I couldn't agree more. After understanding we can make some reasoned choices. It's imperative upon me to try to understand the logic of the other side before making that choice. Then I can make a decision which is truly reasoned, not just a knee-jerk reaction to my prejudices.

In regards the adoption, I have the advantage of knowing well two lesbian women who were foster parents for two minority, handicapped kids who would not have found a home anywhere else. After years of struggle they managed to adopt them. The kids are great, heterosexual, struggling a bit, but honest, reasonable, and have had the advantage of a stable home life for the last 16 of their 18 and 19 years.

On the hearing issue, I think I understand the issues, and I believe I'd come down on the side of hearing - based upon meeting the needs of the child rather than the parents. But I don't believe the parents are entirely "wrong", and I don't believe the kid would be condemned to a miserable existence if he/she couldn't hear.

And it's important to understand so that I can be reasoned in my decisions. Otherwise it's an emotional decision, and sometimes my decisions based upon emotion aren't all that wise.

The challenge for me is to sit down with the view which is opposite from mine and ask how it makes sense to the people who hold it. There is most always a way it does. Then I can agree whether to agree or disagree.

Regarding Mary K. Letourneau, when people are in a position of trust, such as a teacher, parent, step-parent, and so on there are higher standards of behavior which must be expected. I had teachers, too, I would have jumped in an instant, and can remember being reluctant to leave class until things had calmed down. Don't think it would have done either one of us any good, though. At least not them.

Delightful post. When I saw the "I understand Bowser" subject I thought "Here we go again!!". I was wrong. You do.

Arf