Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people having lots and lots of choices about how they want to create their families, but I wish there wasn't such a heavy-handed emphasis on the biological. One of my friends told me once that he was interested in having children through a surrogate because he was concerned that, should he adopt, his children could be taken away from him at any time, just because he's gay. I don't know about other states, but he's from Maryland, and in Maryland, once those adoption papers go through, that child IS. YOUR. CHILD. If I hear one more person say they want biological children because they want "their own" children, I'm going to hurl.

As we were going through the adoption process (which in our state is long, drawn out, and includes an extended fostering period where either biological parent can change his or her mind and get the child back) some friends of ours had the child they had raised for two years taken away from them because the mother changed her mind.

We already had one (biological) child and knew that we could love any child completely, no matter what the genetics, but seeing what they went through really rattled us. My husband came to the conclusion that during the fostering period, he would probably keep himself emotionally distant from the child in order to keep himself from bonding completely. He was convinced that if anyone tried to take a child he considered "his" away after a week or a month, let alone two years, he would be sneaking out of the country and living underground just to keep our family together.

The more reasonable choice was to have another biological child. We saw the heartbreak of having a child taken from you and could not bear the thought of a child living with us and us causing him or her pain by not bonding fully during the critical years.

Adoption is wonderful for some people, but those who chose an alternative should not be castigated, especially with the news about "adoption mills" coming from other countries.

I understand and respect the desire to become a parent but the whole rent a womb that comes with surrogacy is problematic. The women that become surrogates do so to help and for economic gain. For how many would this cease to be a legitimate option of women were not universally impoverished?

I know that Dan Savage isn't too popular on the site (and that I'm obsessed with him, but whatever).However, anyone interested in the topic of gay men adopting should read his book "The Kid." It's the true account of how he and his boyfriend (they've married since) adopted their son. It was an open adoption, meaning that the birthmother remained involved in the boy's life. The birthmother is a street kid, and Dan is incredibly respectful of her life and her choices. He's also honest about his concerns.

One of the best things that I got from the book is that the kids in open adoptions aren't confused about who their "real" parents are. It's other adults who find the situation weird.

Adoption has always left me confused. A teenage girl can have sex once with a man she does not know, get pregnant, and have a child. At that point, the law is (generally) on her side when it comes to keeping her with her child.

A single adult who can provide a stable home has to jump through hoops to adopt a child, and in some places can't do it all. That seems so unfair to me.

It makes me think of converting to a religion. At least with Judaism, if you're born in to it you remain a Jew even if you don't follow a single rule. But the bar for conversion is really high.

@Nestra - That is so sad. I can see why the laws are there, but there has to be a better way.

I agree with Renee, I'm not convinced that surrogacy is entirely ethical in its implications. As long as there are children in the world looking for adoption and not finding it, it seems the better avenue for those who cannot naturally conceive. This means we need to streamline the adoption process generally and remove discriminatory barriers with regards to gay adoption.

See http://votingwhileintoxicated.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-egg-market/

"The fact that it is a very costly thing to either adopt or have surrogacy, makes it something only elite (white, male, upper middle class-as depicted in the picture above) gays can do. Furthermore, the assumption that you have to be married to have children perpetuates the myth that women who have children out of wed-lock are somehow illegitimate."

You know what? That makes me a lot madder at the adoption system that is so difficult to navigate and is so geared towards profit as opposed to the welfare of children than it does at these white upper middle class men. You can't be mad at them for being white, upper middle class gay men, because even with some economic power, they're still just as much as a disadvantage in society as women are, and perhaps moreso with how limited their rights are from state to state to do basic shit like get married or walk in public with their partner without fear of someone bashing their skull in.

I just wanted to say that these guys are awesome, and that leather daddy's are also awesome. I wish there was a straight version of a leather daddy, because I would be one of those, mustache and everything right off a Toms of Finland postcard.

The impression I got was that surrogacy is often very much more expensive than adoption is. Depending on the details of the adoption, costs can be pretty low (if from fostercare), but surrogacy, with everything involved, I've heard can be anywhere from $50k to a $90k, especially if there is a seperate egg donor involved. (which is often the case here, especially as gay men cannot provide their own, and having a seperate egg donor other than the surrogate is better for legal and emotional attachment concerns.)

Speaking of, let's have another round of cheers for the California Supremes!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supreme19-2008aug19,0,2388017.story
They ruled unanimously that doctors cannot refuse to provide infertility treatment based on their religious views about their patient's sexual orientation.

I really hope this isn't out of line to post, but John McCain was recently asked by George Stephanop...Snufulufugus...whatever...what his thoughts are on gay adoption. He had a very puzzling answer:
I think that two parent families are best for America.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llZuoMXpr4s

He says it like 5 times, but adds that he favors adoption in "traditional families" as he's promoting family values. Gag/wretch.

It's as bad as Arnold Schwartzer...Snufulufugus (sorry, can't spell, too lazy to google) when he said
"I believe that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman".

I have no problem with gay couples of either sex adopting children and providing them with a loving, stable home. However, along with Bondo and Renee, I have reservations about the use by male gay couples of a surrogate (woman) to provide them with their desire for a biological child.

The posting states that either process, adoption or surrogacy, is only a real option for "white, male, upper middle-class" gay couples because of the expense involved. The word "elite" is even used. I would be interested to know the demographics of the women who offer themselves as surrogates. Somehow, I don't think that they would be "white, female, upper-middle class"! When money is involved and paid for the service of surrogacy, it creates a power differential in which economically disadvantaged women have the potential to be exploited.

It is interesting to note that in countries where payment for surrogacy is illegal, (apart from medical expenses), the whole scenario changes. Not only are there far fewer women prepared to be surrogates, but those who do are usually driven by altruistic motives because money is removed from the equation.

Nor is the use of women as surrogates restricted to male gay couples. Infertile heterosexual couples also see this as an option if they can afford it. Recently it has been reported in the media that couples are going overseas to find surrogates, with clinics in India specially set up to provide the service. This is exploitation of impoverished women by the rich in the extreme.

It has been suggested above that a separate donor egg be used to reduce legal and emotional attachment issues. This then introduces yet a second woman into the arrangement, one to provide the egg, and one to act as incubator. If emotional attachment issues need to be reduced, is that not acknowledging that there can be psychological issues for surrogates, who are required to give up the baby they have carried for 9 months and given birth to?

The financial interests of fertility clinics who offer such services need to be taken into account as well. They are businesses set up to make a profit, so offering reproductive technology to an expanding market is going to make very good economic sense. However, these establishments should not be allowed to operate in a moral vacuum.

Ethical debates, which take into account the rights of ALL parties, need to keep pace with the ever-increasing use of reproductive technology. This is especially so when money is involved in not only buying the technology, but to pay the surrogate for her services.

When there are so many children all over the world are in need of adoption into loving families, maybe the focus needs to be on improving the adoption process by removing the huge amount of red-tape, making it more affordable and acknowledging that people other than those in a heterosexual relationship are able to provide homes for these children.