Gay Parenting

[Riedquat]

When I've read Beirut's first post felt the same many of you, but after reading this entire thread I fail to see how none of you understand what he is saying... really! Considering I don't speak English at all, that is a lot to say...

All you think its better for the child to have gay parents than straight ones? Because all is resumed there... he isn't saying don't give kids to gays at all... nor I, just lets try to accomplish the right of the kids to have a mom and a dad... old fashioned ones...

As a bigot I would say, first show me a gay couple making a child naturally and then we speak about their natural right to be dads.... umm... that would be my dad speaking...

Edit: and thats the whole point! this is not about their right to be dads but about the right of the child to have a family; a couple years ago people of same sex weren't able to form a family, not on the society eyes; now we are discussing if they are able to rise kids, and nobody said they shouldn't...

Having two couples, one straight and the other gay, both wanting to a adopt, both with the same socio-cultural profile, same economical status, (same race and religion), are you telling here you will roll a dice to decide which couple gets the child? Really? Wow...

[Askthepizzaguy]

When I've read Beirut's first post felt the same many of you, but after reading this entire thread I fail to see how none of you understand what he is saying... really! Considering I don't speak English at all, that is a lot to say...

There's not much to understand. His opinion is that it's "common sense" that gays are inferior parents to straight parents.

A number of people disagree, indicating that it may not be common, or even sense.

All you think its better for the child to have gay parents than straight ones? Because all is resumed there... he isn't saying don't give kids to gays at all... nor I, just lets try to accomplish the right of the kids to have a mom and a dad... old fashioned ones...

"Better"? Better implies discrimination against straight couples. No one has said that.

Equality is what is being presumed here.

As a bigot I would say, first show me a gay couple making a child naturally and then we speak about their natural right to be dads.... umm... that would be my dad speaking...

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have biological children all the time.

Edit: and thats the whole point! this is not about their right to be dads but about the right of the child to have a family;

Where is this right, and how is it guaranteed? My parents divorced when I was 4.

What right did I have to a father? What if my parents died? Does my right to a mother and a father bring them back to life?

How is a child being raised by a gay couple not a family, if a child being raised by a straight single parent is a family?

a couple years ago people of same sex weren't able to form a family, not on the society eyes; now we are discussing if they are able to rise kids, and nobody said they shouldn't...

Yes, people have said they shouldn't.

Having two couples, one straight and the other gay, both wanting to a adopt, both with the same socio-cultural profile, same economical status, (same race and religion), are you telling here you will roll a dice to decide which couple gets the child? Really? Wow...

How about a million couples, and ten million unwanted children?

Are you saying you're going to deny the child a family because you don't like gay people?

[Fragony]

A number of people disagree so it's not that common... there has got to be an award for that for that. A lot of people disagree, so it's common sense to prefer heterosexual couples just for that, like it was better to have a two parents instead of a single mom. Still is. Again, this is about gay equality, don't use kids as the stormtroopers of progres, fight this one yourself.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Again, this is about gay equality

Assuming gays are equal, straight couples shouldn't be given preferential treatment.

[Fragony]

Assuming gays are equal, straight couples shouldn't be given preferential treatment.

'Equal' and 'the same' aren't the same thing. If gay couples cared as much for the kid as they cared about being a gay couple they would agree with that preferential treatment, it's simply a more normal environment to grow up.

[Askthepizzaguy]

'Equal' and 'the same' aren't the same thing. If gay couples cared as much for the kid as they cared about being a gay couple they would agree with that preferential treatment, it's simply a more normal environment to grow up.

By that logic, we should make sure that their new mommy and daddy are both the same race. It's more "normal", after all.

They're either equal or they're not equal. Since I know for a fact that being gay doesn't preclude you from being a good parent, and there's no evidence it makes you a bad parent, I don't buy into the notion that we must treat them any differently from straight couples.

We're just not going to agree on this. I see them as equals, you do not. I can't change your mind, you won't change mine.

[Fragony]

By that logic, we should make sure that their new mommy and daddy are both the same race. It's more "normal", after all.

They're either equal or they're not equal. Since I know for a fact that being gay doesn't preclude you from being a good parent, and there's no evidence it makes you a bad parent, I don't buy into the notion that we must treat them any differently from straight couples.

We're just not going to agree on this. I see them as equals, you do not. I can't change your mind, you won't change mine.

It isn't about wether or not they are able to be good parents, it's about the acceptance of society. Prefering heterosexual couples makes sense considering that. Good for you that you have an opinion, but it isn't about you.

Question, would you prefer a same race couple over a mixed one in KKKnistan.

[Beirut]

Wow, busy for a few days and this thread is still buzzing.

There's not much to understand. His opinion is that it's "common sense" that gays are inferior parents to straight parents.

Actually, I'm not sure I ever said that. What I said, ad what I will continue to say, is that this has nothing to do with the parents, it has everything to do with the kid. And, for ump-teenth time, a kid is better off with a mother and a father.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child, And though it really pizzes some people off to hear this, it is normal as well. It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father. The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

I have no doubt gay people can be great parents. And I don't care. This isn't about gay people, gay rights, or the parents at all. As I've said - parents have no rights. The kids have all the rights and kids have a right to a mother and father.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Actually, I'm not sure I ever said that. What I said, ad what I will continue to say, is that this has nothing to do with the parents, it has everything to do with the kid. And, for ump-teenth time, a kid is better off with a mother and a father.

I know you've said it before, Beirut. But saying it umpteen times doesn't make you any more correct.

There are well more kids waiting for adoption than there are parents waiting to adopt, if I am not mistaken. Every straight couple who meets the criteria who wants a child will get one. I believe every gay couple who meets the criteria should as well.

Even then, there will still be kids without parents, sorry to say.

I do not believe it is the false choice you're making it out to be. Gays are not going to stop straights from adopting. They aren't going to get preferential treatment, either. And, sorry to say, there will likely be bigots in the adoption agencies who rarely ever allow gay couples to adopt, even if the law says they should be treated equally.

You're probably going to get your wish even if the law is changed to reflect equality. But I think it's still a shame.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child, And though it really pizzes some people off to hear this, it is normal as well. It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father. The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

I am unmoved by arguments related to "normalcy". The child has already lost their parents and is sitting in some orphanage or foster home. Their lives are far from normal.

I don't like how the only way they can be happy, now, is that they have to have the perfect 50's-style nuclear family with 1.5 other kids in the house, 1 dog and 1 cat, and a father who smokes a pipe and a wife who cleans house and bakes. And while you're not arguing for that, you are basically saying the only way you'll permit these kids to be happy is if they are raised by parents you find fit, when the data and real life experiences show that parents you don't think are as good as the ones you prefer, do just as fine a job raising the kids.

Sorry, I feel you are wrong, even if your heart is in the right place. Normal isn't a moral value, it's argument from popularity. And I really gotta tell ya, I've never found popular opinion to be all that enlightened.

The kids have all the rights and kids have a right to a mother and father.

Yep, and if their new mother and father are both women, that is infinitely better than staring at a wall in an orphanage and getting no presents on Christmas. And I am very, very unconvinced that the fact that they are both women makes them unworthy of consideration, when there is a male and female as the alternative. I don't see it, even if you do, and I am still unmoved by the soaring rhetoric about how only men can teach you how to play catch, and only women can show you how to bake, and how a child has a god-given right to learn how to play catch and bake cookies.

I don't buy it. I think it is sexism.

[Beirut]

I know you've said it before, Beirut. But saying it umpteen times doesn't make you any more correct.

I was correct the first time as well as the ump-teenth time.

Yep, and if their new mother and father are both women, that is infinitely better than staring at a wall in an orphanage and getting no presents on Christmas. And I am very, very unconvinced that the fact that they are both women makes them unworthy of consideration, when there is a quateach you how to play catch, and only women can show you how to bake, and how a child has a god-given right to learn how to play catch and bake cookies.

I don't buy it. I think it is sexism.

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

Besides, I don't think I ever said children should not be adopted by gay parents, only that a kid should go to a mother and father first if a mother and father are are available because a mother and father are inherently better for a child than a father and a father.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I was correct the first time as well as the ump-teenth time.

Says you, and you be wrong on all counts.

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

[Beirut]

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

And you were expecting... what?

[Beskar]

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

And you were expecting... what from Beirut?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

For some reason, it is OK when liberals say that when presented with a scientific study, but when anyone else does it is is "anti-intellectual".

[Beirut]

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

Exaggerate gender differences?

They don't need to be exaggerated, they are different enough already.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

For some reason, it is OK when liberals say that when presented with a scientific study, but when anyone else does it is is "anti-intellectual".

Rhyf, gender is the social construct and used in contrast to biological sex differences. Everyone says there are big gender differences, but people who know something about history don't take them seriously, because there's nothing to stake a claim of legitimacy on (as if "natural" is a great place either, but that's another story) given how drastically they change with time and culture. Don't try and create smug straw men and misuse terminology at the same time

I'm fairly confidant that I've read much more than you have about the scientific study of it, so really you are just taking a page out of beirut's book here. In science the results and worth of studies are argued about. You are promoting bad science because you like the conclusion, and equating our reasoned disagreement with it to beirut's automatic rejection of science about which no methodological complaints have been raised so that you don't have to defend it.

[PanzerJaeger]

What I said, ad what I will continue to say, is that this has nothing to do with the parents, it has everything to do with the kid.

Obviously not. Your continued attempt to frame this as a kids versus gay rights issue is particularly disingenuous.

If this was really about the kids and not you clinging to some outdated conception of what the family should look like, you would take the time to read the studies instead of dismissing them outright. You would take the time to read the history of family structure beyond the relatively new and limited Western model. You would read the conclusions of every major psychological and children's health group in the Western World. You would read the vast amount of literature published by the children of gay couples themselves on the subject. You would listen to your own words.

I have no doubt gay people can be great parents. And I don't care.

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child, And though it really pizzes some people off to hear this, it is normal as well. It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father. The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

None of this has anything to do with gender.

Since you dodged the question before, I'll ask it again.

Maybe it would be more productive if you shared some specific problems that you believe arise from same sex parenting. What can a mother and father give (materially, mentally, emotionally, or any other way) a child that two fathers or mothers cannot? How exactly is it an inferior family situation?

[Riedquat]

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

For what its worth I bought it... But again, I'm not saying not give children to gays, or that they are bad fathers or not good enough than heterosexual couples... Obviously what I understood as common sense all my life is not the same thing for you...

[Beirut]

Obviously not. Your continued attempt to frame this as a kids versus gay rights issue is particularly disingenuous.

Says you, and you be wrong on all counts.

If this was really about the kids and not you clinging to some outdated conception of what the family should look like, you would take the time to read the studies instead of dismissing them outright. You would take the time to read the history of family structure beyond the relatively new and limited Western model. You would read the conclusions of every major psychological and children's health group in the Western World. You would read the vast amount of literature published by the children of gay couples themselves on the subject. You would listen to your own words.

So I should go Net hunting for anti-gay parent studies, post the links, and yell "Eureka!" because I found a scientist who shares my views?

Nahhhh. I don't need a scientist to tell me that a bear ***** in the woods or that the sun rises in the east or that a kid is better off with a mom and dad than with a dad and dad. I know it already.

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

Good Lord, man, get a hold of yourself and read my posts as they are written, not as you think they are written.

None of this has anything to do with gender.

It has everything to do with gender.

Since you dodged the question before, I'll ask it again.

I wasn't dodging you, just ignoring the unimportant parts of this thread. But I already answered your question anyway and you responded, "None of this has anything to do with gender." I submit that not only are you wrong, but wrong on a cosmological level.

[PanzerJaeger]

So I should go Net hunting for anti-gay parent studies, post the links, and yell "Eureka!" because I found a scientist who shares my views?

YES! Bring your sources and I'll bring mine and we'll see which have more credibility.

It would at least be something, anything, other than your expert Flat Earth Society endorsed opinion.

I wasn't dodging you, just ignoring the unimportant parts of this thread. But I already answered your question anyway and you responded, "None of this has anything to do with gender." I submit that not only are you wrong, but wrong on a cosmological level.

I understand now. It was so vague and unsupported, I just assumed it was more backwoods, lumberjack common sense and not an actual argument. Let's dig deeper.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child

Gender roles. Ok. Let's establish some parameters before we go any further. Can you specify which roles the female plays in the family and which roles the male plays?

It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father.

It is indeed important for a child to observe the interworkings of a healthy relationship. What is different about the way gay couples express affection, cooperate, reason, and resolve conflicts between each other than straight couples? What specifically makes straight relationships more valuable to children's development than gay ones?

The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that either children raised by gay couples are not as prepared for real life as those raised by straight couples and/or children raised by gay couples are less prepared to deal with the opposite sex of their parents.

Obviously both notions have been completely discredited by scientific studies, but since you don't believe in science I suppose we'll have to approach this from a different direction.

What specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

[Beirut]

YES! Bring your sources and I'll bring mine and we'll see which have more credibility.

So the issue of parenting should be brought to the level of who finds what on the Internet?

God save our children.

It would at least be something, anything, other than your expert Flat Earth Society endorsed opinion.

If you are implying that thinking a mother and father is best for a child is akin to saying the Earth is flat, den da world she be in ruff shape.

I understand now. It was so vague and unsupported, I just assumed it was more backwoods, lumberjack common sense and not an actual argument.

Backwoods lumberjack common sense is a great argument.

"...add two parts chain oil to three parts eye of newt and blend for... "

Gender roles. Ok. Let's establish some parameters before we go any further. Can you specify which roles the female plays in the family and which roles the male plays?

Certainly.

The female plays the role of mother and the male plays the role of father.

It is indeed important for a child to observe the interworkings of a healthy relationship. What is different about the way gay couples express affection, cooperate, reason, and resolve conflicts between each other than straight couples? What specifically makes straight relationships more valuable to children's development than gay ones?

Answered (to your satisfaction or not) below.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that either children raised by gay couples are not as prepared for real life as those raised by straight couples and/or children raised by gay couples are less prepared to deal with the opposite sex of their parents.

I'm saying that there are advantages for a child to be raised by a mother and a father as the child experiences input from both sexes while growing up as well as being able to observe the relationship between the mother and father.

Obviously both notions have been completely discredited by scientific studies, but since you don't believe in science I suppose we'll have to approach this from a different direction.

I am a great fan of science. But this "dad & dad is as good as mom & dad" stuff is psychological alchemy.

What specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

Life.

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

[Riedquat]

There's not much to understand. His opinion is that it's "common sense" that gays are inferior parents to straight parents.

Thats the whole point you keep making up! That is not what he is saying, or at least not what I interpret from what he is saying! Nobody is telling they are inferior or bad parents, you are looking at the problem from the wrong side of the street, gay couples can be the more loving and caring parents in the entire world but that is beside the point, the common sense point is directed at what is more natural for the child, an imposed (by the state/government/laws/whatever) mother who biologically is a man or an imposed mother who biologically is a woman, (same could apply to the imposed father) and please try to see this with the child eyes... thats the point, the important point to consider, the common sense, the natural view.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have biological children all the time.

No!? Really? the wonders of nature! And? Whats the point of that point? I didn't say they not deserve to be parents, nor that they aren't... I'm lost...

Where is this right, and how is it guaranteed? My parents divorced when I was 4.

Do you keep one at a time didn't you? Not both at same time but at least both were alive...

What right did I have to a father? What if my parents died? Does my right to a mother and a father bring them back to life?

Ufff...!!! What are we talking about? Of course that right isn't wrote in stone, honestly don't know where it is in my own country laws, know in our constitution is mentioned the right of child to be happy but not much more, and of course there is no guaranty. What I think? I think every child in the world has the right to be happy with his family and if for any reason they lack both fathers they have the right to get the best father possible the society can bring...

How is a child being raised by a gay couple not a family, if a child being raised by a straight single parent is a family?

Where on earth did I say that?
A single person independent of his/her sexuality can be a good father? yes of course; the number of parents doesn't matter, the importance is about the quality not quantity, quality in a sense beyond the mere meaning of the world; again, don't know how are things there but here singles can adopt, don't know if as a single you are requested to inform about your sexuality... and don't think it matters anyway. But we keep mixing things, stop looking under the carpet for weird examples, we are talking about orphans...

Yes, people have said they shouldn't.

Bah! Fachos! Guess you call them bigots...

How about a million couples, and ten million unwanted children?

Are you saying you're going to deny the child a family because you don't like gay people?

Uh? UH!!?? Do you think/believe I've said that?? Perhaps if i write in Spanish you will understand me better....

I don't know there but here orphanages (sp) are full of kids, there are not enough people wanting to adopt, the adoption process is slow as molasses, the bureaucracy behind the process is sick, usually couples wanting to adopt end abandoning the legal system and getting the child from other sources (a majority!). So the few who wants to adopt are discouraged for the system, the same system that is about to collapse... ||Mental pause... posting from work sucks big time... diluting brain fart|||

Everyone goodhearted with the will to adopt should be given the opportunity

[Fragony]

You are a child of nature, I like.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Gays aren't inferior parents, straight people are just better parents"

[Riedquat]

Please tell me you are not inferring that from what I've said!

Edit: I'm good at moderating myself, take my word on that! ;)