Gay Parenting

[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.

[Fragony]

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

[Fisherking]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[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

[Andres]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Husar]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.

... which not supported by any factual evidence.

Can lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals be good parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.

[Sarmatian]

Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.

I'm wondering, what are normal gender roles these days?

[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.