Gay Parenting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Lads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.

---

Dorothy. Dorothy. Dorothy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Brilliant!

(Insert thunderous applause here.)

---

Allow me to indulge I don't get many of them :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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=7RlT...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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