Do you think it healthy for a child to have Gay Parents ?

boomdogman

Pioneer the scheme sez jak?
There are already kids in families of two gay parents. Lets hear it for the lesbian moms!
So they can't adopt the kids of one of the partners?

Lots of children are being raised in single sex households, get over it.

jerenaugrim

There has never been such a thing as a "nuclear" family anyway- that's just a conservative myth. All families make their own arrangements, generally (tho' not always) for the good of the children. Don't know if that adds anything to this question, tho'.

monument

Originally posted by jerenaugrim
Don't know if that adds anything to this question, tho'.

Yes, it does, it says that Jak's argument is a conservative myth, which is some thing along the lines of what I was trying to say to him – he’s forming his opinion because of he thinks two parents in one unit with different genders is the natural, thus better way – in which case (so far I can only conclude) natural means normal, thus its really just the normal way, and normal does not directly translate to better.

He hasn’t really defined two parents in one unit with different genders any thing more then natural in any way two parents of the same genders could not also perform.

Zulu

Originally posted by monument
In my experience - taking into account my close family, extended family, people I know, and just people I know of and from one level to another – I’d have to agree with Beruthiel.

Q.E.D. :rolleyes:

Zulu

Originally posted by monument
...he’s forming his opinion because of he thinks two parents in one unit with different genders is the natural, thus better way – in which case (so far I can only conclude) natural means normal, thus its really just the normal way, and normal does not directly translate to better.

...Ok, even though I see this trap a mile off...
all things being equal, two parents of different sex (forming the natural child creating/raising couple) are naturally equiped to provide the baby/child with the best experience of male/female adult relationships, interaction and roles in society as a whole, and thus providing the child with the best oppertunities. Therefore - natural is best in this respect. Natural also must be acknowledged as normal (Male + Female = Child! - I'll try not to get into the science of it all :rolleyes: ). If it wasn't normal - then I don't think there would be 5 billion people.


He hasn’t really defined two parents in one unit with different genders any thing more then natural in any way two parents of the same genders could not also perform.
[/QUOTE]

Now I don't think (s)he was implying that. Same sex parents and single parents can often do a better job of raising children than alot of hetrosexual couples.

tendofan

I've been reading this debate more than contributing to it as most of the points I would make have been made by others, and better made than I could at that.

However, when we ask is it healthy for a child to have gay parents, don't we need to know what we mean by 'healthy', and aren't we really asking if the sexuality of a childs' guardians can have a detrimental effect on the child's development?

Most of the arguments I've read against same-sex parenting are thiny veiled bigotry:

i) "The child might grow up gay"
At the back of that is a belief in the inferiority of gay people, and a belief in the "nuture" theory of homosexuality. Although, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't been definitively rebutted, when last I checked, we weren't recruiting, and I seem to recall US studies showing that children of same-sex couples were no more/less likely to be gay than the general population.

ii) "The child might get bullied"
From first hand experience, bullying sucks and if mishandled can have long-lasting consequences, but you know, children get bullied for everything and anything, for being too fat/thin/brainy/thick/slow/poor/"wrong" clothes/accent because children are nasty little pieces of work, and if someone wants to bully you they're going to pick whatever weakness they can. Having environments that foster and encourage power games has more to do with bullying than anything else, and it's how the schools, sport-clubs and the childs' guardians work together. Claiming that you disagree with same-sex parenting because it might give the bullies another thing to beat a child up over is a specious excuse - it gives up on fixing the causes of bullying and dealing with the real problem child, the bully himself.

iii) "The child will miss out on gender influences"
Doesn't this assume that a child grows up in a hermetically sealed environment with no interaction with anyone outside the primary carers? By that logic, children of single parent families should suffer the same fate, yet I believe that studies have shown that despite the increased likelihood of poverty and disadvantage,well-adjusted people can and do emerge from single-parent families, as has been the case since Adam was a boy. If anything, it seems that stability, boundaries and consistency in an upbringing aid more in bringing up well-adjusted children in any type of family unit, be it single-parent (unmarried, widowed, separated), married, living-together etc.

The fact is that nowadays, gender roles are changing beyond all recognition, economic power is no longer solely in the gift of the male, though inequalities remain, and it's damn hard on parents to bring up any child, financially and emotionally, and there are very few children who don't spend their pre-school years and beyond in childcare of some sort (all hail the Grannies/Nannies of Ireland!) while the parents/guardians race hither and yon to keep a roof over their heads. Frankly, you'd have to ask sometimes why anyone, gay or straight would bother!

Also, it's not like adoption (in Ireland at any rate) is an easy process - there are strict rules including age-limits of applicants, and it takes a long time with extremely invasive and challenging assessments to assess the stability of the couple's relationship. If a couple can withstand the long term scrutiny and maintain the commitment to the process & by extension to the child, then they deserve the child.

In may opinion until a water-tight argument for the detrimental effect same-sex parents could have is made and backed up, I can't see a reason not to allow it.

Tendofan
Apologies if I've rambled...

BuffyBot

Apologies if I've rambled...

Actually, speaking for myself, I think it's a very good post!

p

Originally posted by Jak
Monument I'm sure you understood the core of what I said, and it still stands, feel free to play around with the phrasing though - Gay couples are unable to have children by virtue of nature

Their unable to have couples 'together'

Why look at the world so narrowly.
We have very different sexual cultures in different countries. It is entirely possible that a culture could develop where communities raise children more (like in some cultures) and sex people would hook up with someone of the opposite sex to have a child, while still remaining in their other relationship.

Our current monogamous culture isn't neccessarily 'natural' either.

monument

Originally posted by Zulu
Q.E.D. :rolleyes:

What is “QED”?

Originally posted by Zulu
...Ok, even though I see this trap a mile off...
all things being equal, two parents of different sex (forming the natural child creating/raising couple) are naturally equiped to provide the baby/child with the best experience of male/female adult relationships, interaction and roles in society as a whole, and thus providing the child with the best oppertunities.

naturally equipped to provide the baby/child with the best experience

Are you joking? It’s not built into people how to be a parents

Originally posted by Zulu
Therefore - natural is best in this respect. Natural also must be acknowledged as normal (Male + Female = Child! - I'll try not to get into the science of it all :rolleyes: ). If it wasn't normal - then I don't think there would be 5 billion people.

This is just what I mean! :rolleyes:

It may be natural for a male and female to create a child, however it is only seen as normal (by some) for both of them to bring then up.

Originally posted by Zulu
He hasn’t really defined two parents in one unit with different genders any thing more then natural in any way two parents of the same genders could not also perform.

Now I don't think (s)he was implying that. Same sex parents and single parents can often do a better job of raising children than alot of hetrosexual couples. [/QUOTE]

Jak has said two parents in one unit with different genders is the natural thing, I said he has not said is in any way the two parents of the same genders could not also perform just as well.

Zulu

Originally posted by monument
What is “QED”?

As demonstrated - ie: there is the proof.

Originally posted by monument

Are you joking? It’s not built into people how to be a parents

I guess nature got that one wrong over millions of years - thanks for pointing that out - now I see the truth. It's a miracle the human race has survived.

Originally posted by monument

It may be natural for a male and female to create a child, however it is only seen as normal (by some) for both of them to bring then up.

:rolleyes:
Normal is determined by the majority - sorry, but that is what it means. Please, please don't make me quote a dictonary.
I'm not saying right, I'm not saying wrong, I'm making a point that, in that circumstance (mixed couple), it will provide a more balanced experience for the child. (by balanced I mean both a male and female perspective of any given situation)
:rolleyes:
...sorry but I really couldn't understand what your last argument was.

monument

As demonstrated - ie: there is the proof.

Right, and I was only backing her up when Jak questioned how widespread her experience – so what was the point of "Q.E.D. "?

I guess nature got that one wrong over millions of years - thanks for pointing that out - now I see the truth. It's a miracle the human race has survived.

:rolleyes:

Having sexual intercourse is some what simpler then parenting a child.

:rolleyes:
Normal is determined by the majority - sorry, but that is what it means. Please, please don't make me quote a dictonary.

Yes I know what it means, why did you see the need to tell me?

I'm not saying right, I'm not saying wrong, I'm making a point that, in that circumstance (mixed couple), it will provide a more balanced experience for the child. (by balanced I mean both a male and female perspective of any given situation)

“both a male and female perspective of any given situation” – that’s bs, any perspective (or reaction) a parent would give to ‘any given situation’ would be more determent by their experience, personality, and their relationship with the child, then their gender


The bulk of the arguments against the thread topic are really like the women’s place is in the home talk (sic), in other words the arguments are based on what people think is ‘normal’.

yellum

{Friendly warning to all posters}
This debate is going well so far with some excellent arguments from most people bu even if it gets heated please do not start making personal digs or remarks.

{ .end. }

Vader

Originally posted by clownboy

Why shouldn't homosexuality be encouraged? homosexuality is pretty much love in same sex relationships.
Whether a man/woman loves a man/woman, its still love.


And isn't love the most important thing to teach children.
You don't seem to understand wat yellum and others are saying. They didn't chose to be gay, they were born that way.
The same way i was born heterosexual.

I think homosexual couples should be given the full rights that heterosexual couples are given.
Just cause both parents have the same reproduction organs doesn't make them any less of loving caring parents.

My arguements at no time questioned the ability of homosexuals couples to love children.
My main point is that children copy/ are influenced strongly by their parents. I dont think children
should be encouraged to be gay, that is not the same as saying those ppl who have choosen such a lifestyle should be discouraged.
The question of why shouldnt ppl be encouraged to be gay was answered in my previous post.
What would happen if everyone was gay?

Love is obviouly very impotant but it is not a parents only duty to a child.

I have said many times I believe I think homosexual couples should be given the full rights that heterosexual couples are given.
Nobody has the right to have children.

Originally posted by seamus



Your comparison is flawed. Paedophilia in it's garden or vulgaris form involves the exploitation of one person for the enjoyment of another. The key point is that in Paedophilia, there's no duality. How can a 2 year old child understand the reason for pictures being taken of him naked? In most other forms of sexual orientation, both (or all, if that's your thing) parties are aware of what's happening, are consentual in it happening. Paedophilia is not like that.
Apart from that, you don't decide your sexual orientation. You either are or you aren't. Homosexuality/Bisexuality are genetic anomalies, but so is short-sightedness, diabetes, cancer and a thousand other things that aren't stigmatised, and certainly aren't discouraged.

For the record, I'm straight, and wholly convinced that hate/fear/dislike/uncomfortableness of homosexuality are a product of insecurity in one's own sexuality and/or ignorance.

Not actually the comparison I was trying to make.
Does the child realise what the adult is doing is wrong?
Is it the paedophiles fault he feels the way he does? Does that mean he should be encouraged?

As for why you feel I arrived at my opinions; please consider this analogy:
Anyone who opposed the war in Iraq is an anti-american/terrorist/anti-christ and is simply jealous of americas freedom and democracy.

Originally posted by boomdogman


Pity Vader is barred cos he is right on a number of issues tho he does manage to put his rights together to make a good fat wrong. What I said was not directed at him but the substance of his arguement, The opening of my reply was to strong and should not have been phrased like that. I am sorry my intent was not to insult or belittle you Vader: Please forgive me and return to the central argument, I do value both your contribution and view point. It is not my intention to fight with you in this reply.

And yes I spelld a word rong. I do dis lots!

My reply was also too strong. Sorry. Btw in the opening paragraph I said
"I also said that ppl in same-sex relationships should be entitled to all the benefits that ppl in same sex relationships get. "
Thats not what I meant. You may have guessed this was a mistake from what I said before and what I said at the end of that post. What I meant was.
" I also said that ppl in same-sex relationships should be entitled to all the benefits that ppl in heterosexual relationships get. "

Originally posted by boomdogman
No one has a right to have children, the word "right" is a sorely abused term and should only apply to the completely
fundamental ie Right to life. Defining to many rights demeans the important ones and can cause uneccessary
complications as we try to balance competing rights.

Yes thats what I said.

Originally posted by boomdogman
The question is not the right to adopt but the welfare of the child. Since I don't see the sexual orientation of
the parents as defining the child's I believe arguements that gay people are unfit parents are fundamentally flawed .
....I do not know what makes us the sexuality we are.

Then my questions are these:
Do you believe parents are the primary influence on children?
Do you believe that ppl can change even their most sacred opinions?
If you dont know or wont hazard a guess as to how sexuality is acquired then you are unfit and by no means effective
in telling me it has nothing to do with the parents!

Originally posted by boomdogman
I can only repeat that the child of gay parents can have just as happy, useful and life enhancing childhood as the children
reared by straight parents.

Unless they turn out gay in which case the wont be able to reproduce.

Originally posted by boomdogman
Being gay should not rule people out of the adoption process.

Unless it would damage the health of the child ie
they turn out gay in which case the wont be able to reproduce.

Originally posted by boomdogman
Sexual Orientations are neither discourageable nor encouragable.

One with a continuity of existence is preferable, natural and thus encouragable imo.

Originally posted by boomdogman
I know a family of 3 brothers and 2 sisters all of whom are gay, yet their parents were, the on the evidence, fairly heterosexual.

If something is as cocentrated as that the the most logical conclusion is that an enviromental factor is responsible.
The parents dont have to be gay. The mother could be a total bítch or have done something/ or acted in such a way
as to give the sons a subconcious loathing for women. Thats just one explaination.

Originally posted by boomdogman
Throwing child molestation (to give it what should be its proper name) into the mix is useful.
Yes its an orientation but it fundamentally harms children by using them as sexual objects.
It is wrong and we try to protect children from such people. What consenting adults do is their business.

Not the point at all I was trying to make. Please see above.

Originally posted by boomdogman
We are not likely to run out out populatuion because gay people are allowed live freely without persecution.
No one chooses to be gay or straight based on social tolerance. If they did we would not have child molesters.

The point was to show you the extreme of what could happen. But the point remains, if the number of gays increase then the population decreases
If they all want to adopt then demand increases on agencies (which have fewer orphans because of decreasing populations) so the
problem of homosexuals being childless remains.

Originally posted by p

What about handicapped people. Should they be allowed adopt. Someone in a wheelchair for example, or someone who's deaf?
Maybe the kid would be influenced by their parents' disability and want to be disabled themselves.
Sound ludacris?

Yes you sound ludacris, probably because you took a sound arguement and perverted it.
Well done.

If two couples came into an orphanage or some such institution. One member of couple A was deaf but neither of couple B was.
Which would it be best to give the child to?
The one which could best fulfil the childs needs.
Could they both fulfill them to the same degree?

Vader

Originally posted by monument


Re: Do you think it healthy for a child to have Gay Parents ?
Do you think it healthy for a child to have Gay Parents?

In an ideal world - no more or less then two parents of different genders.
However because of “norms of society” there can be problems such as bulling in school. So maybe it’s not currently totally healthy - because of society’s problems and not just because the parents are gay.
Given the fact that civil unions and rights for same sex couples are on the way, what do you think about gay couples having kids?
Having kids? Well I don’t think gay goats are able to have kids.
If you mean one of two female parents giving birth to a child, I see nothing morally different then a woman in a different gender relationship having a child that way.
Do you think its right for two gay men to bring a child into this world?
Already answered.
Will the child be able to handle any bullying and taunting?
That’s like asking - Will any child handle any bullying and taunting for any reason?
Will the child feel pressured to be gay the same way gay people felt pressured to conform to the norms of society?
I don’t know, I’m not gay or bisexual (nor was I when I was a child) and it’s not because of conforming to the norms of society (I have my reasons which I don’t want to discuss publicly), so I don’t know really know how gay people feel pressured about such.
But if I was imagine… yes, but it would only be normal, as when people are pressured to conform in any other case.
Do you think that once the parents look after the child and take care of it properly the sexuality of the parents doesn't matter?
Yes.

Interesting. You agree that the child would be more inclined to be gay but that this wouldnt matter.
I believe that is the central issue. Heterosexuality should be encourage over homosexuality.
One will ensure the child can start his own family, the other will not. The desire to have a family is clear from this thread,
surely the actions which best satisfy this desire is what the parents want for their children.
There is a serious contradiction here.

Originally posted by Jak

I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt or get a surrogate to have a child. I don't believe that a same sex couple can offer the same balance to a child's life that a natural couple can. And I use natural there in the sense that the couple can have kids by themselves. I also think that it is grossly unfair to the child, and I really don't think you can compare standard bullying to some poor kid having to pioneer the whole bloody scheme for his two dads or mums throughout their entire school and adult life.
Before someone asks if I think single mothers or fathers can give good balance to a child - the answer is - not really. That isn't to say I don't think some single parents go to great lengths and do amazing jobs, I just think it is not ideal. And while some families unfortunately end up in a single parent situation - I don't think anyone would say it is preferable. I don't think a lone individual should be allowed to adopt either.
Essentially I think unless the conditions for the child in an orphanage are very bad that the only people who should be considered for adoption are stable hetro family units ... because that is the natural environment for a child. If orphanages were really unable to cope, then maybe adoption should be opened to other categories, but I really think gay couples should be toward the end of that list of possibles, with other groups excluded altogether.
Gay people can't have kids - get over it, it's part of who you are.

JAK.

More or less my sentiments.

Originally posted by monument
Only because it’s not "natural"? Or should I say not normal?
It sounds as if your feelings against gay people are getting in the way of making an unbiased answer for the questions.
Also the way some "stable hetro family units" are bringing up children I couldn’t see gay family units doing much worse.

No you should not substitute the words natural for normal, its a good thing you asked could you could make a fool of yourself.
Norms change from place to place. What is natural doesnt.
I hope this answers your question.

You cant say I should be a parent cause person X has a child and they are a crap parent. The sad truth is that that is sometimes the case
but that doesnt mean we should revert to lesser of two evil senarios.

Vader

Originally posted by dictatorcat



Why is [a single mother] not ideal? Is is better for a child to grow up with a single loving parent, or an abusive father, an alcoholic mother? What about children who have a parent in prison or on drugs? Are you living in the 50's when we should be dancing at the crossroads?


So who else is on this mystical list of [ppl who arent ideal canditates for adoption, Jak]?
The healthiest environment for a child to grow up in is with loving parents, regardless of religious creed,
race, sexual orientation etc. Would you pull a child away from it's parents if they were not on your list?
And what would you say to that child? No you can't live with your parents who you love and who love you in return
because they're gay, single etc. Be careful who you put on your list, you may find yourself on it oneday!

Again lesser of two evils senarios have no place here. The cases you refer to are not wide spread and anyway you have misinterpreted the question.
Please refer to my america analogy above re: the wat you slipped orientation in beside race.

Originally posted by monument




quote:
Incidentally monument a gay couple will never form a 'natural' family unit as they cannot 'naturally' have children.
A gay couple being able to form a 'natural' family unit and them not being able to “'naturally' have children” are two different things.
Saying they would not be able to “form a 'natural' family unit” just because they can’t “'naturally' have children”, is simply stupid - as to just imply such would also imply any couple who could not “'naturally' have children” would not be able to “form a 'natural' family unit”.

It is far from stupid. It is quite logical. You have twisted it a bit. Same sex couples cant form a natural family unit as
a natural family unit comprises of two diferent sex parents.

Originally posted by Jak




Monument I'm sure you understood the core of what I said, and it still stands, feel free to play around with the phrasing though - Gay couples are unable to have children by virtue of nature - taking the example of an infertile male and female is not the same thing. A gay couple do not form a balanced unit in my view - while this makes no difference if they are happy together, it makes a large difference in my view when a child is not receiving the benefit of such a natural balance.
I genuinely believe men and women contribute to the balanced upbringing of a child, moreso than any individual or same sex individuals ever could. They bring two halfs of what a balanced upbringing should be. An all male or all female influence does not do this. Adoption gives us a choice for the child as do surrogate laws and I feel it should always be the case that a child goes to a natural family environment - i.e. A Mother and Father.

Buffybot - a gay couple cannot have children. Now if you want to dither off talking about a straight person having kids and then moving into a gay relationship and kidnapping them - knock yourself out. Actually I would be interested to know if there are any Irish cases where a man and woman have broken up and one of them received custody whilst being in a homosexual relationship? In any case - I don't believe it should be permitted here, via surrogacy or otherwise. The child should at least end up in the usual joint custody/ with visiting rights.

Yellum I'm aware surrogacy and adoption are different concepts. Similar to the question above for Buffybot, I understand how a gay man could come to have a child, but do all these gay dads have full custody and live with another man? I don't believe this should be allowed either if that is the case, for the same reasons above.

Bottom line is I never had a problem with an individual's personal freedoms - however I hold the opinion that those freedoms do not extend to a child. In an ideal world lots of people who are not fit to be parents would not have children, I see no reason to add same sex couples to that list where we have the power to do so.

JAK.

Again more or less my sentiments.
The balance two fifferent genders bring to a family unit is very important and needs to be discussed in more detail.
I was planning to do so with my second last post about my mother and father but I didnt get round to it in time.

Originally posted by Beruthiel



Originally posted by Jak
I genuinely believe men and women contribute to the balanced upbringing of a child, moreso than any individual or same sex individuals ever could. They bring two halfs of what a balanced upbringing should be



ya that happens in fairy land
I have one sister who is a single mother
and another who is with a bloke who just takes up space on this planet and will only teach his two daughters every negative thing you could possible teach a child about a man
my daughter (and my 3rd sisters daughter) have to contend with seperated parents.
baring all that in mind, I do not see how same sex parents could bring up a child any worse/better than my family

Are you saying that you and your 3 sisters have made bad choices as regards to men and that you are attributing
this to the influence of your parents. That would seem to suggest that parents do indeed have a major influence on their
childrens sexual choices.

Originally posted by yellum


quote:

Originally posted by Jak
the best balance is brought through a suitably vetted mixed couple.



A mixed couple, ok. So do you believe that a male brings some attributes and a female brings others that the other would not have ? So that a male and a female influence is needed as one cannot cover everything ?

That would be mine as well.

Originally posted by Zulu



There is nothing wrong with same sex parents or single parents. They can raise a perfectly normal and healthy person.

...But the simple fact remains, a child learns a significant amount from their parents. Included in this is the understanding of interpersonal relationships.
If a hetrosexual child is riased in a homosexual envirnoment, then they must seek knowledge of male/female relationships elsewhere. A male/female child will be lacking a male/female role model. While these can be found elsewhere (school/grandparents) the child will benfit more if they are submersed in this envirnoment 24/7.

I would dissagree. I would attribute a lot of social problem today to the lack of strong/suitable role models.

Originally posted by yellum


Originally posted by Zulu

Men and Women think in different ways, approach matters in different ways. Do you not agree with this?



Yes absolutely. The more viewpoints a child has the better though. I'm just wondering how much influence parents have on the child after a certain age or even throughout the childs development nowadays and what a parent can influence most.

Seems that the environment around the child, friends, neighbours etc. is becoming more influencing.

I reiterate my earlier point on the importance of strong role models.

Originally posted by Beruthiel



Originally posted by yellum
Seems that the environment around the child, friends, neighbours etc. is becoming more influencing.



you are correct
I have a strong infulence on my daughter
however
her peers infulence is just as strong, if not stronger at times

Alot of instruction is subconcious. Picking up habits for example and developing similar personalities.
I would maintain that the strongest influence should be that of the parents.

Originally posted by lafortezza

I'd say that these day the biggest influence on kids is TV/Internet and music/radio. How many kids don't see their parents apart from an hour or two in the evenings, and hour in the mornings, and maybe a day on the weekends. Some even less than that.

Unless you are talking about kids in college or who have moved out then you are describing a fairly disfunctional family.


TV is the worst influence a child could have, or any person for that matter.

Originally posted by Beruthiel


I believe what he is saying is, there are very few well balanced, stable happy mother and father units out there, I wish there were, but there aren't. I am quite sure that my family is no different from any other.
I won't even go into my two alcoholic uncles and alcoholic aunt and what they’ve done to their respective families

what I’m trying to say here is, that yes, it would be wonderful if things were as we would like them to be but the reality is, they’re not and if there is a good strong gay couple looking to take care of a child, it would be a child better taken care of than many out there

If that s true then I really feel lucky.

Vader

Originally posted by lafortezza




Isn't the reality though, that there's a huge waiting list of heterosexual couples medically unable to have kids of their own for adopting?
I'm sure these couple are all vetted thouroughly for a good stable, economically healthy family setup.
Since demand outweighs supply of babies for adoption, is it possible (in theory) that any same-sex couples would be placed high up on that list.
And should they be placed ahead of hetero couples given that all other factors are the same?

Seems to me that its not going to happen any time soon (in Ireland anyway).
I'd be kind of siding with Jak up til this point, only just though. As long as there's a waiting list of "adequate family man-woman" units they should get priority over same-sex family units when it comes to adoption.

Surrogacy is a different mindfield though, especially when you consider paying money for sperm doners etc.

Whats the logic behind that statement?
Would they not be placed beneth the hetero couples since they could provide a healthier enviroment?
Who could provide a healthier enviroment is the central issue here?

Originally posted by boomdogman




Pioneer the scheme sez jak?
There are already kids in families of two gay parents. Lets hear it for the lesbian moms!
So they can't adopt the kids of one of the partners?

Lots of children are being raised in single sex households, get over it.

You have a habbit of missing points.
Why should we accept things that are wrong?
Im not a conformatist.

Originally posted by jerenaugrim


There has never been such a thing as a "nuclear" family anyway- that's just a conservative myth.
All families make their own arrangements, generally (tho' not always) for the good of the children.
Don't know if that adds anything to this question, tho'.

Nuclear and stably might have two different meanings to ppl.

Originally posted by monument




Yes, it does, it says that Jak's argument is a conservative myth, which is some thing along the lines of what I was trying to
say to him – he’s forming his opinion because of he thinks two parents in one unit with different genders is the natural,
thus better way – in which case (so far I can only conclude) natural means normal,
thus its really just the normal way, and normal does not directly translate to better.

He hasn’t really defined two parents in one unit with different genders any thing more then natural
in any way two parents of the same genders could not also perform.

Monument you are being anything but fair and polite. Jak is conducting himself quite well and I understand what he is trying to say quite well.
Diliberatly misunderstanding him doesnt damage his arguement in anyway. It makes you seem stupid and petty which Im sure you dont want to
seem.
I have answered your questions for Jak and elabourated on his points above.

Vader

Originally posted by tendofan



I've been reading this debate more than contributing to it as most of the points I would make have been made by others,
and better made than I could at that.

However, when we ask is it healthy for a child to have gay parents, don't we need to know what we mean by 'healthy',
and aren't we really asking if the sexuality of a childs' guardians can have a detrimental effect on the child's development?


Most of the arguments I've read against same-sex parenting are thiny veiled bigotry:

i) "The child might grow up gay"
At the back of that is a belief in the inferiority of gay people, and a belief in the "nuture" theory of homosexuality.
Although, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't been definitively rebutted, when last I checked, we weren't recruiting,
and I seem to recall US studies showing that children of same-sex couples were no more/less likely to be gay
than the general population.


ii) "The child might get bullied"
From first hand experience, bullying sucks and if mishandled can have long-lasting consequences, but you know,
children get bullied for everything and anything, for being too fat/thin/brainy/thick/slow/poor/"wrong"
clothes/accent because children are nasty little pieces of work, and if someone wants to bully you they're going to pick
whatever weakness they can. Having environments that foster and encourage power games has more to do with bullying than
anything else, and it's how the schools, sport-clubs and the childs' guardians work together.

Claiming that you disagree with same-sex parenting because it might give the bullies another thing to beat a child up over is
a specious excuse - it gives up on fixing the causes of bullying and dealing with the real problem child, the bully himself.


iii) "The child will miss out on gender influences"
Doesn't this assume that a child grows up in a hermetically sealed environment with no interaction with anyone outside
the primary carers? By that logic, children of single parent families should suffer the same fate,
yet I believe that studies have shown that despite the increased likelihood of poverty and disadvantage,
well-adjusted people can and do emerge from single-parent families, as has been the case since Adam was a boy.
If anything, it seems that stability, boundaries and consistency in an upbringing aid more in bringing up
well-adjusted children in any type of family unit, be it single-parent (unmarried, widowed, separated), married,
living-together etc.

The fact is that nowadays, gender roles are changing beyond all recognition, economic power is no longer solely in the
gift of the male, though inequalities remain, and it's damn ####### parents to bring up any child,
financially and emotionally, and there are very few children who don't spend their pre-school years and beyond in
childcare of some sort (all hail the Grannies/Nannies of Ireland!) while the parents/guardians race hither and yon
to keep a roof over their heads. Frankly, you'd have to ask sometimes why anyone, gay or straight would bother!

Also, it's not like adoption (in Ireland at any rate) is an easy process - there are strict rules including age-limits
of applicants, and it takes a long time with extremely invasive and challenging assessments to assess the stability of
the couple's relationship. If a couple can withstand the long term scrutiny and maintain the commitment to the process
& by extension to the child, then they deserve the child.

In may opinion until a water-tight argument for the detrimental effect same-sex parents could have is made and backed up,
I can't see a reason not to allow it.

Tendofan
Apologies if I've rambled...

Now heres a great post that Im dissappointed I missed.
(i) Be careful of the bigot theory or anything along those roads. You dont seem to have read the thread as clearly as you say.
See my american analogy.

(ii) Bullying will never be elimenated. Simple reason: you cant expect maturity from children.

(iii) I put very little faith in anything that comes out of the US and anyway you havent sourced these studies.
It is my opinion that children to single mothers lose out.

The arguements for the health of the child have been made. This is a long thread, might you have missed something?

Originally posted by p





Originally posted by Jak
Monument I'm sure you understood the core of what I said, and it still stands, feel free to play around with the phrasing though - Gay couples are unable to have children by virtue of nature

Their unable to have couples 'together'

Why look at the world so narrowly.
We have very different sexual cultures in different countries. It is entirely possible that a culture could develop where communities raise children more (like in some cultures) and sex people would hook up with someone of the opposite sex to have a child, while still remaining in their other relationship.

Our current monogamous culture isn't neccessarily 'natural' either.

The question is the method of creating a family not the manner.

Originally posted by monument



What is “QED”?
quote:

Its greek it means proved as above but there was no proof with it so Zulu doesnt know what it means either.

Originally posted by Zulu



I guess nature got that one wrong over millions of years - thanks for pointing that out - now I see the truth. It's a miracle the human race has survived.



Normal is determined by the majority - sorry, but that is what it means. Please, please don't make me quote a dictonary.
I'm not saying right, I'm not saying wrong, I'm making a point that, in that circumstance (mixed couple), it will provide a more balanced experience for the child. (by balanced I mean both a male and female perspective of any given situation)

...sorry but I really couldn't understand what your last argument was.

Ppl arent born with good parenting skills, that is actually what is evident from history. Right up untill the present day actually,
a certain poster on this thread gave a perfect example of that.

You have the right definition of normal and normal was the right word for monument to use. What the majority think ie whats normal,
varies from place to place. However (s)he should have said "most" not "some".
The basic arguement is sound, throughout nature the way young are cared for differs. WE are now entering the relem of morality not normality or nature.

Originally posted by monument


As demonstrated - ie: there is the proof.

Right, and I was only backing her up when Jak questioned how widespread her experience – so what was the point of "Q.E.D. "?


Having sexual intercourse is some what simpler then parenting a child.

Yes I know what it means, why did you see the need to tell me?



“both a male and female perspective of any given situation” – that’s bs, any perspective (or reaction) a parent would give to ‘any given situation’ would be more determent by their experience, personality, and their relationship with the child, then their gender


The bulk of the arguments against the thread topic are really like the women’s place is in the home talk (sic), in other words the arguments are based on what people think is ‘normal’.

bs, BS! Thats incredable. Women and men are different.very. They generally use different sides of their brain.
There is no way you can sell the idea that men and the women are the same.

Vader

I know that was a mouthful, 33005 chacacters, I hope you took the time to read it, but if you didnt I understand.

Ronaldo7

No no no.

Why? Because its not natural. You dont see two male penguins ****ing each other and raising a mini pingu, and theres no adoption in the penguin world so if penguins cant adopt mini pingu's then no.

Unless the two penguins can produce, only then will it be normal. So **** that idea. NO!

phreak

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
No no no.

Why? Because its not natural. You dont see two male penguins ****ing each other and raising a mini pingu, and theres no adoption in the penguin world so if penguins cant adopt mini pingu's then no.

Unless the two penguins can produce, only then will it be normal. So **** that idea. NO!

you're an idiot.

how can you compare penguins to humans?

penguins don't use the internet either...you better get off quickly! I could go on but i won't...

monument

Originally posted by Vader
quote:

---

Originally posted by monument

quote:
Incidentally monument a gay couple will never form a 'natural' family unit as they cannot 'naturally' have children.
A gay couple being able to form a 'natural' family unit and them not being able to “'naturally' have children” are two different things.
Saying they would not be able to “form a 'natural' family unit” just because they can’t “'naturally' have children”, is simply stupid - as to just imply such would also imply any couple who could not “'naturally' have children” would not be able to “form a 'natural' family unit”.

---

[/B]

Could you ‘cease and desist’ reposting my posts incorrectly as the italic text in my posts is where I was quoting someone, and it now looks as if I had said what they did!!!

monument

“…I believe that is the central issue. Heterosexuality should be encourage over homosexuality.

One will ensure the child can start his own family, the other will not. The desire to have a family is clear from this thread…”

Heterosexuality does not “ensure the child can start his own family”, of course being heterosexual currently makes it easier. Using ‘ensure’ borders on implying guarantee("To make sure or certain")

So really the “central issue” for would be removed if the forum topic was answered with a ‘yes’ (by government etc…)?

---

“You agree that the child would be more inclined to be gay but that this wouldn’t matter”

For the record I don’t think a child should be encouraged to be gay or straight, no matter what sexuality.

---

”No you should not substitute the words natural for normal, its a good thing you asked could you could make a fool of yourself.”

I’m not trying to substitute any thing – the English languish does that for me!

(PS could you stop the personal attacks? – even more so when you’re wrong!)

---

“Norms change from place to place. What is natural doesnt.
I hope this answers your question.”

No, but the dictionary should answer yours.

---

”It is far from stupid. It is quite logical. You have twisted it a bit. Same sex couples cant form a natural family unit as
a natural family unit comprises of two diferent sex parents.”

Again please refer to ‘natural’ in the dictionary.

---

“Monument you are being anything but fair and polite. Jak is conducting himself quite well and I understand what he is trying to say quite well.”

Yes he is conducting himself quite well…

Originally posted by Jak
Maybe you could do another one of your hilarious explanations on this post?

---

“bs, BS! Thats incredable. Women and men are different.very. They generally use different sides of their brain.
There is no way you can sell the idea that men and the women are the same.”

Be very careful there, I said…

“any perspective (or reaction) a parent would give to ‘any given situation’ would be more determent by their experience, personality, and their relationship with the child, then their gender”

So, let’s recap for you - I said that their perspective would be *more* determent by other factors… could you please avoid implying/saying I have said things I have not?

yellum

Vader, guess what, you didn't have to reply to every single line of text that was posted since you were banned ok ?

Also Q.E.D. is latin.

that is not the same as saying those ppl who have choosen such a lifestyle should be discouraged.

Its not a choice. Did you choose to be straight ? Do you decide who you find attractive ? Do you choose to fall in love ?

Ronaldo7

how can you compare penguins to humans?

Penguins arent the issue you clown. Its the principle. You dont see two male tigers ****ing each other, you dont see two male anythings ****ing each other...its not natural.

phreak

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
Penguins arent the issue you clown. Its the principle. You dont see two male tigers ****ing each other, you dont see two male anythings ****ing each other...its not natural.

not natural? hardly anything humans do these days is "natural". we've evolved...well at least some of us have.

ixoy

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
Penguins arent the issue you clown. Its the principle. You dont see two male tigers ****ing each other, you dont see two male anythings ****ing each other...its not natural.

Hello clown! Here's a link to a Salon article detailing homosexual/bisexual practices in the animal kingdom. Next time you talk, be nice if you had all the facts

Atreides

This thread has basically become a discussion about the morality of homosexuality, where children are being used as shields for people to express there blatant homophobia, with out fear of being branded as such. This is about weather or not same sex couples should be allowed kids, or put another way, is it right for parents not to have a father or a mother. Now we have all seen cases of children being raised by a single gender, A friend of mine was raised by his mother and sisters and has a very ****ed up view of women as a result. Same sex parents mean that a child will be lacking input from one gender, and no matter how many people you surround them with who love them, this does not make up for that. Sure you can say the child will have aunts and/uncles, but that's not always the case and isn't a factor in a normal adoption let alone a same sex one.

Atreides

Originally posted by ixoy
Hello clown! Here's a link to a Salon article detailing homosexual/bisexual practices in the animal kingdom. Next time you talk, be nice if you had all the facts

You see you made a Very good point, monkeys seem to have no problem screwing each other, reguardless of gender, but you really shouldn't call him a clown, that way when he is banned, you *might* get a ban as well.

Ronaldo7

Originally posted by Skanger
You see you made a Very good point, monkeys seem to have no problem screwing each other, reguardless of gender, but you really shouldn't call him a clown, that way when he is banned, you *might* get a ban as well.

Why would i be banned?

Ronaldo7

BTW: its never going to happen in this country so **** that.