Puppies

I ended my last post a little prematurely because I had to go to class. This whole college thing is really throwing off my blogging life - but luckily I only have two more days until my appointment with my shrink. Then no more blogging ever!

But like I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Mike Huckabee once declared that adoptees are not puppies and gay parents should not "experiment" in creating a family with them. Well, that is true. Children biologically are not puppies. But look at these advertisements:

The first picture was used on a Canadian adoption agency's website. The second was, obviously, used for an animal adoption group. While of two very different subjects, they have several striking similarities. Both depict sad subjects looking into the camera for help. Their hands (paw) is placed close to their faces - suggesting either embarrassment, shame, sadness, or just makes them cuter. The little girl is obviously not fully clothed and the clothes that she does have are shredded and worthless. She is also pictured on what appears to be a filthy street, alone, and abandoned. The puppy picture also shows his misfortune by placing him behind a fence, which is typical of a shelter or brings to mind uncaring owners' homes. The point of both of these photographs is to make us, the viewers, sympathetic to these "orphans" and to want to help by adopting. So if society frames it in the same way, why can a gay couple easily adopt a puppy and not a child?

If there is a home to love and support a child, a stable environment, I don't see why a gay couple can't raise a child AND a puppy. There are thousands and thousands of children in foster care right now that are in need of homes. There are gay couples who want to have a family but biologically can't. Why not put two and two together? Because we (society, not me) think it is morally wrong? Well think about this: there are hundreds of thousands of children that are born into families that can't afford them, don't invest time in their education or development, or, sadly, abuse them. But those people can have children because they physically are able. They did not have to go through a rigorous screening process to have that child, so what is their "qualification"? I'd confidently say a gay couple, committed to one another, is more qualified to have a child than the 16-year-old girl on MTV's Teen Mom. Or look at Losing Isaiah, the movie about crack babies and cross-racial adoption. Complicate the story and replace the loving white family with a loving gay couple. To me there is no difference in what the outcome should have been. The family that was able to offer support, care, a home, an education AND love deserves to take care of a child. They are able and willing. There are children within this country (and not to mention around the world - just look at my family) that need homes and gay couples can provide that. Some people just have to get over the stigma.