Gay Parenting

[Beirut]

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.

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.

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.

Give reasoning or you have no argument.

You're hot when you bark orders.

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.

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.

[Andres]

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.

[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?

[Husar]

Depends on when they are adopted, denying a child the milk from it's mother should be made criminal in every thinkable circumstance anyway.

[Andres]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Fisherking]

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.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[HoreTore]

Fragony probably isn't bigoted, but he seems rather fond of conspiracies....

[Fragony]

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

[Andres]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Beirut]

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.

[Andres]

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.

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?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

[Beirut]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I was going to ask if you are being confused 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.

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.

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.

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Beirut]

Congratulations! You are officially a moderate, feared and misunderstood by both ends of the political spectrum.

Ajax

Either that or everybody just hates me.

[LeftEyeNine]

Either that or everybody just hates me.

How is that even possible ?

Or should I say "who >:|" ?

[HoreTore]

Either that or everybody just hates me.

I do love your daughter though, if that helps.

[Beirut]

I do love your daughter though, if that helps.

Well, the older one is 14, so I'm thinking it best be unrequited love.

[HoreTore]

Well, the older one is 14, so I'm thinking it best be unrequited love.

Dang!

With you being an old geezer and all, I thought she wuld've been at least 20.... Oh well