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
![]()
"I do not yet know how chivalry will fare in these calamitous times of ours." --- Don Quixote
"I have no words, my voice is in my sword." --- Shakespeare
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --- Jack Handey
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.
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.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.
I kindly ask for more valid examples please.
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.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.
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."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?
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.
Whatever.
Read post #51 of this thread. Or check the FR.Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
![]()
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
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.
Last edited by Fragony; 02-10-2011 at 10:33.
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?
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!
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?
Last edited by Andres; 02-10-2011 at 11:24.
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
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.
First was a joke as I already said, the other two were more serious and you actually answered them here:
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.
![]()
![]()
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
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".
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
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
And whoever.
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.
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.
![]()
Unto each good man a good dog
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.
Last edited by Andres; 02-10-2011 at 12:37.
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
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 is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
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.
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
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...
![]()
![]()
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
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?
Unto each good man a good dog
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 02-10-2011 at 16:46.
Bookmarks