Gay Parenting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I do.

---

Ironically that probably accounts for why you seem more disconnected from society for reasons I will go over again right now.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Give reasoning or you have no argument.

---

You're hot when you bark orders. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

~:confused:

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

---

I was going to ask if you are being confused on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Either that or everybody just hates me. :embarassed:

---

How is that even possible ?

Or should I say "who >:|" ? :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Either that or everybody just hates me. :embarassed:

---

I do love your daughter though, if that helps. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

~: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

You're hot when you bark orders. :smiley:

---

My gf tells me the same thing. -high fives-

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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 ~:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

My gf tells me the same thing. -high fives-

---

Sweet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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 that supports your opinion over his. ~:)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

:shrug:

---

:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Whatever.

---

And whoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

:bow:

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by American Psychological Association

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

... 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...

You're right, parenting IS gay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.