Gay Parenting

[Beirut]

You think your brother is inherently a worse parent then any straight parent?

No.

But my brother isn't the issue. The child is the issue. And a child has a right to a mother and a father.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No.

But my brother isn't the issue. The child is the issue. And a child has a right to a mother and a father.

I hate this phrase because it was over used in middle school when some counselor came in and said it 9,001 times but, "Every child has a right to be loved." I don't see that that "Every child has a right to be loved by a mother and father and if none are available then by a same sex couple."

A child has a right to be taken care of. Could you please explain the reasoning behind why there is a right to have heterosexual couple parents above homosexual ones?

[Beskar]

A child has a right to be taken care of. Could you please explain the reasoning behind why there is a right to have heterosexual couple parents above homosexual ones?

There isn't any. Whole mother-father thing is overrated,

[Major Robert Dump]

The guy speaking to his lawmakers whould have done background checks on each one to see how many of them were serial divorcees, and then called them on it.

[Beirut]

I hate this phrase because it was over used in middle school when some counselor came in and said it 9,001 times but, "Every child has a right to be loved." I don't see that that "Every child has a right to be loved by a mother and father and if none are available then by a same sex couple."

A child has a right to be taken care of. Could you please explain the reasoning behind why there is a right to have heterosexual couple parents above homosexual ones?

Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.

Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.

[Fragony]

Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.

Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.

In all fairness I do suspect a little activism here and there, that they furiously demand everybody recognises something what nature simply can't provide them. If so the baby is indeed a tool used for very selfish reasons, making a point out of being a gay parent with said kid as fancy juwelry. I'm not sure about that and I'm aware of my own prejudgis , I have them to be honest. But denying it to gays or picking heterosexual couples over them, I dunno. A barren-wombed couple might do it for the the same wrong reasons as well, to pretend to be normal

[HoreTore]

Children as jewelry, eh?

Those 5-year old Little Miss America contestants are the result of heterosexual unions, frequently conservative and christian as well.

I seriously doubt anyone is able to top them.

[Fragony]

Children as jewelry, eh?

In a way yes. Do they really want a child or demand the possibilty, I don't know, but I'm kinda suspicious of their motivations. Is it fair to demand from me to treat it as exactly the same thing, I would have to pretend it is. I am not against it mind you. But gay couples can't have everything it's nature itself that says no. and I don't like having to act. It's all good I have no problem, kids will be fine, but it itches somewhere and I always trust my instincts

[HoreTore]

Did you stop reading after the fourth word in my post?

[Rhyfelwyr]

but it itches somewhere and I always trust my instincts

My instincts tell me somethings not right when I see a white and black person together in a relationship. Or even worse, white and East Asian, since then their chidren look weird.

Can you use instincts as justification for your beliefs? Because I think we're just by nature intolerant.

[Beirut]

You don't give one human being to another human being in order to further the other person's rights or activist stance.

You want to further gay rights, give em placards and felt pens, or money for lawyers: not babies.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.

Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.

In a biological sense, you will find that the children of gay parents tend to have a mother and father too. Medicine has not adcanced beyond that.


As for parents in the sense of adult raisings children. The natural way of things is to raise children in an extended family. A nuclear family of father, mother, and two children is decidely unnatural, it is recent and geographically limited. Two gay parents is scarcely less unnatural than just two parents, or even one.

[Strike For The South]

All of this semantic mumbo jumbo is irrelephant because the # of adoptees is still greater than the # of adopters

[Andres]

If the people who raise the child love it, then I don't see the problem, really.

My wife and I raise our son together. Now that he's no longer breastfed, there's nothing that she can do what I can't as well and vice versa. We can both change his diaper, give him his milk, carry him around, play with him, give him his bath etc etc. I love doing all those things and so does she. I don't see how me being heterosexual or homosexual would make me a better or worse parent. My sexual orientation has nothing to do with my capabilities of raising my child, thank you very much.

Also, this:

As for parents in the sense of adult raisings children. The natural way of things is to raise children in an extended family. A nuclear family of father, mother, and two children is decidely unnatural, it is recent and geographically limited. Two gay parents is scarcely less unnatural than just two parents, or even one.

A child has not to be exclusively raised by its' mother and its' father, that's a pretty modern concept. If children have been raised by their extended family for centuries, then how would two men or two women raising a child be "wrong"?

Also, there's a lot of hypocrisy with this subject. Let's be honest here, the "problem" is not two women raising a child, the "problem" is two men raising a child. I'm personally offended by that. Me being a man does not make me a worse parent than my wife.

I do everything my wife does and my son seems perfectly happy, so screw all those with their prejudice that a male is somehow, for some weird, outdated reasons, less fit for parenthood than a female for the sole reason that he's male.

[Louis VI the Fat]

screw

Et tu, Andres?


Other than that, give Andres jr. a quick little hug from me and whisper in his ear that he couldn't have wished for a finer papa.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I could, given a few minutes of effort, cite philosophy, demographics, and cultural conventions that would make stuffed penguins look like the best possible parents for human babies. But sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar, and a kid deseves a mother and a father regardless of the sophist's art.

So much then for my plan to raise my kids together with their hot three lesbian mothers...


Also, I see why you would identify with certain backwards Middle Eastern cultures...

[Beirut]

In a biological sense, you will find that the children of gay parents tend to have a mother and father too. Medicine has not adcanced beyond that.

And all this time I thought it was the stork.

As for parents in the sense of adult raisings children. The natural way of things is to raise children in an extended family. A nuclear family of father, mother, and two children is decidely unnatural, it is recent and geographically limited. Two gay parents is scarcely less unnatural than just two parents, or even one.

I could, given a few minutes of effort, cite philosophy, demographics, and cultural conventions that would make stuffed penguins look like the best possible parents for human babies. But sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar, and a kid deseves a mother and a father regardless of the sophist's art.

[Andres]

I could, given a few minutes of effort, cite philosophy, demographics, and cultural conventions that would make stuffed penguins look like the best possible parents for human babies. But sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar, and a kid deseves a mother and a father regardless of the sophist's art.

Oh cut the already. Imagine gay being the "norm" and a bigotted world opposed to heterosexuals raising kids. Wouldn't you be outraged because of the absurdity of it?

Well, seeing a homosexual couple as less fit for raising children for the sole fact that they're both male, is equally absurd.

[Fragony]

In sophism the most logical argument always wins, kinda curious about what you have to offer there. There is nothing that proves that a child is better of in a 'normal' family I know of.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society. And as the child is the most important person in this equation, the prospective parent's rights are secondary at best.

Giving rights to gay people is well and fine. But using babies as a tool with which to grant those rights to adults seems a bit off to me.

Your argument makes no sense. The world humans have been living in have been growing more and more artificial, disconnected from nature. We no longer live among the trees or in caves. According to you, we are all slightly messed up because we have not been brought up in a more natural way. When did our common ancestors go to school? Or work in an office for 40+ years? Saying that it is more "natural" is a terrible argument. It's no less natural than a single parent, or no parents (those that live entire first 18 years under state), and there are plenty of fully functional humans that come from those conditions.

No, what is going on is the other way. You are using babies as a tool to deny rights to gays. Your argument can be summarized as "think of the children, it isn't 'natural'".

[Beirut]

Your argument makes no sense. The world humans have been living in have been growing more and more artificial, disconnected from nature. We no longer live among the trees...

I do.

According to you, we are all slightly messed up because we have not been brought up in a more natural way.

And I said that where?

When did our common ancestors go to school? Or work in an office for 40+ years? Saying that it is more "natural" is a terrible argument. It's no less natural than a single parent, or no parents (those that live entire first 18 years under state), and there are plenty of fully functional humans that come from those conditions.

Yes, there are fully functional people that come from all kinds of backrounds. But your assertion that a child being raised with no parents at all being just as natural a situation as a child being raised with paprents is dead wrong. The natural way for a child to be raised is with parents.

No, what is going on is the other way. You are using babies as a tool to deny rights to gays.

So in order to guarantee someone's rights the state has to give them a baby?

Odd.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I do.

Ironically that probably accounts for why you seem more disconnected from society for reasons I will go over again right now.

And I said that where?

This is what you said: Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society.
First, why is the natural way preferable? The only logical explanation is that it is somehow "better" than a "less natural" way of being brought up.
If you backtrack and tell me that the "natural" way is not better than a "non-natural" way, you have no argument.
If you want to tell me that the natural way is the better way, than it follows that we are all slightly dysfunctional because all of us have not been raised "naturally". We live in concrete buildings that stretch for miles, we spend most of our youth sitting in a chair learning and most of our adult lives sitting in a chair working. We have all been brought up in a completely artificial environment since birth, we must be so messed up compared to our ancestors back in the 1500s.

This is the main problem of the whole "it's not natural" argument. You never define what is natural or what isn't and give no reasoning why. If you want to say that a mom and dad is natural and two dads or moms isn't because that is how it has "been" then my point stands.

Yes, there are fully functional people that come from all kinds of backrounds. But your assertion that a child being raised with no parents at all being just as natural a situation as a child being raised with paprents is dead wrong. The natural way for a child to be raised is with parents.

Give reasoning or you have no argument.

So in order to guarantee someone's rights the state has to give them a baby?

Odd.

If they are proven to be clean, law abiding, loving parents, yes the state should give them a baby, because to refuse to so that a "proper" set of parents can have them first in essentially a form of segregation. Hetero couples get to sit in the front of the bus and all the homos need to sit in the back and give up their seats to any hetero that wants one. Congrats, that's bigot speak.

[HoreTore]

For a child to have a mother and father is unnatural.


Our species have practiced the extended family unit for almost our entire hietory, where all the kids are pooled together and taken care of by a group. To limit a child to just two parents is a social experiment denying the child the right to all the different rolemodels the extended family would give.

[Beirut]

Ironically that probably accounts for why you seem more disconnected from society for reasons I will go over again right now.

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

First, why is the natural way preferable? The only logical explanation is that it is somehow "better" than a "less natural" way of being brought up.
If you backtrack and tell me that the "natural" way is not better than a "non-natural" way, you have no argument.
If you want to tell me that the natural way is the better way, than it follows that we are all slightly dysfunctional because all of us have not been raised "naturally". We live in concrete buildings that stretch for miles, we spend most of our youth sitting in a chair learning and most of our adult lives sitting in a chair working. We have all been brought up in a completely artificial environment since birth, we must be so messed up compared to our ancestors back in the 1500s.

They had chairs and buildings in 1500.

This is the main problem of the whole "it's not natural" argument. You never define what is natural or what isn't and give no reasoning why. If you want to say that a mom and dad is natural and two dads or moms isn't because that is how it has "been" then my point stands.

Natural in that it takes a mother and father to procreate. Natural in that the vast majority of countries, cultures, and civilizations, going far back in history, a child having a mother and a father was always seen as natural. Granted there are always exceptions, hell, there are probably places where eating your first born was considered a propos, but such exceptions aside, mom and dad was where it was at. And it still is.

Give reasoning or you have no argument.

You're hot when you bark orders.

If they are proven to be clean, law abiding, loving parents, yes the state should give them a baby, because to refuse to so that a "proper" set of parents can have them first in essentially a form of segregation. Hetero couples get to sit in the front of the bus and all the homos need to sit in the back and give up their seats to any hetero that wants one. Congrats, that's bigot speak.

That was a riot. You do have a wonderful sense of the absurd.

Over at the chainsaw forum they think I am the worst kind of left-wing fag-loving commie scumbag. Over here, I'm a right-wing homo-hating bigot. I should get you over there for a visit; the fireworks would be astounding.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go take Ryan Seacrest's seat at the front of the bus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Give reasoning or you have no argument.

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.

[Megas Methuselah]

And a child has a right to a mother and a father.

Really? Since when? You should have told that to my dad. Haven't seen the bastard in a decade.

[Fragony]

Really? Since when? You should have told that to my dad. Haven't seen the bastard in a decade.

Look at the bright side, you wouldn't be the real thing if you did. It's the native-american experience it seems, Sorry to hear it though, counting my blessings even if mine died pretty horribly, cancer sucks

[rory_20_uk]

Really? Since when? You should have told that to my dad. Haven't seen the bastard in a decade.

If my seperated wife has her way, neither will I. Obligations? In stone. Rights? For negotiation.

[Samurai Waki]

Human beings are fundamentally flawed, I make mistakes, my wife makes mistakes. When one of our girls ask us a question we don't always know the right answer, so in lieu of that we attempt to give the best answer; it may not be perfect but then again, we're not perfect people. I don't know anyone who is, straight, gay, or otherwise.

However I trust in the bond I have with my family, I have too, because I would probably go crazy if I tried to make a guess out how our daughters are going to turn out when they become adults. We support and nurture them, we love them with every fiber of our being, we would throw ourselves to the lions if it meant our daughters future was assured. But it's not, nothing is, so we have to have faith in them while trying to lead by example.

The strength of one's character is more important than their sexuality, will those children be loved and nurtured? That's important. There's a lot of children out there that need that, I don't think they'd care whether it was from a man and a woman, two men, or two women. It's really painting a lot of people with a very broad brush.

What would your answer be if I said two White people can raise a child better than two Asians? See where I'm getting with this?

[Fragony]

I will readily admit I have been very dumb on this. But it isn't about me, nor is the gay activists outcry over percieved injustice.