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.

[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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

What is the justification for this? Why does the child have a right to have heterosexual parents but not parents to begin with? This seems like an oddly specific right that suddenly appears to justify an imbalance in he treatment of hetero and homosexual couples.

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.

People didn't think the world was flat in the 1500s. Also superstitions doesn't have anything to do with being connected with the world. I don't see how the modern man is more connected to nature than the Celts just because he doesn't believe in spirits.

I kindly ask for more valid examples please.

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.

There seems to be a bit of assumption going on there. I have been arguing the exact opposite to your first four words there. Where exactly is the nature at the intersection of W 51st Street and 7th Avenue, in NYC? A kid growing up there could spend his entire adolescence in that neighborhood.

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?

The funny thing about rights is that you need a reeeeeally solid reasoning for why they exist. So far all you have is, "because it's more natural, and it is more natural because out of the 100,000 years that modern Homo Sapiens have been around, the last couple thousand years since agriculture and civilization started, most people were raised by a mother and father."

You know, throughout my time in high school, I had 2 teachers, 2 vice principles and 3 "guards" tell me that everyone has a right to not be offended (this was their reasoning why I couldn't swear when talking to my friends during lunch break). But in reality, they really didn't, no matter how much they said they did.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

For the umpteenth time: Parents have no rights - parents have obligations and responsibilities. The children have rights.

But why do you assume these rights of children to support you point of view? I think you are projecting your own idea of what is best onto 'what is best for the children'.

In this manner, you are not the champion of children's rights, but still just an (unwitting) champion of using children to support private preferences of adults.


Wherever possible, we should ask children in specific cases whom they'd prefer as adoptive parents. Children - most parents refuse to believe this - are not hardwired for a pixel-perfect, Disney channel movie, heterosexual nuclear family of two parents of the opposite sex. Not until children pick these things up from wider society do they have much of a clue to any normality of their family situation. And by that time, children are raised by themselves and their peer group. Parents overestimate their importance. A child needs attention and food and warmth and devotion, but other than that a child could not care less whether you exactly conform to any desirable social requirement. That sort of neuroticism is for the parents - who should not project that on children.

Millions of single mothers, single dads are told they have an imperfect family situation. They stress about it, worry about it, consider it a sign of failure. Whereas it does not seem to be the case at all that children of single parents fare worse than those with two parents. The same holds true for working mothers. So much guilt. So much guilt by so many women, for not being with their children 24/7. For no reason at all, I think.

I think gay parenting belongs to the same category as single parents, or working mothers. And less to the category of 1970s social experiment.

[Fragony]

And how did kids of single and working mothers get treated. As kids of single and working mothers. You say projection, yeah sure is. But who's doing 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]

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?

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Beirut]

Parents overestimate their importance.

Then you have my condolences, you must have had a lonely childhood.

My mom and dad were exactly who they were supposed to be I and I cannot overestimate their importance.

[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

[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.