View Full Version : Debate: - Gay Parenting
LeftEyeNine
02-06-2011, 01:04
Something is swirling in my mind for quite some time now.
As non-humanitarian boundaries, at least in comparably civilized societies (Turkey not at a reasonable rate yet :sweatdrop:), look to be disappearing, gay (take it as a term for both sexes) relationships are, legally, not despised; people with such tendencies are protected from harassment although it all comes down to the practicality. Anyway that's not the point of the thread.
None of us would, I guess, expect that it would just stay there, now that, in its natural course, it wouldn't suffice. Marriage is allowed in some countries, and frankly, the demand would eventually involve rights to parenting, and so it did.
As a naturalist -in my own understanding- myself, I accept what is supposed to be the way of the nature (sexual reproduction), as well as what comes with birth (homosexual tendency is one, I suppose) should be considered as tricks or treats from the nature, hence being natural as well.
Being gay, therefore, is "natural" from another "arm" of the same "nature guy" to me which makes me advocate that gays should be considered and treated no different than the heterosexuals. However, when it comes to parenting, *subjectively* stating that a child is nourished maternally and paternally in different ways, I'm quite skeptic about what kind of outcomes gay parenting may have on the sibling.
Is gay parenting too new to be observed about how kids grow out of such household or are there any paedological/psychological papers already that point some direction ? What are your thoughts on this ?
Changed my mind after being proved wrong, having two devoted dads is something to envy.
They seem pretty normal. Other than odd teasing and uninformed knee-jerk from homophobes who despise homosexually full-stop, there has not been any significant differences. There was a study floating around where apparently homosexual parents were better, but I haven't actually read it myself so I cannot vouch on the validity of these claims.
The whole "they need an x role-model" doesn't really happen since these get substituted by other role-models in the community, like teachers or famous people. They do benefit over single-parents because there is more parent-child time.
I haven't really got much to say and there isn't anything significant that I have heard about.
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2011, 01:40
This guy says everything I need to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
HoreTore
02-06-2011, 01:49
The argument that a homosexual union lacks the mother/father figure is ridiculous considering the number of single moms and dads raising kids these days.
But meh, it is no surprise that conservative homo-haters are unaware of whats happening in the real world.
Furunculus
02-06-2011, 02:13
the statistics are quite clear that having two parents in stable relationship statistically guaranteed to bringer better outcomes for the kids............... i'm not sure it matters whether the parents are d00d's, gal's, or a mix.
HoreTore
02-06-2011, 02:17
Yeah, I feel I can blame all my shortcomings on my parents divorce.
/sarcasm
LeftEyeNine
02-06-2011, 02:25
Sorry, HoreTore, I can't see a conservative homo-hater around here. Why bring in a figure that has yet to be present within this discussion ? Do your ideas have to draw its energy from the stern disagreement/despise/ridicule you bear towards what/whom you oppose ?
Single moms and dads may be raising kids, of course, which is not the point. You can feed/shelter/provide education for anyone. I am rather concerned with how well it could be with gay parents (in a questioning manner). Yeah, a sexually "classic" family does not have to be the best family some kid can have. I just want to establish a rational idea on whether a family of gay parents is inherently more prone to flaws/issues with kid's mentality/social integration that could heavily affect his/her later life.
My brother is gay. I grew up thinking homosexuals were just one more variety of people to know. No big deal at all.
That said, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children if conventional couples are available. The right of the child to a "normal" (mother and father) upbringing outweigh the desires the gay couple to raise a child.
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2011, 02:31
My brother is gay. I grew up thinking homosexuals were just one more variety of people to know. No big deal at all.
That said, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children if conventional couples are available. The right of the child to a "normal" (mother and father) upbringing outweigh the desires the gay couple to raise a child.
You think your brother is inherently a worse parent then any straight parent?
Rhyfelwyr
02-06-2011, 02:37
The argument that a homosexual union lacks the mother/father figure is ridiculous considering the number of single moms and dads raising kids these days.
This is true, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The best way to tackle the issue is to make divorce punishable by law, its just common sense for breaking a legal contract. Also not giving children sex education from primary school would be helpful, because thats just sick.
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2011, 02:44
This is true, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The best way to tackle the issue is to make divorce punishable by law, its just common sense for breaking a legal contract. Also not giving children sex education from primary school would be helpful, because thats just sick.
lol. So punish the women who make the mistake of falling for a manipulative guy and make sure the kids don't know how babby is formed.
HoreTore
02-06-2011, 02:55
This is true, and two wrongs don't make a right.
The best way to tackle the issue is to make divorce punishable by law, its just common sense for breaking a legal contract. Also not giving children sex education from primary school would be helpful, because thats just sick.
I love your fire and brimstone side, Rhy. Especially considering its night time now, and I've had a few.... I might be a little...vulnerable....if you know what I mean. :smash:
PanzerJaeger
02-06-2011, 03:08
Studies (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html) have been pretty clear on the subject.
A Cambridge University developmental psychologist testified at a federal trial in San Francisco today that broad research has documented that children of same-sex parents are just as likely as those of heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted.
"Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology.
The biggest challenge to same-sex parenting is a bigotted environment.
You think your brother is inherently a worse parent then any straight parent?
No.
But my brother isn't the issue. The child is the issue. And a child has a right to a mother and a father.
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2011, 04:08
No.
But my brother isn't the issue. The child is the issue. And a child has a right to a mother and a father.
I hate this phrase because it was over used in middle school when some counselor came in and said it 9,001 times but, "Every child has a right to be loved." I don't see that that "Every child has a right to be loved by a mother and father and if none are available then by a same sex couple."
A child has a right to be taken care of. Could you please explain the reasoning behind why there is a right to have heterosexual couple parents above homosexual ones?
A child has a right to be taken care of. Could you please explain the reasoning behind why there is a right to have heterosexual couple parents above homosexual ones?
There isn't any. Whole mother-father thing is overrated,
Major Robert Dump
02-06-2011, 06:29
The guy speaking to his lawmakers whould have done background checks on each one to see how many of them were serial divorcees, and then called them on it.
Megas Methuselah
02-06-2011, 06:32
And a child has a right to a mother and a father.
Really? Since when? You should have told that to my dad. Haven't seen the bastard in a decade.
Furunculus
02-06-2011, 11:40
Yeah, I feel I can blame all my shortcomings on my parents divorce.
/sarcasm
while that's lovely, and I am delighted you turned into such a well adjusted* young man, your triumph as a single statistic does nothing to dispute the proven fact that kids with two 'loving' parents have better outcomes relative to kids with only one full-time parent.
*rofl
rory_20_uk
02-06-2011, 11:46
Sexual orientation is far less important than many other factors in who makes a good parent / good outcomes for the children.
~:smoking:
Really? Since when? You should have told that to my dad. Haven't seen the bastard in a decade.
Look at the bright side, you wouldn't be the real thing if you did. It's the native-american experience it seems, Sorry to hear it though, counting my blessings even if mine died pretty horribly, cancer sucks
rory_20_uk
02-06-2011, 12:03
Really? Since when? You should have told that to my dad. Haven't seen the bastard in a decade.
If my seperated wife has her way, neither will I. Obligations? In stone. Rights? For negotiation.
~:smoking:
Furunculus
02-06-2011, 12:31
Sexual orientation is far less important than many other factors in who makes a good parent / good outcomes for the children.
~:smoking:
agreed, nothing i said above could be said to dispute that.
Samurai Waki
02-06-2011, 12:32
Human beings are fundamentally flawed, I make mistakes, my wife makes mistakes. When one of our girls ask us a question we don't always know the right answer, so in lieu of that we attempt to give the best answer; it may not be perfect but then again, we're not perfect people. I don't know anyone who is, straight, gay, or otherwise.
However I trust in the bond I have with my family, I have too, because I would probably go crazy if I tried to make a guess out how our daughters are going to turn out when they become adults. We support and nurture them, we love them with every fiber of our being, we would throw ourselves to the lions if it meant our daughters future was assured. But it's not, nothing is, so we have to have faith in them while trying to lead by example.
The strength of one's character is more important than their sexuality, will those children be loved and nurtured? That's important. There's a lot of children out there that need that, I don't think they'd care whether it was from a man and a woman, two men, or two women. It's really painting a lot of people with a very broad brush.
What would your answer be if I said two White people can raise a child better than two Asians? See where I'm getting with this?
:balloon2:
I will readily admit I have been very dumb on this. But it isn't about me, nor is the gay activists outcry over percieved injustice.
HoreTore
02-06-2011, 12:50
while that's lovely, and I am delighted you turned into such a well adjusted* young man, your triumph as a single statistic does nothing to dispute the proven fact that kids with two 'loving' parents have better outcomes relative to kids with only one full-time parent.
*rofl
The majority of kids these days will be kids coming from divorced families.
I seriously doubt that civilizaton will collapse.
Moving was a much bigger issue for me than my parents divorce. Should we stop people from moving if thwy have kids well adjusted to their home enviroment?
Samurai Waki
02-06-2011, 12:52
A lot of it is just luck of the draw, I've known people that were raised by nominally good, loving, nurturing families; and one child went on to be successful, and another child raised within the same family has done time in prison. Likewise I've met people who were raised by complete jackasses, and one turned out to be successful, and another one sits on his computer all day and doesn't do crap. Just because a child shares the same DNA as the parents doesn't mean they're going to be carbon copies of them.
Furunculus
02-06-2011, 12:55
The majority of kids these days will be kids coming from divorced families. I seriously doubt that civilizaton will collapse.
Moving was a much bigger issue for me than my parents divorce. Should we stop people from moving if thwy have kids well adjusted to their home enviroment?
again you pick an individual example, yourself, and promote it as a refutation of a broader statistical trend that has been observed and evidenced (http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ_Green_paper_on_the_family_WEB_2nd.pdf). that's just wrong d00d.
no, because that is exactly the kind of nannying government we don't want, whereas the point about child-outcomes from single vs dual parents results from the fact that in Britain we have a benefits system that actively penalises parents for staying together. government interference in personal life should always be kept to an absolute minimum, even if it causes a social good, but it should be treated with scathing contempt if it manages to produce a worse outcome for society.
The majority of kids these days will be kids coming from divorced families.
I seriously doubt that civilizaton will collapse.
Because civilisation is insensistive by nature, what about the fathers who are actually denied seeing their children, by the same lot that has a mutual orgasm over gay parenting. Feminism.
Rhyfelwyr
02-06-2011, 13:11
lol. So punish the women who make the mistake of falling for a manipulative guy and make sure the kids don't know how babby is formed.
Well if only one person is found responsible for causing the divorce, then only they should be punished. Is there any reason at all why they shouldn't be? Unlike when you break any other legal contract?
As for the issue with sex education for kids, I don't care if this is offensive but the people pushing this are perverts. They aint right in the head if they really want to teach those things to 5 year olds.
I love your fire and brimstone side, Rhy. Especially considering its night time now, and I've had a few.... I might be a little...vulnerable....if you know what I mean. :smash:
Kadagar is the only Scandinavian for me! Ah, the ski resort... so many fond memories...
rory_20_uk
02-06-2011, 13:26
Well if only one person is found responsible for causing the divorce, then only they should be punished. Is there any reason at all why they shouldn't be? Unlike when you break any other legal contract?
In divorce, one side has to "blame" the other for the breakdown of the marriage. There is no scope for "just growing apart". From the court's point of view the stated cause for divorce is irrelevent.
Then the factor is that if you want a divorce, why contest the reason for it? It only adds to the time (and for lawyers, time=lots of money) before you can move on, unless "point scoring" is worth more than your free time and money.
Children generally still want to see their parents. Even if one was not that nice to their other, generally they still like to see a bit of them - it's just the way we humans are.
~:smoking:
No offence taken, but sexual education starts at 8 year's old here, you would be very happy with our sexual morality. No teenage pregnancies, they very rare at least. Almost everyones first time is a loving memory. Girls don't dress like total tramps. There's a sadness to more restricted societies that could never hope to dream to match teh Dutchlands
HoreTore
02-06-2011, 13:53
I think I was 9 or 10 the first time I had sexual education...can't really remember.
Sex-ed for a five year old? I have no problems with that.
Askthepizzaguy
02-06-2011, 17:02
I'd like to point out that gay people often have children naturally through ordinary biological processes, either through surrogates, or through the availability of sperm/egg donors. Many of them have children in the non-homosexual marriages society pressures them into.
You know what's really odd? There's zero outcry over these people raising their own children.
Gee, maybe they are fit parents who love their children, and all this unwarranted fear over teh gay should finally go away.
ajaxfetish
02-06-2011, 17:41
My cousins seem to be doing okay. They're still school-age, but I'd be surprised if they turn out any less well-adjusted than they would have with heterosexual parents. It probably helps that they're growing up in Berkeley. I suspect the biggest problem children of gay parents are likely to face is prejudice from outside the family, rather than inadequate parenting within.
Ajax
I hate this phrase because it was over used in middle school when some counselor came in and said it 9,001 times but, "Every child has a right to be loved." I don't see that that "Every child has a right to be loved by a mother and father and if none are available then by a same sex couple."
A child has a right to be taken care of. Could you please explain the reasoning behind why there is a right to have heterosexual couple parents above homosexual ones?
Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.
Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.
Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.
Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.
In all fairness I do suspect a little activism here and there, that they furiously demand everybody recognises something what nature simply can't provide them. If so the baby is indeed a tool used for very selfish reasons, making a point out of being a gay parent with said kid as fancy juwelry. I'm not sure about that and I'm aware of my own prejudgis , I have them to be honest. But denying it to gays or picking heterosexual couples over them, I dunno. A barren-wombed couple might do it for the the same wrong reasons as well, to pretend to be normal
HoreTore
02-07-2011, 02:20
Children as jewelry, eh?
Those 5-year old Little Miss America contestants are the result of heterosexual unions, frequently conservative and christian as well.
I seriously doubt anyone is able to top them.
Children as jewelry, eh?
In a way yes. Do they really want a child or demand the possibilty, I don't know, but I'm kinda suspicious of their motivations. Is it fair to demand from me to treat it as exactly the same thing, I would have to pretend it is. I am not against it mind you. But gay couples can't have everything it's nature itself that says no. and I don't like having to act. It's all good I have no problem, kids will be fine, but it itches somewhere and I always trust my instincts
HoreTore
02-07-2011, 02:38
Did you stop reading after the fourth word in my post?
Rhyfelwyr
02-07-2011, 02:40
but it itches somewhere and I always trust my instincts
My instincts tell me somethings not right when I see a white and black person together in a relationship. Or even worse, white and East Asian, since then their chidren look weird.
Can you use instincts as justification for your beliefs? Because I think we're just by nature intolerant.
You don't give one human being to another human being in order to further the other person's rights or activist stance.
You want to further gay rights, give em placards and felt pens, or money for lawyers: not babies.
Did you stop reading after the fourth word in my post?
No, but it's the typical 'they aren't all that great either', and I never said they were all that great. I'm not against gay parenting, but I do question their motivations, is that so horrible.
My instincts tell me somethings not right when I see a white and black person together in a relationship. Or even worse, white and East Asian, since then their chidren look weird.
Can you use instincts as justification for your beliefs? Because I think we're just by nature intolerant.
Well I really like them dark ladies, must be their stance, how they walk. When I see a white hottie with a black man I also frown a bit, kinda a reflex, maybe it's society that's intolerant of nature, mayby it will never accept it's simplicity
Megas Methuselah
02-07-2011, 03:46
Because civilisation is insensistive by nature, what about the fathers who are actually denied seeing their children, by the same lot that has a mutual orgasm over gay parenting. Feminism.
Yeah, but women are hot.
Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.
Yeah, I'll just take your word for it then, right?
Centurion1
02-07-2011, 03:56
well rhy thats pretty ****** up. And i completely disagree to everything you just said. i dont think thats weird. i find it pretty pathetic you do.
Yeah, I'll just take your word for it then, right?
You may do as you see fit.
Louis VI the Fat
02-07-2011, 04:18
Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.
Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.In a biological sense, you will find that the children of gay parents tend to have a mother and father too. Medicine has not adcanced beyond that.
As for parents in the sense of adult raisings children. The natural way of things is to raise children in an extended family. A nuclear family of father, mother, and two children is decidely unnatural, it is recent and geographically limited. Two gay parents is scarcely less unnatural than just two parents, or even one.
Strike For The South
02-07-2011, 04:56
All of this semantic mumbo jumbo is irrelephant because the # of adoptees is still greater than the # of adopters
If the people who raise the child love it, then I don't see the problem, really.
My wife and I raise our son together. Now that he's no longer breastfed, there's nothing that she can do what I can't as well and vice versa. We can both change his diaper, give him his milk, carry him around, play with him, give him his bath etc etc. I love doing all those things and so does she. I don't see how me being heterosexual or homosexual would make me a better or worse parent. My sexual orientation has nothing to do with my capabilities of raising my child, thank you very much.
Also, this:
As for parents in the sense of adult raisings children. The natural way of things is to raise children in an extended family. A nuclear family of father, mother, and two children is decidely unnatural, it is recent and geographically limited. Two gay parents is scarcely less unnatural than just two parents, or even one.
A child has not to be exclusively raised by its' mother and its' father, that's a pretty modern concept. If children have been raised by their extended family for centuries, then how would two men or two women raising a child be "wrong"?
Also, there's a lot of hypocrisy with this subject. Let's be honest here, the "problem" is not two women raising a child, the "problem" is two men raising a child. I'm personally offended by that. Me being a man does not make me a worse parent than my wife.
I do everything my wife does and my son seems perfectly happy, so screw all those with their prejudice that a male is somehow, for some weird, outdated reasons, less fit for parenthood than a female for the sole reason that he's male.
In a biological sense, you will find that the children of gay parents tend to have a mother and father too. Medicine has not adcanced beyond that.
And all this time I thought it was the stork.
As for parents in the sense of adult raisings children. The natural way of things is to raise children in an extended family. A nuclear family of father, mother, and two children is decidely unnatural, it is recent and geographically limited. Two gay parents is scarcely less unnatural than just two parents, or even one.
I could, given a few minutes of effort, cite philosophy, demographics, and cultural conventions that would make stuffed penguins look like the best possible parents for human babies. But sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar, and a kid deseves a mother and a father regardless of the sophist's art.
I could, given a few minutes of effort, cite philosophy, demographics, and cultural conventions that would make stuffed penguins look like the best possible parents for human babies. But sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar, and a kid deseves a mother and a father regardless of the sophist's art.
Oh cut the :daisy: already. Imagine gay being the "norm" and a bigotted world opposed to heterosexuals raising kids. Wouldn't you be outraged because of the absurdity of it?
Well, seeing a homosexual couple as less fit for raising children for the sole fact that they're both male, is equally absurd.
In sophism the most logical argument always wins, kinda curious about what you have to offer there. There is nothing that proves that a child is better of in a 'normal' family I know of.
Louis VI the Fat
02-07-2011, 11:44
screw Et tu, Andres? :shame:
Other than that, give Andres jr. a quick little hug from me and whisper in his ear that he couldn't have wished for a finer papa. :smitten:
Louis VI the Fat
02-07-2011, 11:45
I could, given a few minutes of effort, cite philosophy, demographics, and cultural conventions that would make stuffed penguins look like the best possible parents for human babies. But sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar, and a kid deseves a mother and a father regardless of the sophist's art. So much then for my plan to raise my kids together with their hot three lesbian mothers... :gorgeous: :beatnik: :kiss2: :gorgeous:
Also, I see why you would identify with certain backwards Middle Eastern cultures...:smash:
If gays interact with children like all other people do as well, then there shouldn't be any problem for the children and their development.
Whether the kids get bullied at school also depends on what the parents of the other kids say at home I guess.
Indeed, if the child of a gay couple gets bullied, then the problem is not the child being raised by homosexuals. The problem is the bullies and the bigotted parents/teachers who indoctrinated them with backwards ideas.
If society makes it harder for gay parents to raise their children or for their children to be accepted, then the problem is society, not the child being raised by gays.
Off topic, but I want to get this off my chest: If judges after parents broke up systematically appoint mothers to take care of the child and give fathers nothing more than 1 week-end every fortnight, then society is sick. My mariage is going fine, don't worry about that, but I can feel rory's pain. It would be outrageous and infuriating if some backwards, bigotted judge would ordeal that the mother is a better parent than the father for the sole fact of she being female (yeah yeah, you wouldn't read that in the judgement, but let's not be hypocrites here). I think it's time for some maninism and ewomancipation. It's time for fathers to claim their right to be recognised as just as good as anyone else from a different gender to raise a child.
Also, I see why you would identify with certain backwards Middle Eastern cultures...
Ah yes, I was wondering when this would show up in the discussion.
Come on guys, what is this, the "Political Mudpit" of TWcenter?
Muhahaha way ahead of us in the very very liberal department, 'Bacha Bazi'
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Afghanistan_Bacha_Bazi_25.jpg
Congratulation it's a boy!
Common Hax you are Dutch, if you aren't rediculed you aren't in
Ah yes, I was wondering when this would show up in the discussion.
Come on guys, what is this, the "Political Mudpit" of TWcenter?
It was a coward's remark and will be disregarded as one. :smiley:
Askthepizzaguy
02-07-2011, 14:51
Indeed, if the child of a gay couple gets bullied, then the problem is not the child being raised by homosexuals. The problem is the bullies and the bigotted parents/teachers who indoctrinated them with backwards ideas.
This a million times.
Much like the army using the argument that a homosexual person is unfit to serve in the army because their sexuality might be disruptive to others in their unit, or because someone might blackmail them, etc, etc, once again, the problem is never the actual homosexuality itself, but the heterosexuals who haven't grown the heck up.
You know, there would be no negative consequences to being gay if it weren't for the straight people persecuting them. It really isn't they gay people who are the problem, and I'm really getting tired of seeing rights denied to these people because of what straight people might do in their company.
On that same topic, here are some arguments that homosexuality is somehow wrong or abnormal:
1. Fewer people are known to be gay than straight. (Of course, there are fewer people who are white than there are non-white, I guess that makes being Caucasian sick and wrong and unnatural too.) This is argument from majority, which is wrong.
2. Due to a lack of stable long-term relationships, gay people are more prone to STDs. Therefore being gay is immoral, and straight is great. (Of course, if they were allowed to have stable long-term relationships, such as marriage, which they have been asking for for some time now, or if society wouldn't treat their relationships like gutter trash, then there would be no difference between gay and straight in that regard.) This ignores the artificial differences created by the restrictions placed on gay people and the harsh, unwelcome environment they find themselves in.
3. Being raised by gay people might make the child get bullied more. (Sure, I was never bullied as a child because my parents were divorced, or because I was short, or wore glasses, or kept to myself and was socially awkward. I guess that means straight people are unfit parents too.) This argument implies that it is the fault of gay people that straight people have issues with them, which I find disgusting. That's like blaming black folks for the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe black people shouldn't be allowed to have children because some Neo-Nazi group might persecute them? TOTALLY THE MOST AWESOMEST REASONING EVAR.
4. My Bible says it is wrong! (Your Bible also says that polygamy, concubines, slavery and incest are perfectly fine. The religion contradicts itself on these points at times as well. Also, divorce is not to be allowed either. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'" Let's suggest that a lot of the arguments that suggest the Bible isn't exactly the greatest source of moral righteousness often rely on the Old Testament, which doesn't apply to modern Christianity. Sure, ignore the OT all you like. But then again, that's where the section on homosexuality being an abomination is. So let's pick and choose which verses we like, and which we don't like. Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." My goodness. Cross-breeding animals? Farming with two kinds of seed? Blended fabrics? The Lord has a long list of strange things he finds evil. It almost sounds like someone just made this stuff up to control people, but that couldn't possibly be true, or else we'd all look pretty foolish. Better stick with it, or else this could get embarrassing. I guess being gay is wrong, because that's better than the rest of us being somehow wrong. Let's also ignore 90% of what the Bible says is wrong and what the prescribed punishments for those wrongs are, because strictly adhering to the Bible would be wrong. But ignoring that one part in Leviticus, well we can't do that, because not strictly adhering to the Bible would be wrong.
5. It just feels wrong to me. I can't ignore my gut on this one. I just know being gay is wrong or inferior to being straight. My emotions never lie! As Ron White said, "the next time you have a thought: let it go." If you can't even articulate why it is wrong beyond your own particular prejudice towards it, maybe that's because it's nothing but straight-up prejudice, and there is no reason for it. Once again, gay people are forced to suffer because other people are the ones with the problem. It's the same old story, over and over again.
Need I really repeat my point about the fact that gay people already can and do have biological children and raise them just as well as straight people? It's not like there is no data on this point. We have data. The data is, they're no different from us, and at worst, any problems the children have fitting in are a result of intolerance on the part of other children, who by the way, are notorious for having absolutely no reason to behave like little balls of rancid [blank], but do so anyway and in the most cruel fashion. I suppose we should take our cues for how to have an advanced, mature society from schoolyard bullies, because they obviously aren't maladjusted hateful little attention whores, but paragons of virtue and enlightenment we should emulate in adulthood.
Some folks aren't going to change their mind on this, and I don't mean to be abusive toward them personally. It's the idea of it which I feel is worthy of criticism, direct and pointed criticism. And this is an idea which is worthy of being widely criticized, and hopefully soon, forgotten entirely, like the idea that people of different races shouldn't intermarry, because their children will be treated differently and have a harder time growing up, or for other more disgusting reasons that the aforementioned "reason" is meant to cover up and apologize for. That idea is equally as valid as this idea, and based on the same stellar logic, frankly.
There are times when I honestly can't see how this is even still being debated, because I feel that anyone who looks at this objectively and with a clear head would come to the same conclusion, if they are a fair-minded person; but then I remember that we can't seem to agree on what constitutes justice and fairness on practically any issue, and being fair-minded isn't a requirement for having an opinion.
Wouldn't make out a point of how it is today, as gay parenting gets more accepted they also have to prove less. They have to run a little faster now. There will also be absolute scumbags once it's more normalised. Don't think it's all that much an argument against the father/mother thing. I'm with you guys but walking with caution
Greyblades
02-07-2011, 16:32
Its getting better though; these days it can't be argued that gays are unnatural anymore, the prevailing opinion now is that homosexuality is actually natures way to prevent overpopulation. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it, considering many homosexuals want to bring up children.
I never understood why it matters if being gay is natural or a choice :shrug:
Consenting adults can do whatever the heck they want with each other; it's none of our business and it is completely irrelevant if they were born with their preference or if it was their choice. Mister X preferring men over women doesn't make him a lesser being. Many people make choices or have preferences that can be seen as weird by others.
Why does nobody have a problem with the [insert religion of your choice] extremist indoctrinating his children with the most moronic and backwards ideas, because he's married to a woman, but are there people having a problem with two intelligent, gay men with college degrees raising their child with an open mind because they are not married to a woman? Is being a religious extremist natural or are you born like that?
Meh.
Its getting better though; these days it can't be argued that gays are unnatural anymore, the prevailing opinion now is that homosexuality is actually natures way to prevent overpopulation. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it, considering many homosexuals want to bring up children.
Knowledgablists said it so it must be true.
Greyblades
02-07-2011, 17:04
Realy? Well I dont know about your knowledgablists, I watched a documentary.
Louis VI the Fat
02-07-2011, 20:36
Ah yes, I was wondering when this would show up in the discussion.
Come on guys, what is this, the "Political Mudpit" of TWcenter?Gah! Why is it the part about my three lesbians lovers that gets disregarded as rhetorical fantasy!?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
02-07-2011, 21:40
It's just plain wrong and disgusting. Bad enough to think of two girls or two guys doing the tango in the bedroom yet alone raising a child.
HoreTore
02-07-2011, 21:43
It's just plain wrong and disgusting. Bad enough to think of two girls or two guys doing the tango in the bedroom yet alone raising a child.
Congratulations!
This comment just won the "most irrelevant argument of the century award"!
rory_20_uk
02-07-2011, 21:44
Seconded.
Do us and the world a favour - cut the sack off.
~:smoking:
Rhyfelwyr
02-07-2011, 23:57
well rhy thats pretty ****** up. And i completely disagree to everything you just said. i dont think thats weird. i find it pretty pathetic you do.
I find it pathetic that you feel the need to find what I said to be pathetic.
LeftEyeNine
02-08-2011, 00:01
They think they are the wise yet never cease to feed the troll. :shrug:
But, hey, it's those guys; they should SMASH YER FACE WITH THEIR INDISPUTABLY REASONABLE AND AS OUTRAGEOUS HAMMERS OF SARCASTIC TRUTH SO THAT YOU COULD LEARN THE WAY OF THE NINJA !!!1111ONEGODONETRUTH
[...]
As long as you're enclosing something worthy of considering with your posts -applicable both to the dumb, if any, and the wise-, you're doing great and I'm enjoying the perspectives proposed, please keep it so.
:bow:
PanzerJaeger
02-08-2011, 00:11
Bad enough to think of two girls doing the tango in the bedroom
Those are not the words of a young, straight male. Are we engaging in a bit of self-loathing, Warman? :grin:
Greyblades
02-08-2011, 00:38
heh, It would be kinda funny if we find out that all along our resident troll is a woman.
This a million times.
Much like the army using the argument that a homosexual person is unfit to serve in the army because their sexuality might be disruptive to others in their unit, or because someone might blackmail them, etc, etc, once again, the problem is never the actual homosexuality itself, but the heterosexuals who haven't grown the heck up.
You know, there would be no negative consequences to being gay if it weren't for the straight people persecuting them. It really isn't they gay people who are the problem, and I'm really getting tired of seeing rights denied to these people because of what straight people might do in their company.
On that same topic, here are some arguments that homosexuality is somehow wrong or abnormal:
1. Fewer people are known to be gay than straight. (Of course, there are fewer people who are white than there are non-white, I guess that makes being Caucasian sick and wrong and unnatural too.) This is argument from majority, which is wrong.
2. Due to a lack of stable long-term relationships, gay people are more prone to STDs. Therefore being gay is immoral, and straight is great. (Of course, if they were allowed to have stable long-term relationships, such as marriage, which they have been asking for for some time now, or if society wouldn't treat their relationships like gutter trash, then there would be no difference between gay and straight in that regard.) This ignores the artificial differences created by the restrictions placed on gay people and the harsh, unwelcome environment they find themselves in.
3. Being raised by gay people might make the child get bullied more. (Sure, I was never bullied as a child because my parents were divorced, or because I was short, or wore glasses, or kept to myself and was socially awkward. I guess that means straight people are unfit parents too.) This argument implies that it is the fault of gay people that straight people have issues with them, which I find disgusting. That's like blaming black folks for the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe black people shouldn't be allowed to have children because some Neo-Nazi group might persecute them? TOTALLY THE MOST AWESOMEST REASONING EVAR.
4. My Bible says it is wrong! (Your Bible also says that polygamy, concubines, slavery and incest are perfectly fine. The religion contradicts itself on these points at times as well. Also, divorce is not to be allowed either. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'" Let's suggest that a lot of the arguments that suggest the Bible isn't exactly the greatest source of moral righteousness often rely on the Old Testament, which doesn't apply to modern Christianity. Sure, ignore the OT all you like. But then again, that's where the section on homosexuality being an abomination is. So let's pick and choose which verses we like, and which we don't like. Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." My goodness. Cross-breeding animals? Farming with two kinds of seed? Blended fabrics? The Lord has a long list of strange things he finds evil. It almost sounds like someone just made this stuff up to control people, but that couldn't possibly be true, or else we'd all look pretty foolish. Better stick with it, or else this could get embarrassing. I guess being gay is wrong, because that's better than the rest of us being somehow wrong. Let's also ignore 90% of what the Bible says is wrong and what the prescribed punishments for those wrongs are, because strictly adhering to the Bible would be wrong. But ignoring that one part in Leviticus, well we can't do that, because not strictly adhering to the Bible would be wrong.
5. It just feels wrong to me. I can't ignore my gut on this one. I just know being gay is wrong or inferior to being straight. My emotions never lie! As Ron White said, "the next time you have a thought: let it go." If you can't even articulate why it is wrong beyond your own particular prejudice towards it, maybe that's because it's nothing but straight-up prejudice, and there is no reason for it. Once again, gay people are forced to suffer because other people are the ones with the problem. It's the same old story, over and over again.
Need I really repeat my point about the fact that gay people already can and do have biological children and raise them just as well as straight people? It's not like there is no data on this point. We have data. The data is, they're no different from us, and at worst, any problems the children have fitting in are a result of intolerance on the part of other children, who by the way, are notorious for having absolutely no reason to behave like little balls of rancid [blank], but do so anyway and in the most cruel fashion. I suppose we should take our cues for how to have an advanced, mature society from schoolyard bullies, because they obviously aren't maladjusted hateful little attention whores, but paragons of virtue and enlightenment we should emulate in adulthood.
Some folks aren't going to change their mind on this, and I don't mean to be abusive toward them personally. It's the idea of it which I feel is worthy of criticism, direct and pointed criticism. And this is an idea which is worthy of being widely criticized, and hopefully soon, forgotten entirely, like the idea that people of different races shouldn't intermarry, because their children will be treated differently and have a harder time growing up, or for other more disgusting reasons that the aforementioned "reason" is meant to cover up and apologize for. That idea is equally as valid as this idea, and based on the same stellar logic, frankly.
There are times when I honestly can't see how this is even still being debated, because I feel that anyone who looks at this objectively and with a clear head would come to the same conclusion, if they are a fair-minded person; but then I remember that we can't seem to agree on what constitutes justice and fairness on practically any issue, and being fair-minded isn't a requirement for having an opinion.
This post wins thread. Here is your answer, LeftEyeNine.
This post wins thread. Here is your answer, LeftEyeNine.
No one is saying gay people are bad or even that gay couples having children is bad (who could or would stop them?). I think the only point being debated is if a mother\father couple wants to adopt Child X and a gay couple also wants to adopt Child X, all things being equal, it is in the child's best interests to have a mother and a father.
Strike For The South
02-08-2011, 02:31
No one is saying gay people are bad or even that gay couples having children is bad (who could or would stop them?). I think the only point being debated is if a mother\father couple wants to adopt Child X and a gay couple also wants to adopt Child X, all things being equal, it is in the child's best interests to have a mother and a father.
Which doesn't matter because more childeren need to be adopted
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption.cfm
But God forbid I stop the collective musing that is going on in this thread. Its like congress has hijacked the backroom
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2011, 03:00
Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.
Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.
Your argument makes no sense. The world humans have been living in have been growing more and more artificial, disconnected from nature. We no longer live among the trees or in caves. According to you, we are all slightly messed up because we have not been brought up in a more natural way. When did our common ancestors go to school? Or work in an office for 40+ years? Saying that it is more "natural" is a terrible argument. It's no less natural than a single parent, or no parents (those that live entire first 18 years under state), and there are plenty of fully functional humans that come from those conditions.
No, what is going on is the other way. You are using babies as a tool to deny rights to gays. Your argument can be summarized as "think of the children, it isn't 'natural'".
Your argument makes no sense. The world humans have been living in have been growing more and more artificial, disconnected from nature. We no longer live among the trees...
I do.
According to you, we are all slightly messed up because we have not been brought up in a more natural way.
And I said that where?
When did our common ancestors go to school? Or work in an office for 40+ years? Saying that it is more "natural" is a terrible argument. It's no less natural than a single parent, or no parents (those that live entire first 18 years under state), and there are plenty of fully functional humans that come from those conditions.
Yes, there are fully functional people that come from all kinds of backrounds. But your assertion that a child being raised with no parents at all being just as natural a situation as a child being raised with paprents is dead wrong. The natural way for a child to be raised is with parents.
No, what is going on is the other way. You are using babies as a tool to deny rights to gays.
So in order to guarantee someone's rights the state has to give them a baby?
Odd.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2011, 04:06
I do.
Ironically that probably accounts for why you seem more disconnected from society for reasons I will go over again right now.
And I said that where?
This is what you said: Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society.
First, why is the natural way preferable? The only logical explanation is that it is somehow "better" than a "less natural" way of being brought up.
If you backtrack and tell me that the "natural" way is not better than a "non-natural" way, you have no argument.
If you want to tell me that the natural way is the better way, than it follows that we are all slightly dysfunctional because all of us have not been raised "naturally". We live in concrete buildings that stretch for miles, we spend most of our youth sitting in a chair learning and most of our adult lives sitting in a chair working. We have all been brought up in a completely artificial environment since birth, we must be so messed up compared to our ancestors back in the 1500s.
This is the main problem of the whole "it's not natural" argument. You never define what is natural or what isn't and give no reasoning why. If you want to say that a mom and dad is natural and two dads or moms isn't because that is how it has "been" then my point stands.
Yes, there are fully functional people that come from all kinds of backrounds. But your assertion that a child being raised with no parents at all being just as natural a situation as a child being raised with paprents is dead wrong. The natural way for a child to be raised is with parents.
Give reasoning or you have no argument.
So in order to guarantee someone's rights the state has to give them a baby?
Odd.
If they are proven to be clean, law abiding, loving parents, yes the state should give them a baby, because to refuse to so that a "proper" set of parents can have them first in essentially a form of segregation. Hetero couples get to sit in the front of the bus and all the homos need to sit in the back and give up their seats to any hetero that wants one. Congrats, that's bigot speak.
HoreTore
02-08-2011, 10:33
For a child to have a mother and father is unnatural.
Our species have practiced the extended family unit for almost our entire hietory, where all the kids are pooled together and taken care of by a group. To limit a child to just two parents is a social experiment denying the child the right to all the different rolemodels the extended family would give.
Ironically that probably accounts for why you seem more disconnected from society for reasons I will go over again right now.
I admit to being surprised that saying a child should have a mother and a father paints me as being disconnected from society.
First, why is the natural way preferable? The only logical explanation is that it is somehow "better" than a "less natural" way of being brought up.
If you backtrack and tell me that the "natural" way is not better than a "non-natural" way, you have no argument.
If you want to tell me that the natural way is the better way, than it follows that we are all slightly dysfunctional because all of us have not been raised "naturally". We live in concrete buildings that stretch for miles, we spend most of our youth sitting in a chair learning and most of our adult lives sitting in a chair working. We have all been brought up in a completely artificial environment since birth, we must be so messed up compared to our ancestors back in the 1500s.
They had chairs and buildings in 1500.
This is the main problem of the whole "it's not natural" argument. You never define what is natural or what isn't and give no reasoning why. If you want to say that a mom and dad is natural and two dads or moms isn't because that is how it has "been" then my point stands.
Natural in that it takes a mother and father to procreate. Natural in that the vast majority of countries, cultures, and civilizations, going far back in history, a child having a mother and a father was always seen as natural. Granted there are always exceptions, hell, there are probably places where eating your first born was considered a propos, but such exceptions aside, mom and dad was where it was at. And it still is.
Give reasoning or you have no argument.
You're hot when you bark orders. :smiley:
If they are proven to be clean, law abiding, loving parents, yes the state should give them a baby, because to refuse to so that a "proper" set of parents can have them first in essentially a form of segregation. Hetero couples get to sit in the front of the bus and all the homos need to sit in the back and give up their seats to any hetero that wants one. Congrats, that's bigot speak.
That was a riot. You do have a wonderful sense of the absurd. :bow:
Over at the chainsaw forum they think I am the worst kind of left-wing fag-loving commie scumbag. Over here, I'm a right-wing homo-hating bigot. I should get you over there for a visit; the fireworks would be astounding.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go take Ryan Seacrest's seat at the front of the bus. :laugh4:
Rhyfelwyr
02-08-2011, 12:57
Give reasoning or you have no argument.
Give reasoning why two people have to be in a sexual relationship to raise a child.
Give reasoning why there has to be two parents and not ten.
etc.
I think the only point being debated is if a mother\father couple wants to adopt Child X and a gay couple also wants to adopt Child X, all things being equal, it is in the child's best interests to have a mother and a father.
Ok, so the hetero couple should always be preferred over the gay couple for the sole reason that they are heterosexual?
That's discrimination. In our civilised, western societies, we no longer do discrimination, unless it is justifiable that is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, you haven't justified why gay couples should be discriminated against.
Greyblades
02-08-2011, 13:05
I wonder... I generally understand that a child realy needs both a mother and a father figure, would a gay family be deficient in that respect?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, you haven't justified why gay couples should be discriminated against.
I have reservations, they could be doing it just to pretend that they are something they are not and never can be, using the baby for activism. Do they really want to be a good parent, or just seek acknowledgement of the fact that they can be just as good a parent. I'm not sure.
HoreTore
02-08-2011, 13:24
Fragony probably isn't bigoted, but he seems rather fond of conspiracies....
Depends on when they are adopted, denying a child the milk from it's mother should be made criminal in every thinkable circumstance anyway.
Fragony probably isn't bigoted, but he seems rather fond of conspiracies....
What conspiracy would that be, just activism. Is it that far a stretch that they are really only looking for recognision for what isn't the real thing, I would call that child-abuse
I have reservations, they could be doing it just to pretend that they are something they are not and never can be, using the baby for activism. Do they really want to be a good parent, or just seek acknowledgement of the fact that they can be just as good a parent. I'm not sure.
That concern can be easily addressed.
Meh; in my country people are screened before they're allowed to adopt. The couple wanting to adopt solely because they want to make a political statement won't pass the tests.
That concern can be easily addressed.
Meh; in my country people are screened before they're allowed to adopt. The couple wanting to adopt solely because they want to make a political statement won't pass the tests.
Who's doing the tests, if you are a rabid homophobe you don't get to do them. Also while unrelated, daddy's incredibly hot 20something year old girlfriend, a teacher perhaps, he met her there. What is better, she or the natural mom
Fisherking
02-08-2011, 14:16
Who's doing the tests, if you are a rabid homophobe you don't get to do them. Also while unrelated, daddy's incredibly hot 20something year old girlfriend, a teacher perhaps, he met her there. What is better, she or the natural mom
Too many hypothetical and no one is a fit parent.
If we talk about breakups then no one is immune, gay or not.
Many people do see it as another gay activism gimmick but that is not to say all are.
Often people have ulterior motives for things but I don’t know that all can be guarded against.
It is all getting rather abstract.
Too many hypothetical and no one is a fit parent.
If we talk about breakups then no one is immune, gay or not.
Many people do see it as another gay activism gimmick but that is not to say all are.
Often people have ulterior motives for things but I don’t know that all can be guarded against.
It is all getting rather abstract.
Abstract yes and I don't even agree with myself, but I don't think all arguments of people who are against are so stupid. Even emotionally, why respect a dead end if you really love nature. That's more like trying to conquer it imho.
Ok, so the hetero couple should always be preferred over the gay couple for the sole reason that they are heterosexual?
That's discrimination. In our civilised, western societies, we no longer do discrimination, unless it is justifiable that is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, you haven't justified why gay couples should be discriminated against.
You've got the whole thing backwards, you're speaking about the rights of the parents. As a parent I can tell you that parents have no rights; they have obligations and responsibilites - it's the children who have rights.
You've got the whole thing backwards, you're speaking about the rights of the parents. As a parent I can tell you that parents have no rights; they have obligations and responsibilites - it's the children who have rights.
~:confused:
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Child X is put up for adoption. The candidates are couple A, heterosexual and couple B, homosexual. What you say is that in such a situation couple A always adopts the child, for the sole reason that couple A is heterosexual. That's what they call discrimination, based on sexual orientation.
How do you justify that, please?
Or to put it differently: why is it in the best interest of the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple and not by a homosexual couple. What makes the heterosexual couple better parents than the homosexual couple?
Why is the sexual orientation of the candidates to adopt the child relevant?
Rhyfelwyr
02-08-2011, 16:10
Or to put it differently: why is it in the best interest of the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple and not by a homosexual couple. What makes the heterosexual couple better parents than the homosexual couple?
Well with something as complicated as raising children its hard to come up with specific answers, sometimes gut feelings are just as good.
Can you even frame a case for any of the situations below not being appropriate for raising children:
1. Two people in a non-sexual relationship
2. Three or more people in a sexual relationship
~:confused:
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
I was going to ask if you are being confused on purpose.
Child X is put up for adoption. The candidates are couple A, heterosexual and couple B, homosexual. What you say is that in such a situation couple A always adopts the child, for the sole reason that couple A is heterosexual. That's what they call discrimination, based on sexual orientation.
You continue to think parents (present or wannabe) have rights. I'm telling you parents have obligations and responsibilities. It is the children who have rights. If you are a parent you should understand this. If you are not a parent it can be explained.
How do you justify that, please?
Or to put it differently: why is it in the best interest of the child to be raised by a heterosexual couple and not by a homosexual couple. What makes the heterosexual couple better parents than the homosexual couple?
Because having a mother and a father is normal for a human child. The mix of the two, the balance of the male\female upbrining of the child, is most advantageous to the child as the child will be living in a human society that evolved with a mother\father mix and whose structure is based on a mother\father, male\female, boy-meets-girl-and-has-baby mix. It's who we are. It's who we are supposed to be. Now, you may not like that truth, it may upset some new age philosophical pretzel you like to chew on, but kids are supposed to have moms and dads. Welcome to Earth. Welcome to humanity.
Why is the sexual orientation of the candidates to adopt the child relevant?
What is relevant, the only thing that is relevant, is what is best for the kid. Seeing that the kid is probably human, and humans, by nature are suited to a mother and father mix in their upbringing, then is what the kid deserves.
Seriously, listening to you go on like this is like listening to those vegetarians who say that humans shouldn't eat meat; that eating meat is just an evolutionary mistake. Yeah, well, check the teeth, baby: omnivores is us. Moms and dads is us, too.
Greyblades
02-08-2011, 20:43
I wonder... I generally understand that a child realy needs both a mother and a father figure, would a gay family be deficient in that respect?
Any chance I could get an answer to this? Even a "Its too stupid a question to consider taking seriously" would help.
ajaxfetish
02-08-2011, 22:33
Over at the chainsaw forum they think I am the worst kind of left-wing fag-loving commie scumbag. Over here, I'm a right-wing homo-hating bigot. I should get you over there for a visit; the fireworks would be astounding.
Congratulations! You are officially a moderate, feared and misunderstood by both ends of the political spectrum.
Ajax
Tellos Athenaios
02-08-2011, 22:44
You already got it. There was a post about role models in more general sense. Louis was quite right to note that the “natural” way for kids to grow up is in an extended family. In particular, in the company of children who were born to different mothers and fathers, to annoy or bring a smile to other adults than mum and dad and in general to be part of a wider community. So role models of any kind are never hard to come by.
Congratulations! You are officially a moderate, feared and misunderstood by both ends of the political spectrum.
Ajax
Either that or everybody just hates me. :embarassed:
LeftEyeNine
02-08-2011, 23:35
Either that or everybody just hates me. :embarassed:
How is that even possible ?
Or should I say "who >:|" ? :smoking:
HoreTore
02-09-2011, 00:23
Either that or everybody just hates me. :embarassed:
I do love your daughter though, if that helps. ~:)
I do love your daughter though, if that helps. ~:)
Well, the older one is 14, so I'm thinking it best be unrequited love. :wry:
~:confused:
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Child X is put up for adoption. The candidates are couple A, heterosexual and couple B, homosexual. What you say is that in such a situation couple A always adopts the child, for the sole reason that couple A is heterosexual. That's what they call discrimination
Sure is, but I don't see why it's such a bad thing. It will always be the kid raised by gay parents, homosexuality isn't quite as accepted yet. Exihbit A: me. I fully accept their rights but I am all ewwwwwwww. Doesn't stop me from sharing a bed with a gay marrocan convict on leave, but I do think you are being more offended than you ought to be. Why are people having a riot over these gay pinguins, they are a curiosity. So are gay parents, everybody's is going to pay attention no matter how they feel about it. Do the children have to haul society where you want it to be. As for now I agree with Beirut, hetero's first.
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2011, 09:15
I admit to being surprised that saying a child should have a mother and a father paints me as being disconnected from society.
That is not what you are saying though. You are saying they should have the child at the expense of a homosexual couple.
They had chairs and buildings in 1500.
You didn't respond to the bigger issue. Our world is more artificial than that of the 1500s. Do you think we should be raised in a 1500s environment than a modern one? I know you are smarter than to feign ignorance on what makes this world more artificial than the one 500 years ago.
Natural in that it takes a mother and father to procreate. Natural in that the vast majority of countries, cultures, and civilizations, going far back in history, a child having a mother and a father was always seen as natural. Granted there are always exceptions, hell, there are probably places where eating your first born was considered a propos, but such exceptions aside, mom and dad was where it was at. And it still is.
And why exactly is this "natural" way inherently better than having two loving dads or moms?
You're hot when you bark orders. :smiley:
My gf tells me the same thing. -high fives-
That was a riot. You do have a wonderful sense of the absurd. :bow:
Over at the chainsaw forum they think I am the worst kind of left-wing fag-loving commie scumbag. Over here, I'm a right-wing homo-hating bigot. I should get you over there for a visit; the fireworks would be astounding.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go take Ryan Seacrest's seat at the front of the bus. :laugh4:
You didn't reply why my analogy was inaccurate. And no, I didn't mean to call you a bigot. I have read your posts in other threads, I know you are not George Wallace here. I said, what you have just said is bigoted. I am not so black and white to think that everyone who is critical of social movements is bigoted. I am just saying that in this scenario, what you have suggested is prejudicial and makes gay parents be second class parents.
Give reasoning why two people have to be in a sexual relationship to raise a child.
Give reasoning why there has to be two parents and not ten.
etc.
They don't and they don't. As HoreTore has said, the real "natural" way is having your entire extended family take care of you, in that sense arn't they all parents?
HoreTore
02-09-2011, 10:38
Well, the older one is 14, so I'm thinking it best be unrequited love. :wry:
Dang!
With you being an old geezer and all, I thought she wuld've been at least 20.... Oh well ~:(
That is not what you are saying though. You are saying they should have the child at the expense of a homosexual couple.
The homosexual couple have no rights. The heterosexual couples have no rights. Only the child has rights.
You didn't respond to the bigger issue. Our world is more artificial than that of the 1500s. Do you think we should be raised in a 1500s environment than a modern one? I know you are smarter than to feign ignorance on what makes this world more artificial than the one 500 years ago.
On the contrary, as we understand much more about the world and most people suffer less superstitions, I believe we are more connected with the world. For one thing, we don't think it is flat.
And why exactly is this "natural" way inherently better than having two loving dads or moms?
We live in nature, we as humans have a nature, and that said, in relation to the best interests of the child, natural would seem to be best.
My gf tells me the same thing. -high fives-
Sweet.
You didn't reply why my analogy was inaccurate.I am just saying that in this scenario, what you have suggested is prejudicial and makes gay parents be second class parents.
No, I never said gay parents were second class parents. I said as far as adoption goes, seeing that a child having a mom and dad is best, and I believe it is, then the child has a right to a mom and dad. And the child's rights outweigh the adoptive parent's rights by a factor of about a million to one.
Again and again: Parents do not have rights. They have obligations and responsibilities. The child has the rights.
May I ask if you have kids?
Ok then. The child that is put up for adoption has the right to get the best possible parents.
What you are saying is that if there's a homosexual couple A and a heterosexual couple B, the heterosexual couple B is best. It is so, because that is "natural", you say. One could argue that a child being raised by mum and dad is more a cultural thing than a natural thing, given the fact that kids used to be raised by their extended family. On the notion of natural, one could argue that walking barefoot is more natural than using your car, that eating plants and hunted down animals is more natural than eating chocolate, that cutting trees is not a natural thing to do and that hitting your opponents' head with a rock until he admits he's wrong is more natural than debating on an internet forum. So, let us not value the argument "it is natural" too much.
You don't seem to have data or scientific evidence of heterosexual couples being better suited than homosexual couples (allthough most people know more than a few examples of heterosexuals who screwed up), you present it as a fact. Because you feel a heterosexual couple is better suited. Your opinion is that, by default, heterosexual couples are better suited for raising kids than homosexual couples. That's as good an opinion as any other, but it's nothing more than that: an opinion. An opinion with which I disagree. I think two fathers or two mothers can do an equally good job in raising a child as a heterosexual couple. That's also an opinion. As good as yours, because it's not backed up by anything.
But then there's the discrimination thing. Turn it around as much as you want, what you propose is discrimination without any justification, except your own personal feelings.
:shrug:
If a lot of people feel like that it could even be a lawul argument if they beat up the kid; irresponsibility, said gay parents should have known better than adopting a child in a hostile environment. A clever lawyer can get away with that
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2011, 14:04
That's as good an opinion as any other, but it's nothing more than that: an opinion. An opinion with which I disagree. I think two fathers or two mothers can do an equally good job in raising a child as a heterosexual couple. That's also an opinion. As good as yours, because it's not backed up by anything.
Actually, there is plenty of scientific evidence (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids) that supports your opinion over his. ~:)
Rhyfelwyr
02-09-2011, 15:36
Plus homosexual parents will raise children with bad values, no understanding of gender roles etc.
It's just a farce and it can't be a family no matter how much they want it to be. Like if ten strangers who happened to live together raised a child... the child might still turn out fine but you know its not right really.
It's just a farce and it can't be a family no matter how much they want it to be. Like if ten strangers who happened to live together raised a child... the child might still turn out fine but you know its not right really.
100% with ya
Ok then. The child that is put up for adoption has the right to get the best possible parents.
The child deserves the best mother and father he can get.
What you are saying is that if there's a homosexual couple A and a heterosexual couple B, the heterosexual couple B is best. It is so, because that is "natural", you say. One could argue that a child being raised by mum and dad is more a cultural thing than a natural thing, given the fact that kids used to be raised by their extended family. On the notion of natural, one could argue that walking barefoot is more natural than using your car, that eating plants and hunted down animals is more natural than eating chocolate, that cutting trees is not a natural thing to do and that hitting your opponents' head with a rock until he admits he's wrong is more natural than debating on an internet forum. So, let us not value the argument "it is natural" too much.
One could also argue, given a mastery of the language, that naked as a jaybird is the best way for nuns to fly British Airways. But no matter how you look at it, even if it upsets you; mom and dad is best because it is who we are and who we are supposed to be.
You don't seem to have data or scientific evidence of heterosexual couples being better suited than homosexual couples (allthough most people know more than a few examples of heterosexuals who screwed up), you present it as a fact. Because you feel a heterosexual couple is better suited. Your opinion is that, by default, heterosexual couples are better suited for raising kids than homosexual couples. That's as good an opinion as any other, but it's nothing more than that: an opinion. An opinion with which I disagree. I think two fathers or two mothers can do an equally good job in raising a child as a heterosexual couple. That's also an opinion. As good as yours, because it's not backed up by anything.
I don't know out of what box of "Dr.Sunshine's Pixie Dust" you get your point of view, but here in the real world kids should have a mother and a father. There's new age feel-good crap out there that rings every bell looking to be rung, but kids need a mother and a father and no amount of Oprah, The Celestine Prophecies, or Vegan Vibrations will change that.
Mom and dad is best for junior. :cool::gorgeous::tiny:
But then there's the discrimination thing. Turn it around as much as you want, what you propose is discrimination without any justification, except your own personal feelings.
Discrimination against who?
For the umpteenth time: Parents have no rights - parents have obligations and responsibilities. The children have rights.
Do you have kids?
:shrug:
:idea2:
The child deserves the best mother and father he can get.
Not if the child is female?
That's discrimination, your argument is slowly falling apart as your real face shows through. :annoyed:
As I already hinted though, if it's about what is best for the child, what about the milk of it's mother? It's best for the child but neither straight nor gay adopting parents can replace it, except if the couple includes a woman who gave birth recently.
If it's only about what's best for the child then it's mother shouldn't be allowed to give it up for adoption until she has breastfed it for about a year.
Tellos Athenaios
02-10-2011, 00:58
Not if the child is female?
That's discrimination, your argument is slowly falling apart as your real face shows through. :annoyed:
Actually, the reference “he” equally applies to female children, because in English (as with many languages derived substantially from Germanic precursors) “she” is only used for nouns which are explicitly “female”. The fad with referring to hypothetical persons with the word “she” is little more than grammatical error possibly borne out of a desire to be politically correct. In Dutch we know this phenomenon under the moniker “haarziekte” (she-disease). :shrug: Use either “he or she” or stick with “he” or if you want to be really correct “one”.
Thanks for your time.
~;)
Actually, the reference “he” equally applies to female children, because in English (as with many languages derived substantially from Germanic precursors) “she” is only used for nouns which are explicitly “female”. The fad with referring to hypothetical persons with the word “she” is little more than grammatical error possibly borne out of a desire to be politically correct. In Dutch we know this phenomenon under the moniker “haarziekte” (she-disease). :shrug: Use either “he or she” or stick with “he” or if you want to be really correct “one”.
Thanks for your time.
~;)
That doesn't make it any better, it just means the whole language is biased against girls. :snobby:
I wasn't demanding he use "she" either, "The child deserves the best mother and father they can get." sounds appropriate, or "The child deserves the best mother and father it can get."
Then again, and I feel forced to reveal this now, I wasn't serious. :balloon2:
Now on to the actual issue, why are young children denied the milk of their mother which is the best nutrition they can possibly get?
And it's natural, too!
Tellos Athenaios
02-10-2011, 01:24
Now on to the actual issue, why are young children denied the milk of their mother which is the best nutrition they can possibly get? Unless their mother happens to be Japanese, or Innuit or from Spitsbergen or on drugs and similar... (in which case the milk is actually mildly to severely toxic due to pollution accumulating in the mother.
More in general what if the choice is between being given up for adoption and being abandoned outright, which was the typical course of action before?
Not if the child is female?
That's discrimination, your argument is slowly falling apart as your real face shows through. :annoyed:
Sentience in the thread, please. :inquisitive:
As I already hinted though, if it's about what is best for the child, what about the milk of it's mother? It's best for the child but neither straight nor gay adopting parents can replace it, except if the couple includes a woman who gave birth recently.
I would refer you to my request above.
If it's only about what's best for the child then it's mother shouldn't be allowed to give it up for adoption until she has breastfed it for about a year.
Well, seems it's too much to ask. Oh well.
Now on to the actual issue, why are young children denied the milk of their mother which is the best nutrition they can possibly get?
And it's natural, too!
Assuming the mother is with the child, why wouldn't she feed him?
All the chicks I know breastfeed.
ajaxfetish
02-10-2011, 04:22
Actually, the reference “he” equally applies to female children, because in English (as with many languages derived substantially from Germanic precursors) “she” is only used for nouns which are explicitly “female”.
The way to be grammatically correct and still avoid sex bias is to use singular they, as in "The child deserves the best mother and father they can get". With ever increasing concern about discrimination and bias, I wholeheartedly recommend use of singular they over generic he.
Ajax
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2011, 06:07
The homosexual couple have no rights. The heterosexual couples have no rights. Only the child has rights.
What is the justification for this? Why does the child have a right to have heterosexual parents but not parents to begin with? This seems like an oddly specific right that suddenly appears to justify an imbalance in he treatment of hetero and homosexual couples.
On the contrary, as we understand much more about the world and most people suffer less superstitions, I believe we are more connected with the world. For one thing, we don't think it is flat.People didn't think the world was flat in the 1500s. Also superstitions doesn't have anything to do with being connected with the world. I don't see how the modern man is more connected to nature than the Celts just because he doesn't believe in spirits.
I kindly ask for more valid examples please.
We live in nature, we as humans have a nature, and that said, in relation to the best interests of the child, natural would seem to be best. There seems to be a bit of assumption going on there. I have been arguing the exact opposite to your first four words there. Where exactly is the nature at the intersection of W 51st Street and 7th Avenue, in NYC? A kid growing up there could spend his entire adolescence in that neighborhood.
No, I never said gay parents were second class parents. I said as far as adoption goes, seeing that a child having a mom and dad is best, and I believe it is, then the child has a right to a mom and dad. And the child's rights outweigh the adoptive parent's rights by a factor of about a million to one.
Again and again: Parents do not have rights. They have obligations and responsibilities. The child has the rights.
May I ask if you have kids?
The funny thing about rights is that you need a reeeeeally solid reasoning for why they exist. So far all you have is, "because it's more natural, and it is more natural because out of the 100,000 years that modern Homo Sapiens have been around, the last couple thousand years since agriculture and civilization started, most people were raised by a mother and father."
You know, throughout my time in high school, I had 2 teachers, 2 vice principles and 3 "guards" tell me that everyone has a right to not be offended (this was their reasoning why I couldn't swear when talking to my friends during lunch break). But in reality, they really didn't, no matter how much they said they did.
HoreTore
02-10-2011, 07:41
Assuming the mother is with the child, why wouldn't she feed him?
All the chicks I know breastfeed.
Not all mothers are able to breastfeed.
I don't know out of what box of "Dr.Sunshine's Pixie Dust" you get your point of view, but here in the real world kids should have a mother and a father. There's new age feel-good crap out there that rings every bell looking to be rung, but kids need a mother and a father and no amount of Oprah, The Celestine Prophecies, or Vegan Vibrations will change that.
Whatever.
Do you have kids?
Read post #51 of this thread. Or check the FR.
Anyway, is having children necessary to be able to form an opinion on discrimination?
I'm through debating this issue with you; it's starting to feel like talking to a wall. We disagree and nothing will change your viewpoint nor mine. So be it, then.
:bow:
I feel kinda ignored, you haven't adressed my argument. As long as society is biased against it isn't it unfair to put kids on the frontline of change. Things don't move that fast, change needs time. Favouring hetero couples over gay ones makes sense for now, they will have a more normal life as hetero couples attract less attention.
Louis VI the Fat
02-10-2011, 10:41
I have an (imaginary) twin sister. She and her husband have two children. They are all very close with me, their uncle. Then both my sister and her husband (hypothetically) died in an accident, orphanising theiw two kids.
I am a homosexual and am married to Strike (in real life, not hypothetical).
Whom should become the guardian of these two children? Me and Strike? Or two perfect strangers, but heterosexual?
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2011, 10:44
I feel kinda ignored, you haven't adressed my argument. As long as society is biased against it isn't it unfair to put kids on the frontline of change. Things don't move that fast, change needs time. Favouring hetero couples over gay ones makes sense for now, they will have a more normal life as hetero couples attract less attention.
Almost as unfair to use kids to resist change. The point of the debate of gay parenting is whether or not gay parents should adopt a child. Are they suitable? All data points towards yes. Suddenly, now that data is against the anti-gay parents, this new argument arises that shifts the focus from "can gays be parents?" to "should we pick them over heteros?" and now suddenly it's "all about the children". Complete rubbish.
In case you guys skipped over his posts, Strike told the truth that there is way more children that need to be adopted than there are parents willing to adopt. All this talk of letting the heteros go first is just a distraction, an attempt to hold on to the status quo of putting "tradition" first before gay rights, when in reality this isn't even needed because we can have all the gays and all the straights adopt and there will still be kids that need parents!
I feel kinda ignored, you haven't adressed my argument. As long as society is biased against it isn't it unfair to put kids on the frontline of change. Things don't move that fast, change needs time. Favouring hetero couples over gay ones makes sense for now, they will have a more normal life as hetero couples attract less attention.
It's a non argument. My wife is only 1.50 m tall; it is very probable that children will try to make fun of it and pester my son with it once he'll go to school. Should that have stopped us from procreating? Some people walk silly, others are flat out ugly, some people are poor and live in the margins of society, others are from a different origin, some are extremely fat/skinny/tall/small, some are rich which could cause jealousy, etc. etc. etc. Should we sterilize each and every single person that isn't "normal" and deny them the right to adopt a child ? Who are you to say who can raise children and who can't. What arrogance. Society? If moronic views are the norm, then society is in urgent need of change.
Besides, I don't know how developped your country is, but here the position of society vs. gay people has changed a lot in the last two or three decades. Mentalities have changed drastically. I don't know many people who are still biased vs. gays. Yes, sometimes people make fun of gay people, but pure hatred, not accepting them, attacking them only because they are gay; no, that not.
Most people have prejudices and have difficulties to accept whatever goes against "the norm". Should we take into account all these sensitivities or can we have a free, liberal and openminded society?
I don't give a crap about gay adoption. But anti's do, and pro's do. Both want to make a point out of it. The kid that's in the middle of that isn't to envy. Babysteps are ALWAYS best give it 20 year or so, if nobody makes a point out of it there isn't any.
Sentience in the thread, please. :inquisitive:
I would refer you to my request above.
Well, seems it's too much to ask. Oh well.
:huh:
First was a joke as I already said, the other two were more serious and you actually answered them here:
Assuming the mother is with the child, why wouldn't she feed him?
All the chicks I know breastfeed.
I thought a mother can give a lot more milk after giving birth since the hormones or whatever (I'm sure Tellos will have something clever to add to that :dozey:) make her produce a lot more milk, the mother of the adopting couple might not give enough milk to feed the baby.
It was just something that came to mind since the argument revolved around emotionalising and idealistic ideals so I was looking for something a bit more scientific.
Perhaps having two mothers is better then since they can pool their milk and give the baby more?
Emotionally speaking all healthy adults should have the abilities required to raise a child.
In the traditional (I'm not saying natural, oops) man-woman relationship you get ones where the woman dominates and ones where the man dominates so speaking about gender roles being natural seems a bit weird, I guess either partner can fill out the roles a baby needs.
Whether this makes the baby fit for the traditions of our society, which seems to be a major point, well, maybe the fault lies not with the gay couples but with our society's lack of acceptance towards them. As has been mentioned our society isn't natural anyway, it's been shaped and engineered throughout the ages, heavily influenced by the very anti-gay church etc. etc.
I don't give a crap about gay adoption. But anti's do, and pro's do. Both want to make a point out of it. The kid that's in the middle of that isn't to envy. Babysteps are ALWAYS best give it 20 year or so, if nobody makes a point out of it there isn't any.
Ugh.
Gay couple goes to adoption agency, follows course, adopts child. They won't make a fuss out of anything, they're just normal people wanting to adopt a child. They're no different from any other infertile couple that choses for adoption.
Who's making a fuss? Who's making a point out of it? On the one side some bigotted people, on the other side the vocal minority amongst gays who like to play victim and feel offended over nothing. The first don't represent society; the latter are not the majority of the gay people. But these people are vocal and make for interesting news articles, so they get all the coverage in the media. Your regular Joe and Andrew Gay who just want to live their lives like anyone else and don't feel the need to run around half naked with feathers in their behind, don't get attention. That doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, they form the majority of gay people. At least, here they do.
The gay friend I have never makes a point of him being gay. He's gay. So what? Have another smoke and order another beer. Meh. The vocal gays are not the majority of the gay people and in fact, he deems them annoying. Most gay people are just... people.
Vocal minorities do not represent "the norm".
Does it matter who's making a fuzz, people do. Not fair for the kid to be the subject of it. If all people were like you it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. 'It shouldn't be' is never an argument
Whatever.
And whoever.
Read post #51 of this thread. Or check the FR.
Anyway, is having children necessary to be able to form an opinion on discrimination?
Having children, as I see you do, let's a person know that his rights are right out the window. It may be 3am, and you may have gotten to bed late, and you may have to get up in two-hours for a long day's work, but your imaginary right to sleep is non-existant as your crying kid's right to have the puke cleaned off her, and be put in the bath, and have her bed changed, trumps all. Example #1 of 1,000,000.
I'm through debating this issue with you; it's starting to feel like talking to a wall. We disagree and nothing will change your viewpoint nor mine. So be it, then.
If someone thinks they will ever convince me that saying a child should have a mother and a father is akin to bigotry, then no, we will never, ever agree.
:bow:
:bow:
I feel kinda ignored, you haven't adressed my argument. As long as society is biased against it isn't it unfair to put kids on the frontline of change. Things don't move that fast, change needs time. Favouring hetero couples over gay ones makes sense for now, they will have a more normal life as hetero couples attract less attention.
Excellent point. But some people don't give a rat's patookus about the child; only that Daddy & Daddy got to make their point and got on Oprah.
The kid? Who cares about rhe kid? It's all about gay rights!
:huh:
First was a joke as I already said, the other two were more serious and you actually answered them here:
Didn't see your other post. Besides, the way this thread is going, and with some of the ridiculousnes therein, what you wrote was right in line with the rest of it.
Excellent point. But some people don't give a rat's patookus about the child; only that Daddy & Daddy got to make their point and got on Oprah.
The kid? Who cares about rhe kid? It's all about gay rights!
The occasional moron claiming his god given right to adopt a child in the most ridiculous way possible on a show à la Oprah is not fit for parenthood. Anyone who insists on coming on tele in shows like that and claiming whatever god given right in the most moronic way possible, should get a prohibition to procreate or to adopt and sent to a re-education camp. Not because they are gay, but because they are idiots.
Cf. post 132 though; don't know about Canada, but most gays here are not like the stereotypical dressed in pink guy, acting all feminine and being a "designer" or hairdresser and having a show on Vitaya or whatever crap station that only broadcasts programs about clothing, cooking, decorating and the occasional talk show about emotions.
Most gay people act just like everyone else.
Meh, you only had to clean puke; I had to clean diarrhea and puke! At 3.30 am and at 5.30 am. Poor kid. His first flu.
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2011, 12:39
Excellent point. But some people don't give a rat's patookus about the child; only that Daddy & Daddy got to make their point and got on Oprah.
The kid? Who cares about rhe kid? It's all about gay rights!
This is just disgraceful. I am trying to have an actual meaningful discussion on the rights of kids and you characterize everyone that disagrees with you as people who want to make a point and be on Oprah? Tell me why the child has a right for heterosexual parents over homosexual parent but not have a right to have parents in the first place. If the rights of the child trump the rights of any parents, why do we not force the child onto unwilling parents? Is it:
A. Because that violates the parents rights (you can't force them to take care of child they don't want)? Well then I guess the rights of the child are not inherently above the parents in all cases. Or is it
B. Because the parents who are not willing to take care of this child forced upon them will not love him/her and isn't what is best for the child, in that case if the point is to have parents that love the kid, the data has shown both gays and straights are pretty good at that, why place one over the other?
Your attacks are baseless. Glad to know I don't care about kids.
If someone thinks they will ever convince me that saying a child should have a mother and a father is akin to bigotry, then no, we will never, ever agree.
Then you misunderstood me.
Imho, assuming that a heterosexual couple is better suited for parenthood than a homosexual couple for the sole reason that they are heterosexual, is bigotted.
Louis VI the Fat
02-10-2011, 13:44
For the umpteenth time: Parents have no rights - parents have obligations and responsibilities. The children have rights. But why do you assume these rights of children to support you point of view? I think you are projecting your own idea of what is best onto 'what is best for the children'.
In this manner, you are not the champion of children's rights, but still just an (unwitting) champion of using children to support private preferences of adults.
Wherever possible, we should ask children in specific cases whom they'd prefer as adoptive parents. Children - most parents refuse to believe this - are not hardwired for a pixel-perfect, Disney channel movie, heterosexual nuclear family of two parents of the opposite sex. Not until children pick these things up from wider society do they have much of a clue to any normality of their family situation. And by that time, children are raised by themselves and their peer group. Parents overestimate their importance. A child needs attention and food and warmth and devotion, but other than that a child could not care less whether you exactly conform to any desirable social requirement. That sort of neuroticism is for the parents - who should not project that on children.
Millions of single mothers, single dads are told they have an imperfect family situation. They stress about it, worry about it, consider it a sign of failure. Whereas it does not seem to be the case at all that children of single parents fare worse than those with two parents. The same holds true for working mothers. So much guilt. So much guilt by so many women, for not being with their children 24/7. For no reason at all, I think.
I think gay parenting belongs to the same category as single parents, or working mothers. And less to the category of 1970s social experiment.
And how did kids of single and working mothers get treated. As kids of single and working mothers. You say projection, yeah sure is. But who's doing it
Didn't see your other post. Besides, the way this thread is going, and with some of the ridiculousnes therein, what you wrote was right in line with the rest of it.
So when I try to gauge at which point the rights of the child take the backseat, I'm being ridiculous?
You keep saying that only the rights of the child matter, I show a case where this isn't entirely being done or even argued for and then I'm ridiculous?
You don't even explain why, you just call everything I say ridiculous, it's like arguing with HoreTore...
Then you misunderstood me.
Imho, assuming that a heterosexual couple is better suited for parenthood than a homosexual couple for the sole reason that they are heterosexual, is bigotted.
You're still talking about the parents. The parents are not the question. The point is, was, and always will be: what is best for the kid. And what is best for a child is to have a mother and a father. I mean... the sun is in the sky, water is wet, it hurts when you bang your head on the floor, and a child should have a mother and a father. How simple can it be?
So when I try to gauge at which point the rights of the child take the backseat, I'm being ridiculous?
You keep saying that only the rights of the child matter, I show a case where this isn't entirely being done or even argued for and then I'm ridiculous?
You don't even explain why, you just call everything I say ridiculous, it's like arguing with HoreTore...
What I said was ridiculous was the business with "he" or "they".
So when I try to gauge at which point the rights of the child take the backseat, I'm being ridiculous?
You keep saying that only the rights of the child matter, I show a case where this isn't entirely being done or even argued for and then I'm ridiculous?
You don't even explain why, you just call everything I say ridiculous, it's like arguing with HoreTore...
It's an opinion people are prone to having one, why get so upset about Beirut. I see nothing wrong, no bigotry, at all.
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 15:28
Suddenly, now that data is against the anti-gay parents, this new argument arises that shifts the focus from "can gays be parents?" to "should we pick them over heteros?" and now suddenly it's "all about the children". Complete rubbish.
In case you guys skipped over his posts, Strike told the truth that there is way more children that need to be adopted than there are parents willing to adopt. All this talk of letting the heteros go first is just a distraction, an attempt to hold on to the status quo of putting "tradition" first before gay rights, when in reality this isn't even needed because we can have all the gays and all the straights adopt and there will still be kids that need parents!
Well now you are just making an evasion for yourself. Your argument is that homosexuals must have equal rights, not that there are more orphans than foster parents, and so we can just give them to homosexual couples anyway.
What I said was ridiculous was the business with "he" or "they".
Ah well, I misunderstood then. :bow:
That was the joke part so it was intended to be ridiculous. ~D
Parents overestimate their importance.
Then you have my condolences, you must have had a lonely childhood.
My mom and dad were exactly who they were supposed to be I and I cannot overestimate their importance.
Strike For The South
02-10-2011, 15:51
Well now you are just making an evasion for yourself. Your argument is that homosexuals must have equal rights, not that there are more orphans than foster parents, and so we can just give them to homosexual couples anyway.
WHY DOES NO ONE LISTEN TO ME
Whatever I have to get offline, time to feed francios
PanzerJaeger
02-10-2011, 16:40
Because having a mother and a father is normal for a human child. The mix of the two, the balance of the male\female upbrining of the child, is most advantageous to the child as the child will be living in a human society that evolved with a mother\father mix and whose structure is based on a mother\father, male\female, boy-meets-girl-and-has-baby mix. It's who we are. It's who we are supposed to be. Now, you may not like that truth, it may upset some new age philosophical pretzel you like to chew on, but kids are supposed to have moms and dads. Welcome to Earth. Welcome to humanity.
Not that it makes much difference, but this does not constitute an actual argument. It is neither based on factual support nor does it follow a logical path. In fact, research suggests that both children of gay parents are not socially disadvantaged compared those of straight parents and that the mother-father nuclear family is not particularly natural to humanity.
It is, essentially, a claim that red is a better color than blue. Why? Because it is. Welcome to Earth.
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 18:46
WHY DOES NO ONE LISTEN TO ME
Whatever I have to get offline, time to feed francios
WHY DONT YOU LISTEN TO ME
"Your argument" was obviously referring to ACIN, who kept going on about how homosexual couples must have equal rights, before suddenly changing his position to the one you gave where you said it didn't matter because there were more orphans than foster parents anyway.
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 18:53
Not that it makes much difference, but this does not constitute an actual argument. It is neither based on factual support nor does it follow a logical path.
Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.
PanzerJaeger
02-10-2011, 18:59
Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.
... which not supported by any factual evidence.
Can lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 19:05
... which not supported by any factual evidence.
And yet it is a logical and sensible conclusion. Have they even studied it, I have no idea...
SwordsMaster
02-10-2011, 19:06
You're right, parenting IS gay!
Strike For The South
02-10-2011, 19:14
And yet it is a logical and sensible conclusion. Have they even studied it, I have no idea...
Any parent worth there weight in salt can explain why there are 2 mommies or daddies in the house
Once again its not like any god fearing easy on the eyes hetero couple is having a beautifual white baby torn from there hands as homosexuals beat them with giant black dildos, only to then run to the nearest gay club where they sacrafice there infant to the "minority cause Gods"
Freaking blood pressure
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 19:23
And single mums can explain why daddie isn't there but it still would have been better if he was in the first place.
Once again its not like we're the frickin KKK Christian extremist Taliban that want to round up teh gays and shoot them in the kneecaps because we think they're icky, so we can steal the little babies off of loving homosexual couples and indoctrinate them with our Young Earth Creatonism and free market values.
Freaking blood pressure
etc
Good, as they will also have to explain why school is that more cruel for them
Strike For The South
02-10-2011, 19:32
And single mums can explain why daddie isn't there but it still would have been better if he was in the first place.
Once again its not like we're the frickin KKK Christian extremist Taliban that want to round up teh gays and shoot them in the kneecaps because we think they're icky, so we can steal the little babies off of loving homosexual couples and indoctrinate them with our Young Earth Creatonism and free market values.
Freaking blood pressure
etc
Not if daddy what jacked up on opiates and beating the tom out of mum
Ok it's good to know no one is doing this for ulterior motives
Good, as they will also have to explain why school is that more cruel for them
That is of no fault of the parents. Fat and ugly kids get made fun of to, we shouldn't pander to some LCD
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 19:37
Not if daddy what jacked up on opiates and beating the tom out of mum
Well picking the worst examples from heterosexual couples doesn't prove anything, I never said some homosexual parents can't do a better job than some hetero ones.
Strike For The South
02-10-2011, 19:40
Well picking the worst examples from heterosexual couples doesn't prove anything, I never said some homosexual parents can't do a better job than some hetero ones.
Well then why should hetero ones get prefrence? Because it adheres to your completley arbitary definition of normal? I can pull 8 African tribes out of my backside they do communal female raising, clearly we are doing it wrong
Rhyfelwyr
02-10-2011, 19:43
Well then why should hetero ones get prefrence? Because it adheres to your completley arbitary definition of normal? I can pull 8 African tribes out of my backside they do communal female raising, clearly we are doing it wrong
Well like it or not, we have to come up with some idea of what is best for the child. You say I'm being arbitrary but even you put boundaries somewhere, they're implied in this whole debate when we talk about homo/hetero couples raising children. So why couples?
I've been part of some twisted debates in my time, but never one as demented as this.
Having to defend the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father... good God. We might might as well cash our chips in right now and hope the next species does better.
PanzerJaeger
02-10-2011, 20:10
And yet it is a logical and sensible conclusion. Have they even studied it, I have no idea...
Yes. (http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html)
"We found that despite the ‘no differences’ mantra, many studies do report evidence of some intriguing differences, and even of some potential advantages of lesbian parenthood," said Stacey, holder of the Streisand Professorship in Contemporary Gender Studies. "A difference is not necessarily a deficit."
Stacey and Biblarz found some evidence that children in gay households are more likely to buck stereotypical male-female behavior. For example, boys raised by lesbians appear to be less aggressive and more nurturing than boys raised in heterosexual families. Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers, engineers and astronauts.
In addition, heterosexual mothers tend to encourage sons to participate in historically "masculine" games and activities – such as Little League – and daughters in more "feminine" pursuits – such as ballet. In contrast, lesbian mothers had no such interest – their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral.
...
One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.
"Levels of anxiety, depression, self-esteem and other measures of social and psychological behaviors were generally similar," Biblarz said. "While all children probably get teased for one thing or another, children with gay parents may experience a higher degree of teasing and ridicule. It is impressive then that their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families. Exploring how lesbian and gay parent families help children cope with stigma could prove helpful to all kinds of families."
Sarmatian
02-10-2011, 20:12
Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.
I'm wondering, what are normal gender roles these days?
PanzerJaeger
02-10-2011, 20:30
I've been part of some twisted debates in my time, but never one as demented as this.
Having to defend the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father... good God. We might might as well cash our chips in right now and hope the next species does better.
No one is challenging the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father, only the idea that that situation is inherently superior to same-sex parenting.
Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#General_consensus) a New Age pretzel for you to chew on.
Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[6][12]
The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[5][6][7] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[6] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[8][9][10][7][11] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[7][12][22][8]
Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”.[23] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[8] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[24] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[27] the National Association of Social Workers,[28] the Child Welfare League of America,[29] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[30] and Canadian Psychological Association.[31]
No one is challenging the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father, only the idea that that situation is inherently superior to same-sex parenting.
And that is twisted.
Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#General_consensus) a New Age pretzel for you to chew on.
I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2011, 23:42
Well now you are just making an evasion for yourself. Your argument is that homosexuals must have equal rights, not that there are more orphans than foster parents, and so we can just give them to homosexual couples anyway.
It's not an evasion when the person I am talking to refuses to even acknowledge me.
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2011, 23:44
And that is twisted.
I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.
I see there is no point talking to you any more. Anyone that loves to talk about how they believe in "common sense" always seems to be the most absurd.
ajaxfetish
02-11-2011, 00:50
I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.
Enough with these new-fangled crackpot medical ideas! Give me a good old-fashioned, common sense leeching, or give me nothing.
Ajax
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 00:51
I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.
There have been many people throughout history who have ignored science in favor of their own conceptions of common sense.
It's not really an intellectual position I would stake out for myself, but as long as your common sense doesn't interfere with the fact based system that has allowed millions of children to avoid being passed around foster homes, group homes, and Child Protective Services and instead enjoy a supportive family, then I suppose there's no harm in it. Common sense is generational.
I see there is no point talking to you any more.
As you wish.
Anyone that loves to talk about how they believe in "common sense" always seems to be the most absurd.
Indeed, believing little kids are better off with a mother and a father, what a horrible absurdity! I must be some kind of a monster.
There have been many people throughout history who have ignored science in favor of their own conceptions of common sense.
Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.
Well, call me old fashioned.
Common sense is generational.
Some is, and some is for all time. Like the common sense I mentioned above.
Rhyfelwyr
02-11-2011, 01:14
Yes. (http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html)
Well some points from the study...
"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."
Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?
"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."
Bad again.
Kids need the one mum/dad dynamic because unless they really can catch the gayness from homosexual parents, they will need to learn the typical dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (for the love of God, don't start going on about generalisations because 1% of couples differ from the norm) for later in life. If its a boy they need the male rolemodel, if its a girl the female.
Your article already shows that changing this dynamic does have a big influence on the kids.
ajaxfetish
02-11-2011, 02:08
It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.
Or alternatively, maybe there's actual evidence supporting the idea that working, responsible, non-criminal behavior is beneficial, and others would agree with you on this issue while at the same time disagreeing on the fitness of gay couples to raise children.
Ajax
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 02:34
Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.
Well, call me old fashioned.
:laugh4:
Denying the legitimacy of same-sex parenting also has nothing to do with 'responsibility' and 'good conduct' either, despite your ridiculous equivocation.
The truth is that it is just an outdated opinion that has been completely invalidated through scientific research. May I suggest that you bring some verifiable facts with you next time as this isn't working for you.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/man-with-ears-plugged-eyes-closed-holding-breath.jpg
Well some points from the study...
"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."
Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?
"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."
Bad again.
Interesting. I read both points as positives. I don't see the value in raising boys to be lecherous, aggressive, and uncaring and girls to be socially conditioned to accept the double standard. I suppose gender roles are subjective. :shrug:
Here are some other points:
o It is more common for both lesbian moms to be employed, to earn similar incomes and to cut back on their hours of paid work in order to nurture young children. Some research indicates that egalitarian parenting contributes to child well-being, Stacey said.
o Same-sex couples proved better at managing disagreements and anger than did comparable heterosexual married couples. Research suggests that parental conflict may be one of the most significant sources of difficulty for children, Stacey said.
Now, I could spin these two points to argue that gay parents are actually better than straight ones, but it is probably better to look at the broader conclusion.
According to the study:
One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.
I don't know what the 'typical dynamics' of a heterosexual relationship are, but the study suggests same-sex parenting yields well adjusted children with no noticeable relationship dysfunction.
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2011, 02:51
Go get 'em, Panzer! :cheerleader:
Both the mayor of Paris and of Berlin are very openly gay, have been for a decade now. Times have changed. This one we are winning.
(although the gay mayor of Paris is most unpopular with the you-know-who, one of whom tried to butcher him with a knife in broad daylight, loudly shouting homosexuals needed to die :shame:)
Crazed Rabbit
02-11-2011, 03:27
There are two important points to me:
One, that there is a shortage of parents of any type adopting kids.
Two, the gender of the parents seems to matter less than the fitness of the parents.
However, I still oppose forcing any religious orphanages to allow gay couples to adopt kids.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-11-2011, 03:37
Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.
Well, call me old fashioned.
Wanting a child to have parents is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Unfortunately common sense doesn't teach them to argue well :(
Well some points from the study...
"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."
Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?
"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."
Bad again.
Kids need the one mum/dad dynamic because unless they really can catch the gayness from homosexual parents, they will need to learn the typical dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (for the love of God, don't start going on about generalisations because 1% of couples differ from the norm) for later in life. If its a boy they need the male rolemodel, if its a girl the female.
Your article already shows that changing this dynamic does have a big influence on the kids.
Yes, when I read this I thought "well, this is exactly the thing they are going to complain about". But fact is you can substitute "liberal" for lesbian and get the same result here. No duh, gay couples aren't conservative and traditional.
The truth is that it is just an outdated opinion that has been completely invalidated through scientific research.
Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?
:laugh4:
This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.
What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-11-2011, 04:06
Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?
:laugh4:
This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.
What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?
This is inane.
orgahs: Juices can be healthy and substitute for water in human diet.
beirut: Never in my life have I seen people claim that people aren't best served by drinking water! :laugh4: everyone knows you have to drink water to live, how silly! :laugh4:
a completely inoffensive name
02-11-2011, 05:18
This is inane.
orgahs: Juices can be healthy and substitute for water in human diet.
beirut: Never in my life have I seen people claim that people aren't best served by drinking water! :laugh4: everyone knows you have to drink water to live, how silly! :laugh4:
Thank you so much Sasaki. He can't handle thinking his views on what is best for a child could be flawed because dare I say it? Nah. Needless to say, what else does he have to get around this? Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.
LeftEyeNine
02-11-2011, 08:00
Lads.
Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?
:laugh4:
This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.
What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?
Nobody said homo's are better suited for parenthood than hetero's ~:confused:
People merely said that there's no difference and that sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to being fit for parenthood.
You've been obtuse for this entire thread now.
Nobody said homo's are better suited for parenthood than hetero's ~:confused:
People merely said that there's no difference and that sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to being fit for parenthood.
You've been obtuse for this entire thread now.
Of course there is a difference otherwise we wouldn't call it gay parenting but just parenting, you are kinda giving away that you know that when you do. Not that it's bad, but there is a difference. I agree with my favorite Scottish relinut, it's a farce. It's all ok, but don't expect me to play along and see it for full. Studies mean zip by the way, maybe results count when comparing it again over 30 years, at the moment they have something to prove so they will try harder to be excellent parents. Means nada
edit: also agree with Beirut, get these 'scientific' reports out of my face, it's plane common sense.
One would think that, after reading this thread, it's clear enough that your "common sense" doesn't seem to be so common at all.
One would think that, after reading this thread, it's clear enough that your "common sense" doesn't seem to be so common at all.
Yeah yeah but I don't. People on the org almost exclusively of higher education and often (but not always) very open to other's people take on things. It's simply common sense because a child raised by gays is a curiosity. And for some gays a statement. I always go for my intuition first and intuition says that this is more about gay equality than it's about gay parenting, a kid as a crown-jewel of gay activism.
I always go for my intuition first and intuition says that this is more about gay equality than it's about gay parenting, a kid as a crown-jewel of gay activism.
Brilliant!
(Insert thunderous applause here.)
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 11:49
Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?
I understand now that the problem is one of comprehension and not belief.
Thank you so much Sasaki. He can't handle thinking his views on what is best for a child could be flawed because dare I say it? Nah.
If you can say it, I can take it. :smiley:
Needless to say, what else does he have to get around this?
I'm a parent and I care more about kids than about adult ideologies that seek to profit through kids. That's what I have.
Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.
Dorothy. Dorothy. Dorothy.
Brilliant!
(Insert thunderous applause here.)
Allow me to indulge I don't get many of them :laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2011, 12:39
Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?
:laugh4:
Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.
Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:
1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father
Ironside
02-11-2011, 12:39
Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?
:laugh4:
This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.
What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?
You are aware that one of the big fundamental things in science is that it can prove common sense wrong? Otherwise it would always be about how large the expected outcome would be.
Continents moving? Hah, that would be as silly as we're constantly moving more than 100.000 km/h. Or that electrons can create wave interference with itself.
Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.
Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:
1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father
You really don't get it, you can fool yourselves all you want but you can't fool nature.
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2011, 12:55
You really don't get it, you can fool yourselves all you want but you can't fool nature.Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&feature=related
Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&feature=related
It's not about homosexuality it's about gay parenting. They know that it will be seen and treated differently. Yet insisting, for what and most importantly who. I think they care more about being accepted as parents rather than actually being it. And of course people that devoted will be excellent parents, whole world is watching after all. But who's in the middle of it. So to prefering heterosexual, YES absolutely. If you want a different world fix it yourself.
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 14:24
I think they care more about being accepted as parents rather than actually being it. And of course people that devoted will be excellent parents, whole world is watching after all. But who's in the middle of it.
Is it really plausible that all, or even the majority, of the millions of gay parents around the world are so activist in nature that they would make such a life-altering decision purely to make a political point? The vast majority of gay parents neither receives nor seeks publicity.
Also, even if we take your position as true, what is the difference? Many straight people have children for selfish motivations. You seem willing to accept that they can make excellent parents. Is this about what is best for the kids or making a broader point about conventional relationships? ~;)
Not at all, I just don't like it when people try to engineer society, and when it's the very purpose I detest it. There simply is no need, just leave people be, take a respectable distance when needed instead of hammering people to comformation. I'm not against gay parenting I'm against people who absolutely adore it
Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.
Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:
1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father
A woman who has a baby, unless proven unfit as a mother - and being a lesbian does not mean she is unfit - is entitled to raise that child.
A gay man who fathers a baby, unless proven unfit as a father - and being gay does not mean he is unfit - is entitled to raise that child.
If gay man and a straight woman, or a straight man and a gay woman, or a heterosexual couple, have a child and decide to divorce, the courts must decide how the child will be raised on a case by case basis.
Is the state has authority over a child up for adoption, priority must go to seeing that the child is placed in a home where the child has both a mother and a father.
People have rights to have children and to keep children, but not to get children.
Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:
So we should change the nature of the family and human culture because a couple of male koalas got high smoking eucaliptis leaves and went a'bonking?
:laugh4:
I like you - you're funny.
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 15:30
Not at all, I just don't like it when people try to engineer society, and when it's the very purpose I detest it. There simply is no need, just leave people be, take a respectable distance when needed instead of hammering people to comformation. I'm not against gay parenting I'm against people who absolutely adore it
I understand what you're saying. Nobody likes to be browbeaten into thought-conformity. The only reason poor Beirut is having such a difficult go of things is because this is a discussion forum where we do get to force our opinions on each other. In this environment, you actually have to back up what you say or risk having your opinion disregarded. Particularly frustrating is the fact that he seems completely unwilling (unable) to present supporting research on the subject, yet acts as if everyone else is ridiculous. 'I am right because I am' followed by some snarky comment about how demented it is that the conversation is even happening is not a defensible position.
However, I don't think the issue itself is a love it or hate it type of thing. That is making it subjective where it should be objective. I support it because a) science has validated that it is not a negative influence on the development of the child and b) it plays a critical social function in placing abandoned children in supportive homes. If the issue truly centers around the well being of the children, then there is little room for debate.
Screw science, none of these numbers mean anything. There is nothing to compare them with. Maybe with single or working moms in the fifties perhaps if you fiddle around a bit.
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 16:56
Screw science, none of these numbers mean anything. There is nothing to compare them with. Maybe with single or working moms in the fifties perhaps if you fiddle around a bit.
Ok, screw science. Let's look strictly at outcome.
Gay parenting is not a particularly new phenomenon at this point. It has been openly practiced in America and Europe since the '70s. In 1990, it was estimated that there were between 6 and 14 million gay parents in the United States (US Census).
Where are the victims? You would expect at this point to have millions of dysfunctional young adults coming out of these homes.
I understand what you're saying. Nobody likes to be browbeaten into thought-conformity. The only reason poor Beirut is having such a difficult go of things is because this is a discussion forum where we do get to force our opinions on each other. In this environment, you actually have to back up what you say or risk having your opinion disregarded.
I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor. :smiley:
Particularly frustrating is the fact that he seems completely unwilling (unable) to present supporting research on the subject, yet acts as if everyone else is ridiculous. 'I am right because I am' followed by some snarky comment about how demented it is that the conversation is even happening is not a defensible position.
I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.
However, I don't think the issue itself is a love it or hate it type of thing. That is making it subjective where it should be objective. I support it because a) science has validated that it is not a negative influence on the development of the child and b) it plays a critical social function in placing abandoned children in supportive homes. If the issue truly centers around the well being of the children, then there is little room for debate.
Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.
Strike For The South
02-11-2011, 17:18
Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.
But you can't just throw out a study because you dont agree with it
I would love if choclate cake and big macs where the most conduicve foods for building muscle
But there not
So I listen to the science
But you can't just throw out a study because you dont agree with it
I would love if choclate cake and big macs where the most conduicve foods for building muscle
But there not
So I listen to the science
What science, any statiian will tell you that probabity is a factor, but gay parenting is new, so screw that
Strike For The South
02-11-2011, 18:05
What science, any statiian will tell you that probabity is a factor, but gay parenting is new, so screw that
You're right new things can't be scienced
Aplogies to the oranje tulip
Sasaki Kojiro
02-11-2011, 19:24
I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.
My mother is a teacher and has a had a number of gay-parented children in her class. So as you say, real life. Economic status and educational level of the parents is the biggest factor. And the studies examine real life people too you know :book:
I think the real issue here for the anti-adoption is what rhyf was saying in another thread. They don't believe that two lesbians will raise a boy who is macho and believes his wife should be submissive. That, of course, is indeed common sense. Beirut, is it common sense too that children are better of with a stay at home mother? (and not a stay at home father?)
Strike For The South
02-11-2011, 19:31
Im the machoest man on this board and I don't want a wife who is submissive
Men who want submissive wives instead of equal partners are insecure pricks.
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2011, 19:54
Is the state has authority over a child up for adoption, priority must go to seeing that the child is placed in a home where the child has both a mother and a father.Failing to find the post 1950 western nuclear family, which would you prefer:
a) The child goes goes to a single mother household
b) The child goes to a two mother household
Another choice:
a) The child goes goes to a single mother household, not a homo in sight
b) The child goes to an intergenerational household, consisting of a loving grandmother, 62, and a single widower, 36, gay
Another choice:
a) The child goes to a single mother, heterosexual, working two shifts
b) The child goes to an intergenerational household, consisting of a mother and father, heterosexual, and loving grandmother, 68, who's engaged in lesbian relationships in college in 1968
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2011, 19:56
So we should change the nature of the family and human culture because a couple of male koalas got high smoking eucaliptis leaves and went a'bonking?
:laugh4:
I like you - you're funny.Give in to your inner nature. We know all about you lumberjacks and your penchant for wearing ladies undies. :stare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQOMxz-O7Sc&feature=related
Louis VI the Fat
02-11-2011, 20:06
Men who want submissive wives instead of equal partners are insecure pricks.Pah! Where'd you read that nonsense? :no:
It's not true at all. I want a submissive wife and I'm not insecure at all. Just underendowed.
Pah! Where'd you read that nonsense? :no:
It's not true at all. I want a submissive wife and I'm not insecure at all. Just underendowed.
Well that shoe took a long time to drop. :grin:
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 21:05
I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor. :smiley:
I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.
Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.
One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant. :shrug:
One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant. :shrug:
I thought the other thread proved that. :tongue:
I miss the days where we argued Panzer. At least we had an interesting debate and proposed challenges to each other backed by empirical evident.
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2011, 21:48
I thought the other thread proved that. :tongue:
I miss the days where we argued Panzer. At least we had an interesting debate and proposed challenges to each other backed by empirical evident.
Start a thread about gun control. There are plenty of stats to back up both sides of that argument, I a guarantee we won't agree. :grin:
One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant. :shrug:
Well yeah, just accept the way of things. I don't need no science reports I know I'm right without them
Samurai Waki
02-13-2011, 02:39
Well yeah, just accept the way of things. I don't need no science reports I know I'm right without them
This is called "Truthiness": is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
This is called "Truthiness": is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
Well yeah, that's just how I am, don't care about the social sciences. It's almost exclusively done by a certain type of person, and almost exclusively done on demand.
This is called "Truthiness": is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
People who want to throw their ideology at other people can always find "scientists" who will say "Oh, it's true because my study says... ". But in real life there are gut feelings and intuitions and things that simply make sense. And people who disregard gut feelings, intuition, and common sense because the "scientific study of the week" says that wet is dry, tall is short, and fat is thin, are disregarding something very important: real life.
Sometimes real life is worth taking into consideration.
People who want to throw their ideology at other people can always find "scientists" who will say "Oh, it's true because my study says... ". But in real life there are gut feelings and intuitions and things that simply make sense. And people who disregard gut feelings, intuition, and common sense because the "scientific study of the week" says that wet is dry, tall is short, and fat is thin, are disregarding something very important: real life.
Sometimes real life is worth taking into consideration.
:sweetheart:
You are all pretending.
PanzerJaeger
02-13-2011, 17:48
People who want to throw their ideology at other people can always find "scientists" who will say "Oh, it's true because my study says... ". But in real life there are gut feelings and intuitions and things that simply make sense. And people who disregard gut feelings, intuition, and common sense because the "scientific study of the week" says that wet is dry, tall is short, and fat is thin, are disregarding something very important: real life.
Sometimes real life is worth taking into consideration.
What do you think the studies are based on? They aren't studying lab rats, they're studying real families and real outcomes.
Since you're all about anecdote, personal experience, and common sense, do you know any same-sex families? You 'back up' what you say with parental experience, but unless you're raising a child with another man I'm not sure how your experience has much of anything to do with this subject.
I'm starting to think this is just one big troll. No one intelligent enough to operate a computer could be this intentionally asinine. The implications of using 'common sense' as a standard of proof are endless.
Blacks are obviously inferior to whites. Women are obviously inferior to men. Jews are obviously behind some evil conspiracy to enslave us all. Any backwoods, hick truism can be supported.
I'm starting to understand the dangers of anti-intellectualism. Reason, debate, studies, and research have no influence on gut feelings, down-home aphorisms, and good old common sense.
:shame:
Since you're all about anecdote, personal experience, and common sense, do you know any same-sex families? You 'back up' what you say with parental experience, but unless you're raising a child with another man I'm not sure how your experience has much of anything to do with this subject.
And yet you speak at length about the greatness of that tank in your avatar. Ever drive one? Ever drive any tank?
Ahhhhh... I see.
On the other hand, I have children.
I'm starting to think this is just one big troll. No one intelligent enough to operate a computer could be this intentionally asinine. The implications of using 'common sense' as a standard of proof are endless.
Actually, I see common sense falling by the wayside at an alarming rate based on the "science study flavour of the weak".
(Pardon the pun.)
Blacks are obviously inferior to whites. Women are obviously inferior to men. Jews are obviously behind some evil conspiracy to enslave us all. Any backwoods, hick truism can be supported.
Not really. Use some common sense, it will all come clear to you.
I'm starting to understand the dangers of anti-intellectualism. Reason, debate, studies, and research have no influence on gut feelings, down-home aphorisms, and good old common sense.
Yeah, yeah. Cry me a river about the dangers of anti-intellectualism.
What I have noticed about people who lean too far to the "intellectual" side is they often end up as really loud blowhards who drone on endlessly in coffee shops until you want to beat them to death with their own hardcover copy of The Republic.
Sometimes the best intellectualism comes from a farmer with a 500 word vocabulary who has never heard of Wittgenstein or Machiavelli but knows all about real life, raising a family, and putting in a hard day's work.
:shame:
Don't be ashamed. We forgive you. :smiley:
PanzerJaeger
02-13-2011, 19:10
And yet you speak at length about the greatness of that tank in your avatar. Ever drive one? Ever drive any tank?
Ahhhhh... I see.
I have not. What I have done is read detailed analyses of the vehicle and its specifications, including technical examinations of the suspension, armor, gunnery, etc., comparisons to other vehicles, operator testimonials, and after-action reports that all support (and indeed formed) my opinion.
You see, all the evidence points to it being a fine design, and I can back that claim up with innumerable published sources from experts in the field of Second World War AFVs.
On the other hand, I have children.
Your ability to insert your penis into your wife's vagina and pop some kids out does not make you an authority on the psychological and sociological implications of same-sex parenting.
Actually, I see common sense falling by the wayside at an alarming rate based on the "science study flavour of the weak".
We are not discussing a study. We are discussing a consensus built on multiple studies and years of peer-reviewed research.
Not really. Use some common sense, it will all come clear to you.
Racism, sexism, and anti-semitism are all intuitive, common sense beliefs in many parts of the world. Are you denying the validity of that common sense?
Yeah, yeah. Cry me a river about the dangers of anti-intellectualism.
What I have noticed about people who lean too far to the "intellectual" side is they often end up as really loud blowhards who drone on endlessly in coffee shops until you want to beat them to death with their own hardcover copy of The Republic.
Such caricatures often reflect the insecurities of the one making them.
Sometimes the best intellectualism comes from a farmer with a 500 word vocabulary who has never heard of Wittgenstein or Machiavelli but knows all about real life, raising a family, and putting in a hard day's work.
And sometimes, just sometimes, it doesn't.
If one of your children, God forbid, was diagnosed with a brain tumor, who would you prefer to take him or her to for treatment - a farmer with a 500 word vocabularly or a brain surgeon specializing in tumors?
I have not. What I have done is read detailed analyses of the vehicle and its specifications, including technical examinations of the suspension, armor, gunnery, etc., comparisons to other vehicles, operator testimonials, and after-action reports that all support (and indeed formed) my opinion.
You see, all the evidence points to it being a fine design, and I can back that claim up with innumerable published sources from experts in the field of Second World War AFVs.
Fair enough.
Your ability to insert your penis into your wife's vagina and pop some kids out does not make you an authority on the psychological and sociological implications of same-sex parenting.
You better be at least 18 if you're going to talk like that, lad.
:book: vagina: part of a woman's body that... ... ... OH MY GOD!
We are not discussing a study. We are discussing a consensus built on multiple studies and years of peer-reviewed research.
Yeah... I don't buy it. You can find studies that say chocolate ice cream makes a healthy breakfast, but I still know better. Common sense is common sense and common sense says mom and dad is better for a kid than dad and dad.
Racism, sexism, and anti-semitism are all intuitive, common sense beliefs in many parts of the world. Are you denying the validity of that common sense?
Racism isn't intuitive. It is learned.
Such caricatures often reflect the insecurities of the one making them.
Insecurities about what? Having to go to work and earn a living to pay for my kids' food instead of sitting in the coffee shop bantering about the ring of Gyges with the waitress?
Yeah, I feel terrible.
And sometimes, just sometimes, it doesn't.
Agreed.
If one of your children, God forbid, was diagnosed with a brain tumor, who would you prefer to take him or her to for treatment - a farmer with a 500 word vocabularly or a brain surgeon specializing in tumors?
For cancer you need a doctor. A proper doctor. For kids you need parents. And proper parents for a kid means a mother and a father.
PanzerJaeger
02-13-2011, 21:35
Common sense is common sense and common sense says mom and dad is better for a kid than dad and dad.
And my common sense indicates that parental outcomes are a function of parental inputs such as time, energy, and focus, not crass peripheral categorizations like gender.
That's the thing about common sense. It's not so common after all.
Racism isn't intuitive. It is learned.
Every belief is learned. Some learned beliefs stand up to logical scrutiny more than others.
Since science is inferior to anecdote in your world, I'll present my friend Anna as a counterpoint. She was abandoned by her biological parents in China because it is intuitive in many parts of that country that girls are virtually worthless. She was adopted by her real family, her two fathers, as an infant and never had a mother in her life. She's now been married to her husband for three years and is working on her masters in chemical engineering. She is also one of the most normal, well-adjusted people I know.
She might disagree with you on the intuitive nature of the innate superiority of a father and mother over a same sex couple.
Insecurities about what?
That scientific research may render your worldview outdated.
For cancer you need a doctor. A proper doctor. For kids you need parents. And proper parents for a kid means a mother and a father.
So you are, at least on some level, willing to accept that an expert may know more about a subject than a non-expert, and that in some situations expert knowledge may be superior to intuition?
And my common sense indicates that parental outcomes are a function of parental inputs such as time, energy, and focus, not crass peripheral categorizations like gender.
"Crass peripheral categorizations like gender"? Um... you ever kissed a girl?
But let us all go tell our mothers that their input into our upbringing was nothing that could not be replaced by your garden variety homosexual man. And let us tell our fathers that any lesbian of the day could supplant him in his role as "dad".
Oh my...
That's the thing about common sense. It's not so common after all.
Well, you take your science study of the week and I'll stick with my common sense about mom and dad.
Every belief is learned. Some learned beliefs stand up to logical scrutiny more than others.
Like the learned belief that kids should have moms and dads. :sunny:
Since science is inferior to anecdote in your world, I'll present my friend Anna as a counterpoint.
Hi Anna.
She was abandoned by her biological parents in China because it is intuitive in many parts of that country that girls are virtually worthless. She was adopted by her real family, her two fathers, as an infant and never had a mother in her life. She's now been married to her husband for three years and is working on her masters in chemical engineering. She is also one of the most normal, well-adjusted people I know.
Good for her. I'm happy she's happy.
She might disagree with you on the intuitive nature of the innate superiority of a father and mother over a same sex couple.
Indeed she might.
That scientific research may render your worldview outdated.
Um... no.
So you are, at least on some level, willing to accept that an expert may know more about a subject than a non-expert, and that in some situations expert knowledge may be superior to intuition?
Obviously, but not in this case.
Why not have all the babies be test tube babies born in vats, IV fed, and "educated" by electrodes for the first three-years of their life? I'll bet you dollars to donuts there's a study out there that says those kids would be just fine. Hell, they might even be better that the "normal" kids. While they are in their vat-cribs, they could be given special drugs to influence their IQ and mood and physique. We could have 100% happy, smart, healthy kids, who all live to be 110. Wouldn't that be great!
No. It wouldn't. It's - not - normal.
ajaxfetish
02-14-2011, 01:10
But let us all go tell our mothers that their input into our upbringing was nothing that could not be replaced by your garden variety homosexual man. And let us tell our fathers that any lesbian of the day could supplant him in his role as "dad".
Surely you can make your point without a disingenuous appeal to emotion. No, a garden variety homosexual man could never replace the input I've had from my mother. Neither could a garden variety heterosexual woman. And a different heterosexual man could no more replace my father than a lesbian woman could. My parents have both had a profoundly individual influence upon me, that is the result of the sum total of who they are, not just their genders and sexual orientations.
Go tell a child raised by a gay couple that the input into their lives that one of their fathers had was nothing that could not be replaced by your garden variety heterosexual woman. I don't buy it.
Ajax
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2011, 03:11
I am going to go along with Beirut here and give him the benefit of the doubt. Right now I am planning on knocking up my girlfriend so I can acquire all the common sense about kids that he obviously gained by shooting his man load into his woman.
Surely you can make your point without a disingenuous appeal to emotion.
Not always, no.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2011, 03:14
This thread deserves a fitting memegenerator.com pic but I can't find one :(
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2011, 03:21
https://i.imgur.com/k9h4f.jpg
I am going to go along with Beirut here and give him the benefit of the doubt. Right now I am planning on knocking up my girlfriend so I can acquire all the common sense about kids that he obviously gained by shooting his man load into his woman.
That's a charming way to reference another man's wife.
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2011, 03:25
That's a charming way to reference another man's wife.
EDIT: Nah, forget it. I'm not joining this thread just to sling insults.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2011, 03:28
http://i54.tinypic.com/2h38sbm.jpg
PanzerJaeger
02-14-2011, 03:55
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/beck.jpg
Gotta admit, this is the strangest group of people I have ever come across. I have never seen people not only against the idea that a mother and father is best for a child, but hostile to it.
Another fall of man, as King Henry would say. :no:
Strike For The South
02-14-2011, 04:03
Insecurities about what? Having to go to work and earn a living to pay for my kids' food instead of sitting in the coffee shop bantering about the ring of Gyges with the waitress?
Yeah, I feel terrible.
Why do we have to devolve into this?
Not everyone who is against you is some ivory tower libreal, My family is just as blue collar as yours
I'm simply not being stubborn
Why do we have to devolve into this?
Not everyone who is against you is some ivory tower libreal, My family is just as blue collar as yours
I'm simply not being stubborn
I am being stubborn. Kids need a mother and a father. If there is anything worth being stubborn about, I think this is a good one.
ajaxfetish
02-14-2011, 04:17
I am being stubborn. Kids need a mother and a father. If there is anything worth being stubborn about, I think this is a good one.
Kids' need for loving parents trumps their 'need' for one and only one of those parents to have a penis.
Ajax
PanzerJaeger
02-14-2011, 04:20
Gotta admit, this is the strangest group of people I have ever come across. I have never seen people not only against the idea that a mother and father is best for a child, but hostile to it.
Another fall of man, as King Henry would say. :no:
There is little to be gained from trying to frame this as pro/anti mother and father. No one is questioning the legitimacy of that setup. I am against the idea that a same sex couple cannot be equally effective at parenting.
Maybe it would be more productive if you shared some specific problems that you believe arise from same sex parenting. What can a mother and father give (materially, mentally, emotionally, or any other way) a child that two fathers or mothers cannot? How exactly is it an inferior family situation?
Samurai Waki
02-14-2011, 04:20
Gotta admit, this is the strangest group of people I have ever come across. I have never seen people not only against the idea that a mother and father is best for a child, but hostile to it.
Another fall of man, as King Henry would say. :no:
I don't think anyone is hostile to that, as that is the norm. You've been hostile to the idea that anyone but a man and a woman can raise a child, and that's a short-sighted and totally unreal expectation you're putting on a society that can't cope with the reality that there's more children than parents that are willing to care for them..
Askthepizzaguy
02-16-2011, 11:41
I've been part of some twisted debates in my time, but never one as demented as this.
Having to defend the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father... good God. We might might as well cash our chips in right now and hope the next species does better.
Beirut, you're faithfully committed to the rightness of your position, and I respect that.
However, most of your posts on this subject have been:
1. Assertions that you're correct.
2. Musings on how absurd it is that others feel differently.
3. Argument from "common sense" (meaning: your opinion, as others have sense, and are common, and they disagree...)
4. Openly dismissing ALL scientific evidence that someone on the fence might consider as valid information to have a discussion with, by painting everything as unreliable. "Well I've seen studies that actually prove that chocolate is better than carrots!" Isn't really a serious argument, and you know that what you're saying is baloney when you go there.
5. Stating that you know what's best for every child, without being able to articulate why your position is better.
6. Repeating that you're correct and it's all common sense, and how absurd this all is, and that you don't need a scientist to tell you things because you have common sense.... etc, etc, etc.
I'm sure we all understand by now what your position is, and that you're very certain you're correct. That said, you haven't offered more to the discussion than that. That is the thing which is twisted about the debate; not your opinion or others'. It's the fact that this isn't even a debate, but an attempted one, and a failed one.
I am sure it is disconcerting to see something that you feel should be common sense questioned so widely and so often; I feel that way about treating gay people equally. Of course we should.... why shouldn't we? It's common sense.
But we get nowhere in a discussion if both sides claim common sense is their argument. I'm certain we can do more than that here.
Riedquat
02-17-2011, 15:14
When I've read Beirut's first post felt the same many of you, but after reading this entire thread I fail to see how none of you understand what he is saying... really! Considering I don't speak English at all, that is a lot to say... :no:
All you think its better for the child to have gay parents than straight ones? Because all is resumed there... he isn't saying don't give kids to gays at all... nor I, just lets try to accomplish the right of the kids to have a mom and a dad... old fashioned ones...
As a bigot I would say, first show me a gay couple making a child naturally and then we speak about their natural right to be dads.... umm... that would be my dad speaking... :embarassed:
Edit: and thats the whole point! this is not about their right to be dads but about the right of the child to have a family; a couple years ago people of same sex weren't able to form a family, not on the society eyes; now we are discussing if they are able to rise kids, and nobody said they shouldn't...
Having two couples, one straight and the other gay, both wanting to a adopt, both with the same socio-cultural profile, same economical status, (same race and religion), are you telling here you will roll a dice to decide which couple gets the child? Really? Wow...
Askthepizzaguy
02-17-2011, 22:36
When I've read Beirut's first post felt the same many of you, but after reading this entire thread I fail to see how none of you understand what he is saying... really! Considering I don't speak English at all, that is a lot to say... :no:
There's not much to understand. His opinion is that it's "common sense" that gays are inferior parents to straight parents.
A number of people disagree, indicating that it may not be common, or even sense.
All you think its better for the child to have gay parents than straight ones? Because all is resumed there... he isn't saying don't give kids to gays at all... nor I, just lets try to accomplish the right of the kids to have a mom and a dad... old fashioned ones...
"Better"? Better implies discrimination against straight couples. No one has said that.
Equality is what is being presumed here.
As a bigot I would say, first show me a gay couple making a child naturally and then we speak about their natural right to be dads.... umm... that would be my dad speaking... :embarassed:
Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have biological children all the time.
Edit: and thats the whole point! this is not about their right to be dads but about the right of the child to have a family;
Where is this right, and how is it guaranteed? My parents divorced when I was 4.
What right did I have to a father? What if my parents died? Does my right to a mother and a father bring them back to life?
How is a child being raised by a gay couple not a family, if a child being raised by a straight single parent is a family?
a couple years ago people of same sex weren't able to form a family, not on the society eyes; now we are discussing if they are able to rise kids, and nobody said they shouldn't...
Yes, people have said they shouldn't.
Having two couples, one straight and the other gay, both wanting to a adopt, both with the same socio-cultural profile, same economical status, (same race and religion), are you telling here you will roll a dice to decide which couple gets the child? Really? Wow...
How about a million couples, and ten million unwanted children?
Are you saying you're going to deny the child a family because you don't like gay people?
A number of people disagree so it's not that common... there has got to be an award for that for that. A lot of people disagree, so it's common sense to prefer heterosexual couples just for that, like it was better to have a two parents instead of a single mom. Still is. Again, this is about gay equality, don't use kids as the stormtroopers of progres, fight this one yourself.
Askthepizzaguy
02-18-2011, 09:46
Again, this is about gay equality
Assuming gays are equal, straight couples shouldn't be given preferential treatment.
Assuming gays are equal, straight couples shouldn't be given preferential treatment.
'Equal' and 'the same' aren't the same thing. If gay couples cared as much for the kid as they cared about being a gay couple they would agree with that preferential treatment, it's simply a more normal environment to grow up.
Askthepizzaguy
02-18-2011, 10:34
'Equal' and 'the same' aren't the same thing. If gay couples cared as much for the kid as they cared about being a gay couple they would agree with that preferential treatment, it's simply a more normal environment to grow up.
By that logic, we should make sure that their new mommy and daddy are both the same race. It's more "normal", after all.
They're either equal or they're not equal. Since I know for a fact that being gay doesn't preclude you from being a good parent, and there's no evidence it makes you a bad parent, I don't buy into the notion that we must treat them any differently from straight couples.
We're just not going to agree on this. I see them as equals, you do not. I can't change your mind, you won't change mine.
By that logic, we should make sure that their new mommy and daddy are both the same race. It's more "normal", after all.
They're either equal or they're not equal. Since I know for a fact that being gay doesn't preclude you from being a good parent, and there's no evidence it makes you a bad parent, I don't buy into the notion that we must treat them any differently from straight couples.
We're just not going to agree on this. I see them as equals, you do not. I can't change your mind, you won't change mine.
It isn't about wether or not they are able to be good parents, it's about the acceptance of society. Prefering heterosexual couples makes sense considering that. Good for you that you have an opinion, but it isn't about you.
Question, would you prefer a same race couple over a mixed one in KKKnistan.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.