Gay Parenting

[Andres]

I don't know out of what box of "Dr.Sunshine's Pixie Dust" you get your point of view, but here in the real world kids should have a mother and a father. There's new age feel-good crap out there that rings every bell looking to be rung, but kids need a mother and a father and no amount of Oprah, The Celestine Prophecies, or Vegan Vibrations will change that.

Whatever.

Do you have kids?

Read post #51 of this thread. Or check the FR.

Anyway, is having children necessary to be able to form an opinion on discrimination?


I'm through debating this issue with you; it's starting to feel like talking to a wall. We disagree and nothing will change your viewpoint nor mine. So be it, then.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have an (imaginary) twin sister. She and her husband have two children. They are all very close with me, their uncle. Then both my sister and her husband (hypothetically) died in an accident, orphanising theiw two kids.

I am a homosexual and am married to Strike (in real life, not hypothetical).


Whom should become the guardian of these two children? Me and Strike? Or two perfect strangers, but heterosexual?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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!

[Andres]

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?

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well now you are just making an evasion for yourself. Your argument is that homosexuals must have equal rights, not that there are more orphans than foster parents, and so we can just give them to homosexual couples anyway.

It's not an evasion when the person I am talking to refuses to even acknowledge me.

[Beirut]

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!

[Andres]

Excellent point. But some people don't give a rat's patookus about the child; only that Daddy & Daddy got to make their point and got on Oprah.

The kid? Who cares about rhe kid? It's all about gay rights!

The occasional moron claiming his god given right to adopt a child in the most ridiculous way possible on a show à la Oprah is not fit for parenthood. Anyone who insists on coming on tele in shows like that and claiming whatever god given right in the most moronic way possible, should get a prohibition to procreate or to adopt and sent to a re-education camp. Not because they are gay, but because they are idiots.

Cf. post 132 though; don't know about Canada, but most gays here are not like the stereotypical dressed in pink guy, acting all feminine and being a "designer" or hairdresser and having a show on Vitaya or whatever crap station that only broadcasts programs about clothing, cooking, decorating and the occasional talk show about emotions.

Most gay people act just like everyone else.

Meh, you only had to clean puke; I had to clean diarrhea and puke! At 3.30 am and at 5.30 am. Poor kid. His first flu.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Beirut]

Whatever.

And whoever.

Read post #51 of this thread. Or check the FR.

Anyway, is having children necessary to be able to form an opinion on discrimination?

Having children, as I see you do, let's a person know that his rights are right out the window. It may be 3am, and you may have gotten to bed late, and you may have to get up in two-hours for a long day's work, but your imaginary right to sleep is non-existant as your crying kid's right to have the puke cleaned off her, and be put in the bath, and have her bed changed, trumps all. Example #1 of 1,000,000.

I'm through debating this issue with you; it's starting to feel like talking to a wall. We disagree and nothing will change your viewpoint nor mine. So be it, then.

If someone thinks they will ever convince me that saying a child should have a mother and a father is akin to bigotry, then no, we will never, ever agree.

[Andres]

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.

[Beirut]

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?