Gay Parenting

[Beirut]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Husar]

Sentience in the thread, please.

I would refer you to my request above.

Well, seems it's too much to ask. Oh well.

First was a joke as I already said, the other two were more serious and you actually answered them here:

Assuming the mother is with the child, why wouldn't she feed him?

All the chicks I know breastfeed.

I thought a mother can give a lot more milk after giving birth since the hormones or whatever (I'm sure Tellos will have something clever to add to that ) 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.

[Andres]

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".

[Fragony]

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

[Beirut]

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.

[Husar]

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...

[Beirut]

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".

[Husar]

What I said was ridiculous was the business with "he" or "they".

Ah well, I misunderstood then.
That was the joke part so it was intended to be ridiculous.

[Fragony]

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.