Gay Parenting

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[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?

[Husar]

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.

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not if the child is female?
That's discrimination, your argument is slowly falling apart as your real face shows through.

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). Use either “he or she” or stick with “he” or if you want to be really correct “one”.

Thanks for your time.

[Husar]

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). 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.

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.

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!

[Tellos Athenaios]

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?

[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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Beirut]

Not if the child is female?
That's discrimination, your argument is slowly falling apart as your real face shows through.

Sentience in the thread, please.

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.

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.

[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

[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?