrected with choosing a "name" and using that.
Julia Emily:
ReplyDeleteI left the blog and came back, thinking of what your mother said about Philomena--"let's change the subject." That says everything. As did Ripe's description of her mother's reaction falls into the same category: DON'T GO THERE.
I do see what you are up against. "Let's change the subject." Do you know if they even saw the movie?
@Anon March 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM
ReplyDelete"I don't think we need to jump to the "homophobia" accusation every time someone questions gay adoption."
Second Commentator didn't "question" gay adoption. Second Commentator spewed homophobic venom.
@Lorraine
" Gay adoption adds more pressure to the adoption industry to come up with more "designer" babies. But bring this up, and you are immediately homophobic."
That is *nothing* like what Second Commentator said. Saying the only reason gays want to adopt kids is so they can have the same rights as straight adopters and that they don't care about the kids they adopt IS homophobic.
Thanks Lorraine. I comment here frequently using a name but since the "homophobic" label is getting tossed around I chose to remain anonymous (original post at March 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM)
ReplyDeleteI agree Anon, birth certificates shouldn't be altered in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn Oregon, amended birth certificate show gay parents as Parent A and Parent B to avoid mother/father designations.
In surrogacy situations, original birth certificates list "intended parents" as the parents, not the women who give birth.
Lorraine: No, my AP's did not see the movie. They can't get to the movies anymore, even if I were to drive them. But when it comes out on DVD, I can guarantee you they will not ask me to pick it up from our library. This is not something they want to see.
ReplyDeleteYeah...."let's change the subject". That's the go-to line when Mom can't get out of an upsetting conversation any other way.
I'm a movie buff too but was not surprised Philomena did not win best movie. It would have made the history books for sure if it had. I am glad it was nominated as was Judi Dench's performance. I was hoping beyond hope Judi Dench would receive an Oscar but was glad the young African woman did. Yes, many movies the public will pay to see still have to have the edginess to ensure ticket sales. I was disappointed at how the movie Philomena was described briefly when presented as a Best Movie selection. The brief description seemed to gloss over the tragic losses in adoption. Can't put such a damper on the Oscar's audience I suppose.
ReplyDeleteFrom the BAFTA awards in the UK. Watch Angelina's face as Steve Coogan acknowledges the 60, 000 Irish women who have still to trace THEIR children.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbfRiX1yhts&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I completely understand discussing the additional pressures on the adoption industry when we add gay couples into the equation. That is a valid question to be addressed, especially in regards to birth certificate alterations and issues such as egg donors or surrogates who are not revealed to the child.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that is not what I saw in the comment from Anon at 4:07. "Gays have to be the victims" is not a true statement and is bigoted against ALL gay people, not simply those who adopt, but every single one, stereotyping an entire group of people.
"because of what he has seen and heard being involved in the gay community and because a gay man got arrested lately for rape of a minor male." Again, rampant stereotyping of gay people by saying we should not let them be around boys. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same, and are not even two sides of the same coin. Pedophilia is a sickness and has nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with taking advantage of any child, male or female, who is vulnerable.
Anon also linked to several sources that I can't get to show up, claiming that they support the bigotry against gay people that they should not be around minors because "not all gay people are harmless." Not all straight people are harmless, either, but that isn't a logical reason to keep all straight people away from children.
"it is not prejudice to dislike some people because of the bad things they do or the bad way they act." Actually, it is prejudice and bigotry when you ascribe isolated behaviors to an entire group of people, such as saying all gay men should be kept from teen boys because some will prey on them. Anon was not using "some" in his/her statements, but applying it to the entire group. There are also heterosexual men who prey on young girls and boys. Abuse is a justifiable concern when discussing adoption, but not when you isolate it down to only gay people and teen boys.
I cannot stand bigotry, and it's hypocritical to stand for equality for certain groups (such as first moms and adoptees) while summarily degrading other groups (such as gays).
Sandra Bullock apparently broke the sound barrier (pun intended) with Gravity and with part of the profits is expected to reap $70 million, putting her on a par with men. You go girl!
ReplyDeleteYes, "you go girl"... making that bank so she can traffic in more humans; because we all know rich celebrities and the like are so much more entitled to other people's children...
Faux Claud of Musings of the Lame has an excellent post warning gays who want children about the exploitation in adoption and surrogacy. "Same Sex Couples: Don't Let Your Equality Turn You Into Oppressors."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/open-letter-to-every-gay-lesbian-homosexual-couple-thats-wants-to-adopt-a-child/
I forgot about Bullock being a serial adopter. She is adopting her second, right? Or already did? I did read she was encouraging somebody else to do the same. Jennifer Aniston?
ReplyDeleteOT:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2571599/Charlotte-Dawsons-birth-mother-opens-bonding-tragic-star-years-giving-adoption.html
Yet another adoptee suicide.
Tiffany wrote"I cannot stand bigotry, and it's hypocritical to stand for equality for certain groups (such as first moms and adoptees) while summarily degrading other groups (such as gays)."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, and the clear-headed refutation by Tiffany of the real bigotry against all gays in anon 4:07's posts. Those comments go way beyond objections to gay adoptions because they may result in more surrenders. Yes, they are homophobic, which discussions of gay adoptions need not be.
I agree with the person who said we could have a civil discussion around gay adoption and altering birth certificates to include two fathers or two mothers. Biologically this is impossible, and birth certificates should be about the biological fact of birth. Which brings us back to why there should not be amended birth certificates, which are a lie. Rather there should be valid adoption certificates of legal parentage. I would see no problem at all with same sex parents on such a document.
On another topic, how come heterosexual pedophile Woody Allen gets a pass? He certainly had sex with his teenage adoptive step daughter whom he later married, and is accused of molesting another adopted daughter at age 7. I certainly would have rather seen Judi Dench get best actress rather than Cate Blanchett who thanked that pervert.
Whether or not Mia Farrow implanted the idea that Allen molested Dylan is debatable.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion of the court was that it could not be decided. Dylan changed her story midstream after her interview was interrupted and she had ice cream with Farrow. Personally, after reading a great deal about it, I think she coached Dylan, implanted the memory, and that Allen did not molest Dylan. And that is neither here or there.
Blue Jasmine was a good movie and Cate Blanchett is one of my favorite actors. Still she was no better than Judi Dench in Philomena. I lost respect for her when she mentioned Allen.
ReplyDeleteI stayed away from his movies for a long time after the Dylan/step daughter incidents.
Mia Farrow is no gem either. A veritable child hoarder.
To Maria Perry,
ReplyDeleteHey. Yeah I saw the "Mom" episode & I thought it was downright terrifying.
Children of recovering alcoholics should relinquish their unborn babies because their babies might become alcoholics too if they're kept.
There's so many things nauseatingly wrong with that argument that it's hard to know which one to take on first.
But whoever in the adoption machine thought of marketing that BS surely got themselves a hefty raise because there's a certain evil brilliance in it I'll give it that much.
.....Anonymous in the North
@Anon March 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM
ReplyDelete"I don't think we need to jump to the "homophobia" accusation every time someone questions gay adoption."
Second Commentator didn't "question" gay adoption. Second Commentator spewed homophobic venom.
@Lorraine
" Gay adoption adds more pressure to the adoption industry to come up with more "designer" babies. But bring this up, and you are immediately homophobic."
That is *nothing* like what Second Commentator said. Saying the only reason gays want to adopt kids is so they can have the same rights as straight adopters and that they don't care about the kids they adopt IS homophobic"
Ever read The Overhaul of Straight America Cherry and Anon's? The plan was to MAKE gays the victims and it says so right in the magazine article of the same title from Venus in 1987 where it was originally published. (It was written by two gay men as it is a magazine for gay men). So don't tell me gays don't want to be seen as victims. Don't tell me either that gay people want to be seen as more victimized than adoptees and birthmothers either. Are those who bash me aware that gay adoption started because gay activists and gay social workers(many that molested kids) urged gay couples to adopt (and list two same sex people as those who conceived and gave birth to a child which I as an adopted person find highly insulting and insane). Again, all of you read what this French gay man says in the article of the link I posted before. HE says other gay people are just acquiring children like trophies and using them. That the best interest of the child is not in the picture. After you read the article you can go call HIM homophobic on his facebook page if you like, be my guest! I am also going to boldly say that I feel being adopted by two straight strangers and being forced to play the fake role of their child is enough negative stress but to force straight adoptees to HAVE to like the gay people who adopt them if they feel they are weird or do not like their behavior is TOO much pressure for any adoptee. It is obvious that First mothers who use the word homophobic every five seconds are being very hypocritical because the gays demanding other people like them and accept them is the same kind of force as being forced to give your babies away in BSE times. I think it is sad so many of them don't see that as force of ANY kind is not good. I also think it is sad that so many first mothers on this forum care more about gays that adopt then the children they adopt and that is the case. Since I know more immature bashing is coming my way I will end my comment by saying that no I do not hate all gay people as many of you would love to taunt me with. I know of a few gay men where I live and I like them alot, they are very nice, and my gut tells me they would not rape a child. Because again not all gay men and women molest kids or act sexually inappropriately around them (gay pride parades where gay people are naked and kids are there, don't believe me then go Google it). It is the fact that gays are oppressing us (Read Musing of the Lame's recent post about this), the fact that many adoptees are being molested by gay couples and again the force they exhibit to accept them that gets me upset. And if many on this forum don't want to see the truth about these things then I don't care. That is your problem because I only care about the kids. That is all I care about. But I also care about children who grow up to be gay getting their OBC's and yes I know there are gay adoptees involved in adoption reform and yes I respect them so don't even go there anyone.
@ Anon March 5, 2014 at 9:04 AM who wrote me, "Don't tell me gays don't want to be seen as victims."
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't me who said that, Anon. It was Tiffany, on March 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM.
So happens I agree with her. But get your facts right about who wrote what before launching into yet another homophobic rant. Not doing so just makes you look even less rational than you do already.
"I am also going to boldly say that I feel being adopted by two straight strangers and being forced to play the fake role of their child is enough negative stress but to force straight adoptees to HAVE to like the gay people who adopt them if they feel they are weird or do not like their behavior is TOO much pressure for any adoptee."
ReplyDeleteAs an adopted person, I agree with this. Just being adopted makes you feel like you're different from everyone else. I can only imagine what it would be like to have to deal with the added social stigma of having two "daddies" or two "mommies." Yes, I'm calling it a stigma, because that's my opinion. It's also my opinion that gay adoptions are not in the best interests of the children. And no, I'm not "homophobic," which I think is a ridiculous word that gets thrown around way too much. I'm not afraid of gay people. I know and like some gay people. I'm tired of seeing that "homophobic" accusation anytime someone has a different opinion.
"Just being adopted makes you feel like you're different from everyone else. I can only imagine what it would be like to have to deal with the added social stigma of having two 'daddies' or two 'mommies.'"
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there is a stigma associated with gay parenthood in some parts of North America does not mean that it is ethical to tolerate or perpetuate the bigotry or the stigma. Substitute "interracial couple" for two daddies or two mommies and see where that leads you. By the way, why are the words in quotes in your post? That's what they are. Two dads or two moms. All the research says these kids do very well.
Anon 9:04, you have substituted real knowledge of the lives of gay men and lesbians (for example, by getting to know them or counting them as people you could have affection and respect for) with consumption of strange diatribes about "the plan" for gays. I can assure you, there was never a plan to make gay men and lesbians victims. They were victims already and still are today in many parts of the world.
I thought Cate Blanchett deserved that Oscar. Her performance was exquisite. Also, for those who did not see it, Blue Jasmine was a poignant story of estranged sisters who also happened to be adoptees. I was surprised by how much I was moved by this film. I know there is controversy but I feel that art should transcend he said she said, especially in the case of Cray Cray serial adopter Mia Farrow... and that movie was definitely a work of art.
ReplyDelete"The fact that there is a stigma associated with gay parenthood in some parts of North America does not mean that it is ethical to tolerate or perpetuate the bigotry or the stigma."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that it was or wasn't ethical. I simply gave my opinion as a person who was adopted.
"Substitute 'interracial couple' for two daddies or two mommies and see where that leads you."
I happen to be biracial, and I was adopted by an interracial couple. That, in and of itself, has never been a problem for me.
"By the way, why are the words in quotes in your post? That's what they are. Two dads or two moms."
That's what the law says they are. I don't feel that someone is a mother or father (gay or straight) because of a judge's decree and a fake birth certificate.
Fluffy, BeeHive your identity(ies) is/are showing.
ReplyDeleteHave some cajones and use your real name--as you used to.