Gay Parenting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Did you stop reading after the fourth word in my post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Yeah, I'll just take your word for it then, right?

---

You may do as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

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-co...ha_Bazi_25.jpg

Congratulation it's a boy!

Common Hax you are Dutch, if you aren't rediculed you aren't in