Gay Parenting

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Originally Posted by Andres

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

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Abstract yes and I don't even agree with myself, but I don't think all arguments of people who are against are so stupid. Even emotionally, why respect a dead end if you really love nature. That's more like trying to conquer it imho.

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Originally Posted by Andres

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

Originally Posted by Andres

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I was going to ask if you are being confused on purpose.

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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.

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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

Ajax

Either that or everybody just hates me.

Originally Posted by Beirut

Either that or everybody just hates me.

How is that even possible ?

Or should I say "who >:|" ?

Originally Posted by Beirut

Either that or everybody just hates me.

I do love your daughter though, if that helps.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I do love your daughter though, if that helps.

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

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Beirut

I admit to being surprised that saying a child should have a mother and a father paints me as being disconnected from society.

That is not what you are saying though. You are saying they should have the child at the expense of a homosexual couple.

They had chairs and buildings in 1500.

You didn't respond to the bigger issue. Our world is more artificial than that of the 1500s. Do you think we should be raised in a 1500s environment than a modern one? I know you are smarter than to feign ignorance on what makes this world more artificial than the one 500 years ago.

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.

And why exactly is this "natural" way inherently better than having two loving dads or moms?

You're hot when you bark orders.

My gf tells me the same thing. -high fives-

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.

You didn't reply why my analogy was inaccurate. And no, I didn't mean to call you a bigot. I have read your posts in other threads, I know you are not George Wallace here. I said, what you have just said is bigoted. I am not so black and white to think that everyone who is critical of social movements is bigoted. I am just saying that in this scenario, what you have suggested is prejudicial and makes gay parents be second class parents.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Give reasoning why two people have to be in a sexual relationship to raise a child.
Give reasoning why there has to be two parents and not ten.
etc.

They don't and they don't. As HoreTore has said, the real "natural" way is having your entire extended family take care of you, in that sense arn't they all parents?

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

That is not what you are saying though. You are saying they should have the child at the expense of a homosexual couple.

The homosexual couple have no rights. The heterosexual couples have no rights. Only the child has rights.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You didn't respond to the bigger issue. Our world is more artificial than that of the 1500s. Do you think we should be raised in a 1500s environment than a modern one? I know you are smarter than to feign ignorance on what makes this world more artificial than the one 500 years ago.

On the contrary, as we understand much more about the world and most people suffer less superstitions, I believe we are more connected with the world. For one thing, we don't think it is flat.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

And why exactly is this "natural" way inherently better than having two loving dads or moms?

We live in nature, we as humans have a nature, and that said, in relation to the best interests of the child, natural would seem to be best.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

My gf tells me the same thing. -high fives-

Sweet.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You didn't reply why my analogy was inaccurate.I am just saying that in this scenario, what you have suggested is prejudicial and makes gay parents be second class parents.

No, I never said gay parents were second class parents. I said as far as adoption goes, seeing that a child having a mom and dad is best, and I believe it is, then the child has a right to a mom and dad. And the child's rights outweigh the adoptive parent's rights by a factor of about a million to one.

Again and again: Parents do not have rights. They have obligations and responsibilities. The child has the rights.

May I ask if you have kids?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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!

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Originally Posted by Husar

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.