Saturday, September 19, 2009

And in Hollywood news...


Katherine Heigl recently became a mother when she adopted this sweet little girl from Korea. Her name is Naleigh. Apparently, Heigl's hubby runs some sort of animal rescue which makes me like her a lot more. I kind of thought she was snooty... what with declining to put herself in the Emmy race and citing her writers as being lame, etc. But now, with adopting a girl and the animal rescue.... Hmmm... my opinion is changing.




In other news, Elton John and his partner have been denied as adoptive parents of a Ukrainian HIV positive infant boy due to Elton being gay and his age (62). The age thing I get... I mean, he's more a grandpa than a dad and how long could he realistically parent the boy? Probably not until the boy became an adult. But the gay thing is awful. I mean, this kid could have so many more opportunities being Elton's son than living in an orphanage! It's ridiculous!


So then, probably after getting a lot of flak over it, the Ukrainian official decided Elton "has the right and opportunity to invite the family of this boy to visit him, take them under his guardianship and help him grow into a good person." Meaning basically, "Elton can pay for him to have a better life without officially being his parent." Well, I guess that's better than nothing, but it reeks of homophob-ism. And age-ism (although I don't know the answer to that one.)

What are your thoughts? Should people over a certain age be restricted from adopting? After all, biologically there are no laws as long as your body can become pregnant and deliver (remember the 60 year old mother?)

And what about gay partners adopting? There are no studies showing this is in any way harmful to the children. What do you think? Some countries have restrictions on singles adopting and single men adopting.... Of course I'm against restrictions on single women adopting, because I did it. And although I can understand the concerns with single men (due to pedophiles and other nefarious folk) but it seems unfair for all the good single men out there (where are they, by the way??)

Your thoughts on adoptive restrictions?

5 comments:

Cathy said...

I kinda get the age thing. 62 is old to be a father but who are we to judge.

As for gay couples, this drives me CRAZY when people say they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. I have a few gay friends who have adopted children internationally and domestically and they are all wonderful parents. We are supposed to assume that they would be terrible parents just because they are gay? Some people need to stop living in the dark ages on this one.

Bryan said...

I don't think people in their 60s should be starting out as parents. It's exhausting when you're younger. What kind of plan is it to be 80 when your kid is in high school?

I think rejecting people from adoption because they are gay is sick and disgusting.

Now that I live in Spain, where gay people can legally marry, I can clearly see the result of the destruction of traditional families. ... No one speaks English.

Anonymous said...

The baby Heigl adopted is also supposedly a special needs child; more reason to admire Heigl.

I don't know how I feel about older people adopting. Many of my friends don't start thinking about it until they're obviously past "ripe," which means at least 40, 45. How much older is bad? I have a near 60 friend who would be an awesome mother, is very healthy, and she was denied because of age at 40! danicuz

Single PAP said...

i think he should have been allowed to adopt, regardless of age or sexual orientation. yes, he's old to start parenting, but if something happened to both him and his partner (and how is his partner?) that little boy would be set for life. sure, it's not as good as having a parent there but it's a hell of a lot better than being in an orphanage!

in addition, even if he were 30 and trying to adopt tomorrow isn't promised anyway. in other words there are no guarantees. i guess there should be an upper age limit if you are poor and single and your death would leave the child destitute but if you are wealthy what really is the big deal?

Michelle said...

I'm with Single PAP-- a decent parent of any age or sexual orientation is better than being left in an orphange. I would think the best interest of the child would be to have a parent. Guess the powers that be think differently or maybe they don't really care about the best interest of the child. Sure seems that way at times.
That said, I don't really get why people wait until much later in life to start having children. Sure we're all living longer, but the longer we wait the less likely it is the children will grow up knowing their grandparents, which I think is a shame. Or what about just having a parent who is capable of going out and really playing with the child? Participating in sports with the child?
It's neither right or wrong, just a decision I don't really understand.