Gay Parenting

[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.

[Andres]

I think the only point being debated is if a mother\father couple wants to adopt Child X and a gay couple also wants to adopt Child X, all things being equal, it is in the child's best interests to have a mother and a father.

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.

[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?

[Husar]

Depends on when they are adopted, denying a child the milk from it's mother should be made criminal in every thinkable circumstance anyway.

[Andres]

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.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[Fragony]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, you haven't justified why gay couples should be discriminated against.

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.

[HoreTore]

Fragony probably isn't bigoted, but he seems rather fond of conspiracies....

[Fragony]

Fragony probably isn't bigoted, but he seems rather fond of conspiracies....

What conspiracy would that be, just activism. Is it that far a stretch that they are really only looking for recognision for what isn't the real thing, I would call that child-abuse

[Beirut]

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.

[Andres]

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?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

[Beirut]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I was going to ask if you are being confused 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[Beirut]

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

Ajax

Either that or everybody just hates me.

[LeftEyeNine]

Either that or everybody just hates me.

How is that even possible ?

Or should I say "who >:|" ?

[HoreTore]

Either that or everybody just hates me.

I do love your daughter though, if that helps.

[Beirut]

I do love your daughter though, if that helps.

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

[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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

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?

[Beirut]

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.

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.

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.

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

Sweet.

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?

[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.