Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
Of course there is a difference otherwise we wouldn't call it gay parenting but just parenting, you are kinda giving away that you know that when you do. Not that it's bad, but there is a difference. I agree with my favorite Scottish relinut, it's a farce. It's all ok, but don't expect me to play along and see it for full. Studies mean zip by the way, maybe results count when comparing it again over 30 years, at the moment they have something to prove so they will try harder to be excellent parents. Means nada
edit: also agree with Beirut, get these 'scientific' reports out of my face, it's plane common sense.
Last edited by Fragony; 02-11-2011 at 10:33.
One would think that, after reading this thread, it's clear enough that your "common sense" doesn't seem to be so common at all.
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
Yeah yeah but I don't. People on the org almost exclusively of higher education and often (but not always) very open to other's people take on things. It's simply common sense because a child raised by gays is a curiosity. And for some gays a statement. I always go for my intuition first and intuition says that this is more about gay equality than it's about gay parenting, a kid as a crown-jewel of gay activism.
If you can say it, I can take it.
I'm a parent and I care more about kids than about adult ideologies that seek to profit through kids. That's what I have.
Dorothy. Dorothy. Dorothy.
Unto each good man a good dog
Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.
Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:
1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father
3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father
You are aware that one of the big fundamental things in science is that it can prove common sense wrong? Otherwise it would always be about how large the expected outcome would be.
Continents moving? Hah, that would be as silly as we're constantly moving more than 100.000 km/h. Or that electrons can create wave interference with itself.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
It's not about homosexuality it's about gay parenting. They know that it will be seen and treated differently. Yet insisting, for what and most importantly who. I think they care more about being accepted as parents rather than actually being it. And of course people that devoted will be excellent parents, whole world is watching after all. But who's in the middle of it. So to prefering heterosexual, YES absolutely. If you want a different world fix it yourself.
Is it really plausible that all, or even the majority, of the millions of gay parents around the world are so activist in nature that they would make such a life-altering decision purely to make a political point? The vast majority of gay parents neither receives nor seeks publicity.
Also, even if we take your position as true, what is the difference? Many straight people have children for selfish motivations. You seem willing to accept that they can make excellent parents. Is this about what is best for the kids or making a broader point about conventional relationships?![]()
Not at all, I just don't like it when people try to engineer society, and when it's the very purpose I detest it. There simply is no need, just leave people be, take a respectable distance when needed instead of hammering people to comformation. I'm not against gay parenting I'm against people who absolutely adore it
A woman who has a baby, unless proven unfit as a mother - and being a lesbian does not mean she is unfit - is entitled to raise that child.
A gay man who fathers a baby, unless proven unfit as a father - and being gay does not mean he is unfit - is entitled to raise that child.
If gay man and a straight woman, or a straight man and a gay woman, or a heterosexual couple, have a child and decide to divorce, the courts must decide how the child will be raised on a case by case basis.
Is the state has authority over a child up for adoption, priority must go to seeing that the child is placed in a home where the child has both a mother and a father.
People have rights to have children and to keep children, but not to get children.
Unto each good man a good dog
I understand what you're saying. Nobody likes to be browbeaten into thought-conformity. The only reason poor Beirut is having such a difficult go of things is because this is a discussion forum where we do get to force our opinions on each other. In this environment, you actually have to back up what you say or risk having your opinion disregarded. Particularly frustrating is the fact that he seems completely unwilling (unable) to present supporting research on the subject, yet acts as if everyone else is ridiculous. 'I am right because I am' followed by some snarky comment about how demented it is that the conversation is even happening is not a defensible position.
However, I don't think the issue itself is a love it or hate it type of thing. That is making it subjective where it should be objective. I support it because a) science has validated that it is not a negative influence on the development of the child and b) it plays a critical social function in placing abandoned children in supportive homes. If the issue truly centers around the well being of the children, then there is little room for debate.
Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 02-11-2011 at 15:48.
Screw science, none of these numbers mean anything. There is nothing to compare them with. Maybe with single or working moms in the fifties perhaps if you fiddle around a bit.
Ok, screw science. Let's look strictly at outcome.
Gay parenting is not a particularly new phenomenon at this point. It has been openly practiced in America and Europe since the '70s. In 1990, it was estimated that there were between 6 and 14 million gay parents in the United States (US Census).
Where are the victims? You would expect at this point to have millions of dysfunctional young adults coming out of these homes.
I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor.
I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.
Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.
Unto each good man a good dog
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.
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.
My mother is a teacher and has a had a number of gay-parented children in her class. So as you say, real life. Economic status and educational level of the parents is the biggest factor. And the studies examine real life people too you know
I think the real issue here for the anti-adoption is what rhyf was saying in another thread. They don't believe that two lesbians will raise a boy who is macho and believes his wife should be submissive. That, of course, is indeed common sense. Beirut, is it common sense too that children are better of with a stay at home mother? (and not a stay at home father?)
Im the machoest man on this board and I don't want a wife who is submissive
Men who want submissive wives instead of equal partners are insecure pricks.
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.
Failing to find the post 1950 western nuclear family, which would you prefer:
a) The child goes goes to a single mother household
b) The child goes to a two mother household
Another choice:
a) The child goes goes to a single mother household, not a homo in sight
b) The child goes to an intergenerational household, consisting of a loving grandmother, 62, and a single widower, 36, gay
Another choice:
a) The child goes to a single mother, heterosexual, working two shifts
b) The child goes to an intergenerational household, consisting of a mother and father, heterosexual, and loving grandmother, 68, who's engaged in lesbian relationships in college in 1968
Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 02-11-2011 at 20:04.
Bookmarks