Gay Parenting

[Fragony]

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 really don't get it, you can fool yourselves all you want but you can't fool nature.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You really don't get it, you can fool yourselves all you want but you can't fool nature.

Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:

[Fragony]

Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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?

[Fragony]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Beirut]

Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:

So we should change the nature of the family and human culture because a couple of male koalas got high smoking eucaliptis leaves and went a'bonking?



I like you - you're funny.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So we should change the nature of the family and human culture because a couple of male koalas got high smoking eucaliptis leaves and went a'bonking?



I like you - you're funny.

Give in to your inner nature. We know all about you lumberjacks and your penchant for wearing ladies undies.