NationStates Jolt Archive

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?

I'm fine with it.

P.S.: First reply? Cool!

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.

I don't see a good reason not to

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?
My crazy deluded opinion is that they have every right to be a parent, and do a good deed in the process.

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.
Good point.

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.

Well said.

I don't mind if they adopt, it's just . . . the child must be strong enough to take the ridicule they will face in the later years.

What a sad world we live in.

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.

Adoption is not foster parenting silly. Step down to a lower soapbox.

Im fine with both.

its very hard to find good foster parents. if a gay couple passes the extensive background fitness test, there is no reason for them not to be foster parents.

I wish I had had homosexual parents, be they foster or otherwise. No such luck, though - gay parents are a gift I was not blessed with.

Alas, I was stuck with a couple of bigoted breeders whose clutches I could not wait to escape.

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.

Well said.

I don't mind if they adopt, it's just . . . the child must be strong enough to take the ridicule they will face in the later years.

What a sad world we live in.

All kids face ridicule, for everything. Once certain sections of the population quit trying to make such a big deal out of the gender-orientation of parents and guardians... it won't BE a big deal.

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.

There are no 'normal' households.

I think that there's nothing wrong with gay couples raising children, so long as they don't try and force their sexuality on their children. Surely so long as they care for the child and let it make its own decesions about itself, it doesn't matter, does it?

There are no 'normal' households.

Don't bother. The "ick" factor is strong in this one. The honesty of such is at least commendable, if the existence regrettable.

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?
THANK YOU! Damn. Bout time someone got it. I mean, take a foster kid, an already troubled child, then throw him into a "family" without a father/mother, and it's just sad...Sad...

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.
Are you saying homosexuality is something the child learns?

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.
Surely there are heterosexual couples that lead a even more abnormal, or perhaps abusive, household, than the average homosexual couple? Why apply such a blanket restriction?

THANK YOU! Damn. Bout time someone got it. I mean, take a foster kid, an already troubled child, then throw him into a "family" without a father/mother, and it's just sad...Sad...
LOL. :p

It doesn't really matter.
When children require fostering, as long as those parents/guardians/whatever are stong enough to deal with the child fairly, then it can only be a good thing. Stopping someone/couple/whatever from doing so only continues to engender the idea that such people are, somehow, unworthy or untrustworthy and only adds "fuel to the fire" that such people are incapable of doing something that they would otherwise be perfectly fit for.

I see no reason why not, the child needs a loving parent or parents and if they happen to be two men or two women then so what?

This wouldn't influence the child's sexuality anyway, it's been tested and a child's sexuality is not influenced by the orientation of their family.

At this rate it would become banned for black parents to foster a white child, or for single people/the elderly to be excluded aswell.

I think that there's nothing wrong with gay couples raising children, so long as they don't try and force their sexuality on their children. Surely so long as they care for the child and let it make its own decesions about itself, it doesn't matter, does it?

Because no heterosexual couple has ever tried to force heterosexuality on their homosexual children.

You're right though. In a perfect world, a child would be accepted by his/her parents regardless of sexuality.

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.

Or what they will get gay cooties?

A loving household is far better then a state program.

What's wrong with it? Homosexuality has in fact been increasingly linked to nature not nurture, so you can't say 'but they'll turn the kid gay and that's WRONG'. And if these people are loving, caring parents who are capable of raising the child in a way that its heterosexual parents were unable to, then surely they should be allowed to regardless of sexual orientation? Remember: religion, tradition and societorial pressures dictate what a 'normal' family is: what if heterosexual families were 'abnormal'? How would you react to that?

Bonus: If the child has a good upbringing by homosexual parents, then it's less likely that they grow up to be homophobic, and society will be one person closer to becoming a truly accepting one.

THANK YOU! Damn. Bout time someone got it. I mean, take a foster kid, an already troubled child, then throw him into a "family" without a father/mother, and it's just sad...Sad...

Then get all your bible thumping ilk to adopt all the kids in the system.

I think that there's nothing wrong with gay couples raising children, so long as they don't try and force their sexuality on their children.

I don't see many straight people bitching when straight parents force their sexuality on their children. In fact, I see many, many straight people encourage it. Why the double-standard?

Well said.

I don't mind if they adopt, it's just . . . the child must be strong enough to take the ridicule they will face in the later years.

What a sad world we live in.
every child WILL be ridiculed for something at some point in their young lives. We don't give children nearly enough credit for how well they respond to things that many people would shield them from whilst screaming "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.
define "normal". There has been nothing to show that homosexual parents have any abnormal impact upon the child in question, be that impact abnormally positive or negative.

Should grandparents be allowed to raise their child? How about uncle and aunt? God parents? A single mother working two jobs to make ends meat? An older sibling?

"normal" doesn't exist outside of our minds.

every child WILL be ridiculed for something at some point in their young lives. We don't give children nearly enough credit for how well they respond to things that many people would shield them from whilst screaming "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

What these people don't realise is that someone IS thinking of the children. See that gay couple in the corner? They're thinking of adopting the children. But the others don't want them to, but don't want to adopt someone else's child either. So they stick them in an orphanage and complain about overcrouding there.

I don't see many straight people bitching when straight parents force their sexuality on their children. In fact, I see many, many straight people encourage it. Why the double-standard?

There is no double standard. I don't belive in anybody forcing their beliefs, views or sexuality on anybody. Just in my expericence this is one argument I have heard from people against homosexual couples adopting children

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.

very strong arguement,and i agree!

i myself am against it,why i have no idea.

i have many friends that are homosexual,i myself am sorta bi...and the gays i know are probably the most decent,honest,loving people i have ever met.

the other shoe drops....for some inate reason,i feel it will harm their progression thru childhood into adulthood.

not because there is anything inherently wrong with being gay,because there is not,but i guess i feel the child needs both influences,of a mom and a dad.

and believe me,some of my friends parents were fucking nightmares as examples...and the kid would have been better off anywhere then there...but are we not talking about a perfect world here?

in a perfect world,child has the influences of a mom and a dad,and learns acorrdingly,how to react to the opposite sex.

and is influenced by both.

this is not to discount the fact that i believe homosexuality is not a learned lifestyle,or choice if you will,my point is,that the influences of the 2 differing sexes helps in the overall developement of everyone.

i am not saying that gays are bad influences,i am just saying the child does not get the full influence he/she could have..in a perfect world.

What these people don't realise is that someone IS thinking of the children. See that gay couple in the corner? They're thinking of adopting the children. But the others don't want them to, but don't want to adopt someone else's child either. So they stick them in an orphanage and complain about overcrouding there.
hear, hear.

Any person who wants a child to have a Perfect life...to never once feel pain, to never experience hardship, to always have plenty and to always be happy wants their child to never know what it is to be alive.

There is no double standard. I don't belive in anybody forcing their beliefs, views or sexuality on anybody. Just in my expericence this is one argument I have heard from people against homosexual couples adopting children

Forcing their sexuality on children has never disqualified straight people from parenting, obviously, so why should it gay people? Why should the issue even be raised, if it is as is apparent not seen as a problem when straight people do it?

Then get all your bible thumping ilk to adopt all the kids in the system.
Would that I could...Would that I could.

i myself am against it,why i have no idea.

And who can argue with such truthiness?

i am not saying that gays are bad influences,i am just saying the child does not get the full influence he/she could have..in a perfect world.

Because gay men know no women, and gay women know no men.

I don't see many straight people bitching when straight parents force their sexuality on their children. In fact, I see many, many straight people encourage it. Why the double-standard?

Does this mean that you are for homosexual parents attempting to force homosexuality on their kids? Is this the single standard you hope for?

Does this mean that you are for homosexual parents attempting to force homosexuality on their kids? Is this the single standard you hope for?
No, he means he's against straight people forcing heterosexuality on kids. I agree. Nobody should force sexuality of any sort on kids.

Because gay men know no women, and gay women know no men.

I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, or I'll have to start checking my gender.

Forcing their sexuality on children has never disqualified straight people from parenting, obviously, so why should it gay people? Why should the issue even be raised, if it is as is apparent not seen as a problem when straight people do it?

Personally, I do see it as a problem when straight people do it. Unfortunatly, I am not in a position to do anything about it. I think any parent that tries to force their children to take certain views on the world should not be allowed to adopt. And I'm sorry if I made it seem as if this only applied to gay couples.

And who can argue with such truthiness?



Because gay men know no women, and gay women know no men.

point taken!

like i said in my truthiness..it just feels wrong to me,and i am not a homophobe..far from it.

i will say there is a huge difference with having a mom and dad raise you and male/female influences thru friends..big difference.

No, he means he's against straight people forcing heterosexuality on kids.

I think you are probably right. It just wasnt the direction his argument was heading however.

very strong arguement,and i agree!

i myself am against it,why i have no idea.

i have many friends that are homosexual,i myself am sorta bi...and the gays i know are probably the most decent,honest,loving people i have ever met.

the other shoe drops....for some inate reason,i feel it will harm their progression thru childhood into adulthood.

not because there is anything inherently wrong with being gay,because there is not,but i guess i feel the child needs both influences,of a mom and a dad.

and believe me,some of my friends parents were fucking nightmares as examples...and the kid would have been better off anywhere then there...but are we not talking about a perfect world here?

in a perfect world,child has the influences of a mom and a dad,and learns acorrdingly,how to react to the opposite sex.

and is influenced by both.

this is not to discount the fact that i believe homosexuality is not a learned lifestyle,or choice if you will,my point is,that the influences of the 2 differing sexes helps in the overall developement of everyone.

i am not saying that gays are bad influences,i am just saying the child does not get the full influence he/she could have..in a perfect world.

1) Think about it - almost all gay offspring come from 'straight' parents... there is no connection there.

2) Just because Timmy has two dads... doesn't mean he gets NO female role models.

3) A loving environment, with two parents that care... how can that be negative?

1) Think about it - almost all gay offspring come from 'straight' parents... there is no connection there.

2) Just because Timmy has two dads... doesn't mean he gets NO female role models.

3) A loving environment, with two parents that care... how can that be negative?

Here, here

Are you saying homosexuality is something the child learns?
Yeah. Kids are impressionable. I think they basically tune in to all that. When people recall their first urges, I don't think that was their already established nature making itself known, I think that's the time the impression was made. And for a minority, there will be an error. The wrong thing acquired. I don't think you can control it, but not immersing kids in that culture is an obvious step to take.

The normality of heterosexuality is self-evident and need not be defended. We're talking 90%, and it is the natural reproductive behaviour. The product of nature, evolution, etc. Homosexuality is an aberration in that respect, not something for which people should be specially persecuted any more than say, a disability, but on the other hand not something to be encouraged.

point taken!

like i said in my truthiness..it just feels wrong to me,and i am not a homophobe..far from it.

i will say there is a huge difference with having a mom and dad raise you and male/female influences thru friends..big difference.
you'd be amazed. Think of your personal heros...one that isn't family. I'm willing to bet he/she had an enormous impact on your life.

Additionally, look at a child that only has one parent for whatever reason...Someone moves to take that empty spot...a teacher, a friend, a religious leader, camp counselor...someone takes that spot.

I wish I had had homosexual parents, be they foster or otherwise. No such luck, though - gay parents are a gift I was not blessed with.

Alas, I was stuck with a couple of bigoted breeders whose clutches I could not wait to escape.

you have issues,just as it was not pleasant for you,cause the world is not perfect...as i said,i had friends that would have been better off on the streets,others have the reverse opinion..that were in reverse situations i would imagine.

i think that a gay couple would probably shower any kid with love,as they are pretty sensitive to others needs,but that is not the point i was trying to make.
simply,a gay child would have 2 differing sexes to learn attributes from..in a perfect world.

again,i agree,most kids would be better off in a gay couples "clutches" then alot are in so called normal situations.

not my point!

like i said in my truthiness..it just feels wrong to me,and i am not a homophobe..far from it.


You might want to meditate on this. It sounds a lot like things I've heard along the lines of "No, I like black people, I have lots of black friends... I just wouldn't want MY daughter marrying one..."

i will say there is a huge difference with having a mom and dad raise you and male/female influences thru friends..big difference.

Rather depends on the family arrangement. As busy as most people are today, one parent often ends up greatly under-represented anyway. And - a lot of families like in less 'nuclear' situations than was once true... a sister that lives with... a couple living in mom's house, etc..

Does this mean that you are for homosexual parents attempting to force homosexuality on their kids?

I am for it not mattering as long as it doesn't matter when straight parents do it.

Is this the single standard you hope for?

I know first hand how futile attempts by parents to force their sexuality on their kids is, so I don't see why it should be a problem to be raised with gay parents. It won't make the kids gay as little as having straight parents force their sexuality on their gay kids made those kids straight.

One could say I resent the implication that having the straight people urge their kids to be straight is "good," while having the gay parents urging their kids to be gay is "bad." Either forcing your sexuality on your kids is bad across the board, or it is good across the board. In any case, singling out gay parents for it by only mentioning it in conjunction with gay parenting is spurious.

Yeah. Kids are impressionable. I think they basically tune in to all that. When people recall their first urges, I don't think that was their already established nature making itself known, I think that's the time the impression was made. And for a minority, there will be an error. The wrong thing acquired. I don't think you can control it, but not immersing kids in that culture is an obvious step to take.

The normality of heterosexuality is self-evident and need not be defended. We're talking 90%, and it is the natural reproductive behaviour. The product of nature, evolution, etc. Homosexuality is an aberration in that respect, not something for which people should be specially persecuted any more than say, a disability, but on the other hand not something to be encouraged.
Not every species is heterosexual. Bonobos are actually 100% bisexual, and they are our closest genetic relatives.

Also, considering the fact that in most places, gays can't be parents, I'd say it is safe to say almost every single homosexual is the product of straight parents.

There is no true, ultimate right or wrong.

There merely is.

Homosexual parents will raise no more homosexual children than straight parents would. Homosexuality is not a disease that you can catch, and it's not something that can be pushed upon and taught to another. There are plenty of ultra-conservative homophobes that end up raising gay children. Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes anyone?

My point: They should be able to have the right to raise a child like anyone else, and to be married while doing so as well. ;)

There is no true, ultimate right or wrong.

There merely is.
Spoken like a true existentialist...

I'd say it is safe to say almost every single homosexual is the product of straight parents.
The child is. The behaviour is acquired. Why increase the possibility of acquiring it?

Homosexual parents will raise no more homosexual children than straight parents would. Homosexuality is not a disease that you can catch, and it's not something that can be pushed upon and taught to another. There are plenty of ultra-conservative homophobes that end up raising gay children. Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes anyone?

My point: They should be able to have the right to raise a child like anyone else, and to be married while doing so as well. ;)
as much as I don't like Dick Cheney, I wouldn't misrepresent him as a homophobe...he's actually been fairly vocally opposed to the gay marriage ammendment.

Yeah. Kids are impressionable. I think they basically tune in to all that. When people recall their first urges, I don't think that was their already established nature making itself known, I think that's the time the impression was made. And for a minority, there will be an error. The wrong thing acquired. I don't think you can control it, but not immersing kids in that culture is an obvious step to take.

The normality of heterosexuality is self-evident and need not be defended. We're talking 90%, and it is the natural reproductive behaviour. The product of nature, evolution, etc. Homosexuality is an aberration in that respect, not something for which people should be specially persecuted any more than say, a disability, but on the other hand not something to be encouraged.

Wow, and to think I had a modicum of esteem for you. Whoosh, there the remnant went in a flurry of heteronormativity and "gay parents have gay children" nonsense seemingly ignorant of the fact of there being solid proof that gay parents do not have gay children more often than straight parents. Then again, even it were true, that gay parents had gay children more often, the inference is made immediately that that's bad because homosexuality is apparently something bad. I doubt you care, but you disappoint me.

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?
My opinion is that you're wrong.

The child is. The behaviour is acquired. Why increase the possibility of acquiring it?
Even if it is acquired, what is wrong with it? What is the problem with a child ending up gay? I ask that as an honest question since you're one of the few that I respect who holds this particular stance.

Furthermore, if the behavior is acquired, then where did people pick it up from during times like the Nazi era, where gays were executed, and other such times in history where gays were tortured and killed?

Yeah. Kids are impressionable. I think they basically tune in to all that. When people recall their first urges, I don't think that was their already established nature making itself known, I think that's the time the impression was made.


Almost all homosexuals had 'heterosexual' parents. Either it is not learned, or a lot of people misrepresent their gender orientation.

And for a minority, there will be an error. The wrong thing acquired. I don't think you can control it, but not immersing kids in that culture is an obvious step to take.


Why? Because you have decided it is 'bad'?


The normality of heterosexuality is self-evident and need not be defended. We're talking 90%,

No - we are really not. You have subtracted the 10% figure that is commonly assumed as 'absolutely gay', from the 100% of all people. This is a mathematical flaw in your thinking... because you assume ALL of those other 90% can be comfortably described as 'straight'.

Guys don't talk about it so much, but I'd say three in EVERY four women I've known, have been of less that TOTAL 'straightness'.

and it is the natural reproductive behaviour. The product of nature, evolution, etc. Homosexuality is an aberration in that respect,


Not at all. Indeed - evolution favours 'parent' figures that protect young but don't contribute genetic material directly.

not something for which people should be specially persecuted any more than say, a disability,


How magnanimous.

but on the other hand not something to be encouraged.

Because you don't like the idea...? What if the scientific evidence shows that gay-bonding actually favours survivability?

as much as I don't like Dick Cheney, I wouldn't misrepresent him as a homophobe...he's actually been fairly vocally opposed to the gay marriage ammendment.

My mistake.

Of course, my point in that sense was that people just turn out to be gay, no matter the household. I'm sure Dick and Lynne Cheney weren't pressuring Mary to become a lesbian her whole life... :P

The child is. The behaviour is acquired.

Pish-posh.

Why increase the possibility of acquiring it?

Why not? Ah, "homosexuality is bad." Right... :rolleyes:

The child is. The behaviour is acquired. Why increase the possibility of acquiring it?

Why do you think the behaviour was acquired? At which point was your own sexuality decided?

Wow, and to think I had a modicum of esteem for you. I doubt you care, but you disappoint me.
If I ever had any for you, the memory is long since replaced by your crusading antics. I do not need the respect of a deleted troll.

You know what really harms children? Interracial marriages. Man. Those kids really got all mussed up. (It shouldn't be necessary to say this is sarcasm... right?)

Spoken like a true existentialist...

Well, I do have leanings, you know. (Oh, the innuendo! ;) )

Why do you think the behaviour was acquired? At which point was your own sexuality decided?

You know I always ask these people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, "When, exactly, did you CHOOSE to be straight? When did you first look at someone of the opposite sex and think to yourself, 'Yeah, I'll go for that.'"

People don't make that conscious choice. You do what feels right to you. If you don't like it, don't friggin do it. It's that simple. People being gay will affect you in exactly ZERO ways.

Sexuality is not determined by who brings a child up. If a homosexual couple gives the child what it needs - love, discipline and an ethical center (this isn't determined by sexuality regardless of what some of our more vocal and less cerebral Christians may think), then where's the problem?

Homosexuality is not a proseletysing (sp?) religion, it's a condition that is most likely a combination of primarily nature and some nurture. You don't "turn" a straight person gay or vice-versa. (frankly, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay, given the crap they have to put up with).

.



I know first hand how futile attempts by parents to force their sexuality on their kids is, so I don't see why it should be a problem to be raised with gay parents. It won't make the kids gay as little as having straight parents force their sexuality on their gay kids made those kids straight.

One could say I resent the implication that having the straight people urge their kids to be straight is "good," while having the gay parents urging their kids to be gay is "bad." Either forcing your sexuality on your kids is bad across the board, or it is good across the board. In any case, singling out gay parents for it by only mentioning it in conjunction with gay parenting is spurious.

That visit to see your mother didnt go too well did it?

(frankly, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay, given the crap they have to put up with).

Exactly! I always, ALWAYS bring this up. Why would anyone choose to be thrown out of their homes, persecuted by their own family and a large portion of society? Why would anyone choose to do that?

The most ignorant response I've heard to that question yet, though: "Because people will get what they want no matter what it takes. Just look at drug addicts."

I wish if people were going to argue against something like this, they would actually have, you know, DECENT points. I'm not even looking for good points (that'd be far too much to ask).

Just decent.

(frankly, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay, given the crap they have to put up with).

According to my father, apparently people choose to be gay becuase its "fashonable". Mind, I agree with you. Who would choose to be persicuted?

According to my father, apparently people choose to be gay becuase its "fashonable". Mind, I agree with you. Who would choose to be persicuted?
Persecuted but fabulous?

You know I always ask these people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, "When, exactly, did you CHOOSE to be straight? When did you first look at someone of the opposite sex and think to yourself, 'Yeah, I'll go for that.'"

The year was 1989, and the place was a seedy swing-set on the wrong side of town. I was downing a grape juice box, drowning my sorrows as it were, when all of a sudden it happened. The sexuality fairy wafted down on a fluorescent cloud lit by tiny disco balls, waved her magical vibrating wand, and WHAM. I was gay.

One thing is for certain. I would never be the same after that summer.

The year was 1989, and the place was a seedy swing-set on the wrong side of town. I was downing a grape juice box, drowning my sorrows as it were, when all of a sudden it happened. The sexuality fairy wafted down on a fluorescent cloud lit by tiny disco balls, waved her magical vibrating wand, and WHAM. I was gay.

One thing is for certain. I would never be the same after that summer.

Hahahaha!

You are my freaking hero!

If I ever had any for you, the memory is long since replaced by your crusading antics. I do not need the respect of a deleted troll.

And I not of a truthy moderator who resorts to base DEAT and ban gloating. I stand for each and every one of my rule infractions, and do not find your attempts at beating me over the head with my DEAT in any way a poor reflection on me.

Even if it is acquired, what is wrong with it? What is the problem with a child ending up gay? I ask that as an honest question since you're one of the few that I respect who holds this particular stance.
There isn't anything wrong with a kid ending up gay, as I said, it is inevitable that some will anyway. And obviously all will be born to heterosexuals, most will be raised by married heterosexual couples, etc. My only problem is making changes to current practice which may tilt the balance. It's not something with which I would personally tinker.

Furthermore, if the behavior is acquired, then where did people pick it up from during times like the Nazi era, where gays were executed, and other such times in history where gays were tortured and killed?
The surrounding environment, same as before, and after. To whom is one first attracted, and how? Some combination of features... for most, the subject will be of the opposite sex, for some, the subject will be the same sex. One's sexual orientation may not be fixed at once, in fact it probably won't be. But this is something that is poorly understood. There is no brain circuitry present at birth and pre-wired, to which we can look. It seems to me, and my experiences and anecdotal evidence suggests to me, that circuitry is pretty much a blank slate, it powers up and looks around, cues are picked up. Kids learn a lot about social norms subconsciously. This could be just another element.

I think the subject requires further study. Perhaps if a few countries take the leap and someone does studies in the decades that follow, this theory could be backed up or undermined. I am reluctant to back a universal policy until there are stats on specifically this situation. Giving the question some thought would be a far more productive approach than complaining about homophobia.

And I not of a truthy moderator who resorts to base DEAT and ban gloating. I stand for each and every one of my rule infractions, and do not find your attempts at beating me over the head with my DEAT in any way a poor reflection on me.
Those self-righteous to the end, are so much easier to deal with than the apologetic. No regrets. :)

There isn't anything wrong with a kid ending up gay, as I said, it is inevitable that some will anyway. And obviously all will be born to heterosexuals, most will be raised by married heterosexual couples, etc. My only problem is making changes to current practice which may tilt the balance. It's not something with which I would personally tinker.


The surrounding environment, same as before, and after. To whom is one first attracted, and how? Some combination of features... for most, the subject will be of the opposite sex, for some, the subject will be the same sex. One's sexual orientation may not be fixed at once, in fact it probably won't be. But this is something that is poorly understood. There is no brain circuitry present at birth and pre-wired, to which we can look. It seems to me, and my experiences and anecdotal evidence suggests to me, that circuitry is pretty much a blank slate, it powers up and looks around, cues are picked up. Kids learn a lot about social norms subconsciously. This could be just another element.

I think the subject requires further study. Perhaps if a few countries take the leap and someone does studies in the decades that follow, this theory could be backed up or undermined. I am reluctant to back a universal policy until there are stats on specifically this situation. Giving the question some thought would be a far more productive approach than complaining about homophobia.
I don't see how that would hinder a homosexual couple wanting to have a loving family. Unless somehow we could discover if a child will be homosexual or not upon birth and then straight couples can give up those unwanteds to homosexual couples thus changing absolutely nothing when it comes to the percentage of homosexuality in a given population. But maybe it's just easier to see how much love is available in the home and if there is enough left over to accomodate a child.

No regrets. :)

Rest assured. :)

There isn't anything wrong with a kid ending up gay, as I said, it is inevitable that some will anyway. And obviously all will be born to heterosexuals, most will be raised by married heterosexual couples, etc. My only problem is making changes to current practice which may tilt the balance. It's not something with which I would personally tinker.


The surrounding environment, same as before, and after. To whom is one first attracted, and how? Some combination of features... for most, the subject will be of the opposite sex, for some, the subject will be the same sex. One's sexual orientation may not be fixed at once, in fact it probably won't be. But this is something that is poorly understood. There is no brain circuitry present at birth and pre-wired, to which we can look. It seems to me, and my experiences and anecdotal evidence suggests to me, that circuitry is pretty much a blank slate, it powers up and looks around, cues are picked up. Kids learn a lot about social norms subconsciously. This could be just another element.

I think the subject requires further study. Perhaps if a few countries take the leap and someone does studies in the decades that follow, this theory could be backed up or undermined. I am reluctant to back a universal policy until there are stats on specifically this situation. Giving the question some thought would be a far more productive approach than complaining about homophobia.

Now, I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but you actually sound pretty reasonable here as compared to your first post.

Though, I still don't agree that kids will pick up on homosexuality just because they're raised by homosexuals. They may mimic when they're younger, but in the end genetics will prevail and they'll just have to deal with the fact that they can't choose who is sexually attractive to them.

i read somewhere way back when that studies show that as long as the kids are loved and disciplined, the arrangement of parents doesnt matter.

There isn't anything wrong with a kid ending up gay, as I said, it is inevitable that some will anyway. And obviously all will be born to heterosexuals,


Why obviously? I have two close friends that are lesbians, and they have a son who is the biological son of one of them.

most will be raised by married heterosexual couples, etc. My only problem is making changes to current practice which may tilt the balance. It's not something with which I would personally tinker.


The 'current practise' is a convenience of our modern lifestyles, and the change in our societal structure. Families tend not to live collectively in our society, so much as once they did - although this trend seems to be reversing as property becomes more expensive, and wages fail to keep pace. And - even when families drifted apart in earlier times - they usually didn't drift as far as they might now.

Our balance HAS been tilted. Over and bover again, for thousands of years.

i read somewhere way back when that studies show that as long as the kids are loved and disciplined, the arrangement of parents doesnt matter.

I read that, too. I think the book was In my Mind by Common Sense.


:P

Hahahaha!

You are my freaking hero!
Don't thank me, thank the sexuality fairy!

I don't see how that would hinder a homosexual couple wanting to have a loving family. Unless somehow we could discover if a child will be homosexual or not upon birth and then straight couples can give up those unwanteds to homosexual couples thus changing absolutely nothing when it comes to the percentage of homosexuality in a given population. But maybe it's just easier to see how much love is available in the home and if there is enough left over to accomodate a child.
Ultimately that's not really for me to decide. I wished to make clear and explain my own misgivings, and the fact that I personally would not apply such a policy widely without at the very least further consideration and trials. Perhaps not even at all, to avoid unnecessary social tinkering. I just don't feel the social policy change we are discussing is a responsible thing to do when the issue remains open to question.

Don't thank me, thank the sexuality fairy!

Carson Kressley?

Why obviously? I have two close friends that are lesbians, and they have a son who is the biological son of one of them.

Ooh, is this another thread where I get to explain how babies are made? :)

Ultimately that's not really for me to decide. I wished to make clear and explain my own misgivings, and the fact that I personally would not apply such a policy widely without at the very least further consideration and trials. Perhaps not even at all, to avoid unnecessary social tinkering. I just don't feel the social policy change we are discussing is a responsible thing to do when the issue remains open to question.

But then - if it IS open to question, is it reasonable to disallow one section of the population rights freely available to others, JUST because of who they find attractive?

Carson Kressley?
Zing!

Our balance HAS been tilted. Over and bover again, for thousands of years.
Then let it be so, and not overnight with legislation. No-one voted to abolish the nuclear family, when people look back on its decline in feasibility and popularity, they will find the process took a century.

Ooh, is this another thread where I get to explain how babies are made? :)

I build them up, you knock them down... ;)

Then let it be so, and not overnight with legislation. No-one voted to abolish the nuclear family, when people look back on its decline in feasibility and popularity, they will find the process took a century.
Forgive me, but I've yet to see anybody propose that the nuclear family be legally abolished. All I see is people embracing the notion that we shouldn't use laws to force people to construct nuclear families.

Would that I could...Would that I could.

That's a defeatist attitude. You won't get anywhere with that.

Bible humpers, turning their noses up at plugs for a leaky boat cause they want a new one. And they're in the middle of the ocean.

Then let it be so, and not overnight with legislation. No-one voted to abolish the nuclear family, when people look back on its decline in feasibility and popularity, they will find the process took a century.

But, why is that any better than a quick change?

Wouldn't the emancipation of slaves have been 'better' (at least, for those concerned) if it had been immediate? Wouldn't female suffrage have been better granted early, rather than late?

I don't see why conservatism is best. Not when people are on the line.

I don't think there's a problem with it. At least the child has two parents who are willing to care for him/her. It would be a stable environment and personal sexual preference has very little to do with good parenting.

I build them up, you knock them down... ;)
See, when a gay Daddy gives a gay Mommy a very special hug...

Now, I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but you actually sound pretty reasonable here as compared to your first post.

Though, I still don't agree that kids will pick up on homosexuality just because they're raised by homosexuals. They may mimic when they're younger, but in the end genetics will prevail and they'll just have to deal with the fact that they can't choose who is sexually attractive to them.
The central assumption of my argument is that genetics play a negligible role in determining sexuality. There's a pillar for people to attack. you are right, I am at least reasonable enough to declare its existence instead of being completely dogmatic. If I wanted to say gays were perverts unto the lord, I wouldn't have wasted half an hour typing.

Forgive me, but I've yet to see anybody propose that the nuclear family be legally abolished. All I see is people embracing the notion that we shouldn't use laws to force people to construct nuclear families.

More about the NATURE of those nuclear families, I think. Two parents, two kids, car, dog... sounds like the nuclear family to me... it doesn't matter if the kids are both boys - why should it matter if the parents are?

But, why is that any better than a quick change?

Wouldn't the emancipation of slaves have been 'better' (at least, for those concerned) if it had been immediate? Wouldn't female suffrage have been better granted early, rather than late?

I don't see why conservatism is best. Not when people are on the line.
Look, Graves, we need to take things slowly so that people who hate gays can get used to the notion that gays are human beings, too. We need to make sure to not trample the feelings of those who believe that homosexuals are deviants who should not be permitted to have children. And if we have to trample the rights of a few fags in the process, well, so be it.

Besides, it's not like we've got millions of children waiting in foster care and adoption agencies or anything...

See, when a gay Daddy gives a gay Mommy a very special hug...

I was hoping for something about the Birds, the Bees, and the Baster... :D

I don't see why conservatism is best. Not when people are on the line.
That's why we disagree, because we are looking at the same question from different sides. It is because people are on the line, that some wish to take quick decisive action, lest an injustice is prolonged. It is because people are on the line, that others wish to exercise caution, lest the situation is made worse for lack of forethought.

That's basically the only difference in opinion here. Give it time, or not.

The central assumption of my argument is that genetics play a negligible role in determining sexuality. There's a pillar for people to attack. you are right, I am at least reasonable enough to declare its existence instead of being completely dogmatic. If I wanted to say gays were perverts unto the lord, I wouldn't have wasted half an hour typing.

But - what is your 'central assumption' based on?

Didn't you say you didn't really think there was any way to know - and that your evidence was largely anecdotal?

It seems to me that those two ideas conflict - if you can't know - where do the anecdotes come from?

That's why we disagree, because we are looking at the same question from different sides. It is because people are on the line, that some wish to take quick decisive action, lest an injustice is prolonged. It is because people are on the line, that others wish to exercise caution, lest the situation is made worse for lack of forethought.

That's basically the only difference in opinion here. Give it time, or not.

But again - universal suffrage, was it better done quickly, or 'given time'?

Those who worry about making things worse, TEND to be those who have something to LOSE by a paradigm shift. Those who were 'conservative' about freeing slaves, were generally conservative about it, because it meant finding someone else to pick the cotton.

Homosexuals are people. They are just like heterosexuals... except for a matter of sexual orientation.

That said - how can one actually defend robbing them of rights freely available to others? How can one defend discriminating against them, even for one more day?

That's why we disagree, because we are looking at the same question from different sides. It is because people are on the line, that some wish to take quick decisive action, lest an injustice is prolonged. It is because people are on the line, that others wish to exercise caution, lest the situation is made worse for lack of forethought.

That's basically the only difference in opinion here. Give it time, or not.
Right. So are you saying it would have been best to not free the slaves until everybody was satisfied that it was the right decision? Would it have been best to wait to give women the vote until everybody was on board with that plan?

But again - universal suffrage, was it better done quickly, or 'given time'?

Those who worry about making things worse, TEND to be those who have something to LOSE by a paradigm shift. Those who were 'conservative' about freeing slaves, were generally conservative about it, because it meant finding someone else to pick the cotton.

Homosexuals are people. They are just like heterosexuals... except for a matter of sexual orientation.

That said - how can one actually defend robbing them of rights freely available to others? How can one defend discriminating against them, even for one more day?
Damn you, get out of my head. And, while you're at it, quit being one step ahead of me. :)

But - what is your 'central assumption' based on?

Didn't you say you didn't really think there was any way to know - and that your evidence was largely anecdotal?

It seems to me that those two ideas conflict - if you can't know - where do the anecdotes come from?
There is a complete absence of credible evidence that people are genetically gay or straight as a result of some random mutation.

In the absence of such evidence, anecdotal evidence that sexual orientation is a subconsciously acquired trait, is what I have to go on.

My opinion is not set in stone, and could change completely pending future discoveries supporting the former. In the meantime, I am not inclined to support far-reaching legislative social reforms in this particular area.

Now, it has been nice talking to most of you, but it is past 2:30am here, and I will be retiring to bed to continue possibly decades of procrastination on this issue as befits a social conservative. :D You guys are equally entitled to march with placards. :p

So are you saying it would have been best to not free the slaves until everybody was satisfied that it was the right decision? Would it have been best to wait to give women the vote until everybody was on board with that plan?
I do not think one can make a direct comparison there.

But you know, it's not until a majority opinion was in favour of those things, that they happened. There was no 'right' or 'wrong' about it. Merely pre-requisites. But that's a whole different debate.

There is a complete absence of credible evidence that people are genetically gay or straight as a result of some random mutation.

In the absence of such evidence, anecdotal evidence that sexual orientation is a subconsciously acquired trait, is what I have to go on.

Just FYI, you're setting up a false dichotomy. It's true, there is pretty much no evidence that homosexuality results from random mutation, but there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is influenced by genetics.

It would be very silly to expect human sexuality to be controlled by a single gene, given that our sexuality is such a huge and complex array of behaviors and traits. However, it would be equally silly to think that genetic makeup and physiological factors do not influence our sexuality at all.

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between.


Now, it has been nice talking to most of you, but it is past 2:30am here, and I will be retiring to bed to continue possibly decades of procrastination on this issue as befits a social conservative. :D You guys are equally entitled to march with placards. :p
No marching appears necessary. You ruin all our fun by being calm, rational, and willing to discuss things like a grown up.

*pout*

No marching appears necessary. You ruin all our fun by being calm, rational, and willing to discuss things like a grown up.

*pout*
"Suddenly, with a sharp intake of breath she realised...he was not like the other trolls..." ;) :fluffle:

Goodnight guys.

No marching appears necessary. You ruin all our fun by being calm, rational, and willing to discuss things like a grown up.

*pout*

If only all people were as civil... Sure does take the fun out of getting people riled up about a subject and taking complete advantage of their idiocy.

I usually take it up a notch with a good ol' "Jesus was a homo" comment. LOL.


I kid, I kid...

Well, it's a simple matter of physics. Homosexuals, as has been documented in several well researched cases, which I can't currently be bothered to find create a greater gravitational pull.

As a result, the small children will be unable to escape this black hole of sexuality, and actually have a nine point five three seven four greater percent chance of becoming homosexuals themselves.

However, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, this shouldn't be a problem, unless of course the foster child is already a homosexual, in which case slight gravity blips may occur in the household.

Well, it's a simple matter of physics. Homosexuals, as has been documented in several well researched cases, which I can't currently be bothered to find create a greater gravitational pull.

As a result, the small children will be unable to escape this black hole of sexuality, and actually have a nine point five three seven four greater percent chance of becoming homosexuals themselves.

However, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, this shouldn't be a problem, unless of course the foster child is already a homosexual, in which case slight gravity blips may occur in the household.

ROFL! :p

There is a complete absence of credible evidence that people are genetically gay or straight as a result of some random mutation.

In the absence of such evidence, anecdotal evidence that sexual orientation is a subconsciously acquired trait, is what I have to go on.

If sexuality is a subconsciously aqcuired trait, then homosexuality would not exist in a social enviroment in which heterosexuality was represented as normal and homosexuality is unnatural and perverse. The indicators for the desirability of homosexuality would not exist, unless some part of society somehow subconciously endorses homosexuality.

My opinion is not set in stone, and could change completely pending future discoveries supporting the former. In the meantime, I am not inclined to support far-reaching legislative social reforms in this particular area.

Now, it has been nice talking to most of you, but it is past 2:30am here, and I will be retiring to bed to continue possibly decades of procrastination on this issue as befits a social conservative. :D You guys are equally entitled to march with placards. :p

Since you have an open mind, consider this study (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356). It examines how the brain reacts when exposed to certain human pheremones. As a short summary, homosexual men and heterosexual women showed similar brain activity when they smelled the male pheremone, while homosexual women and heterosexual men had similar brain activity when they smelled the female pheremone. Just something to think about.

Damn you, get out of my head. And, while you're at it, quit being one step ahead of me. :)

:D

Yeah, sorry about that - I wondered where I was getting all these good ideas from today...

As long as we don't have a barrage of threads about this, I'm fine.

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?

As opposed to:
-a heterosexual couple making a baby and putting it up for adoption?
-a heterosexual couple that is abusive and unstable?
-a single-parent who may not be capable of taking care of a child on her/his own?

Homosexual couples are just like heterosexual couples, just the same gender, that doesn't mean they can't raise a healthy child (family) together.

There is a complete absence of credible evidence that people are genetically gay or straight as a result of some random mutation.

In the absence of such evidence, anecdotal evidence that sexual orientation is a subconsciously acquired trait, is what I have to go on.

There are a multitude of biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, most notably the size of the hypothalamus. Choice, to put it bluntly, does not work that way. Genetics do. Chemical influences in the womb do as well. Choice does not.

Well, it's a simple matter of physics. Homosexuals, as has been documented in several well researched cases, which I can't currently be bothered to find create a greater gravitational pull.

As a result, the small children will be unable to escape this black hole of sexuality, and actually have a nine point five three seven four greater percent chance of becoming homosexuals themselves.

However, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, this shouldn't be a problem, unless of course the foster child is already a homosexual, in which case slight gravity blips may occur in the household.
Gravity is gay. Falling down is homosexual.

I don't mind if they adopt, it's just . . . the child must be strong enough to take the ridicule they will face in the later years.


Imagine, for a moment, that you're a child living in an orphanage. Imagine that you are presented with the following choice: you can either go live with a loving, caring family and sometimes be made fun of by other kids, or you can spend the rest of your childhood in the orphanage, with no family, and probably also sometimes be made fun of by other kids, because kids don't exactly need great excuses to make fun of each other.

I sure know which option I'd choose.

Well, it's a simple matter of physics. Homosexuals, as has been documented in several well researched cases, which I can't currently be bothered to find create a greater gravitational pull.

As a result, the small children will be unable to escape this black hole of sexuality, and actually have a nine point five three seven four greater percent chance of becoming homosexuals themselves.

However, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, this shouldn't be a problem, unless of course the foster child is already a homosexual, in which case slight gravity blips may occur in the household.

No, no, silly, it's not a gravitational pull, it's a simple vacuum effect. You see, when someone is constantly undergoing a process of oxidation (sometimes called "flaming"), they're bound to slightly decrease the density of the air around them. Perfectly obvious, really.



...I am such a dork.

I just flashed on this vision of the scene in "Torch Song Trilogy", where the lead male character stomps into the principal's office wearing his housecoat and fuzzy slippers to confront the kids who were teasing his foster son.

Personally, I think Homosexuals should be free to adopt or foster children as heterosexual can. I don't see a problem with a family with two dads or two mums; and as the child of a single, widowed parent, I have experienced both life with a mother, and life without a mother. Overall, I have to say, I am just as happy, if not happier, with having just one parent. So I think it's not essential or particularly beneficial for a child to have infleunces from male AND female role models.

Many children, even one with both female and male parents, often have ONE parent (usually the mother) being the main infleuence. Yet it doesn't seem to have any ill effects. The most predominant flaws I know I have are lazyness, indecisiveness, disorganisation and sumissiveness :( ; and none of these flaws were gained through having singularly male parenting. So the argument that children need both parents, or benefit more from having both female and male parents is unproven and likely to be wrong.

Even IF by chance you are right, and it is more benifical to have both a perfect female and a perfect male parent, compared to two perfect male/female parents. This world is not perfect, having both parents is a long stretch from a garantee of the child's wellbeing. Is it not better for a child to have loving homosexual parents, or foster family, than to have a less than loving heterosexual parents, or none at all?

I really don't think the sexuality of the parents would have any infleuence on the child either, and I think homosexuality is a trait that's more 'nature' than 'nuture', as I've read and seen documentaries on homosexuality, and a particularly interesting thing I noticed was a pair of twins which were raised identically, yet one was gay while the other was not. So to me saying 'gay parents will raise gay children' it's a little like saying, my 'father likes women, therefore I'd like women' -by the way I am female- and that is definatly not true. That was not a very good example, I know, but aside from that, heterosexual parents still raise homosexual children. If heterosexual parent cannot infleunce their children to be straight; Is it not logical that homosexual parenst would not infleunce their children to be gay either?

Besides, I actully know a lesbian couple with a son (not sure if he is adopted or is the biological child of one of the women). He seems happy, and I even saw them having a family outing at an exibit once. The parents are caring and goes to support him at all his sporting competitions too :D. No one I know has said anything but praise about his family. I can't see why a family with so much love can bee seen as 'wrong' or bad for a child.

Personally, I think Homosexuals should be free to adopt or foster children as heterosexual can. I don't see a problem with a family with two dads or two mums; and as the child of a single, widowed parent, I have experienced both life with a mother, and life without a mother. Overall, I have to say, I am just as happy, if not happier, with having just one parent. So I think it's not essential or particularly beneficial for a child to have infleunces from male AND female role models.

Many children, even one with both female and male parents, often have ONE parent (usually the mother) being the main infleuence. Yet it doesn't seem to have any ill effects. The most predominant flaws I know I have are lazyness, indecisiveness, disorganisation and sumissiveness :( ; and none of these flaws were gained through having singularly male parenting. So the argument that children need both parents, or benefit more from having both female and male parents is unproven and likely to be wrong.

Even IF by chance you are right, and it is more benifical to have both a perfect female and a perfect male parent, compared to two perfect male/female parents. This world is not perfect, having both parents is a long stretch from a garantee of the child's wellbeing. Is it not better for a child to have loving homosexual parents, or foster family, than to have a less than loving heterosexual parents, or none at all?

I really don't think the sexuality of the parents would have any infleuence on the child either, and I think homosexuality is a trait that's more 'nature' than 'nuture', as I've read and seen documentaries on homosexuality, and a particularly interesting thing I noticed was a pair of twins which were raised identically, yet one was gay while the other was not. So to me saying 'gay parents will raise gay children' it's a little like saying, my 'father likes women, therefore I'd like women' -by the way I am female- and that is definatly not true. That was not a very good example, I know, but aside from that, heterosexual parents still raise homosexual children. If heterosexual parent cannot infleunce their children to be straight; Is it not logical that homosexual parenst would not infleunce their children to be gay either?

Besides, I actully know a lesbian couple with a son (not sure if he is adopted or is the biological child of one of the women). He seems happy, and I even saw them having a family outing at an exibit once. The parents are caring and goes to support him at all his sporting competitions too :D. No one I know has said anything but praise about his family. I can't see why a family with so much love can bee seen as 'wrong' or bad for a child.

Excellent first post! :)

My crazy deluded opinion is that they have every right to be a parent, and do a good deed in the process.

exactly. Besides, from what I've read, Homosexual parents can do just as good as Heterosexual ones. The only thing that seperates how the child is going to grow up is how the parents themselves are, not what their sexual orientation is.

The child is. The behaviour is acquired. Why increase the possibility of acquiring it?

Some behaviors can be acquired and others nature kicks in.

Nature vs nuture eh?

Example was a Canadian that had his equipment removed due to a botched circumcession.

They converted him to a girl. He was raised as a girl.

He had all the traits of a boy.

You can't become a homosexual by watching it let alone being raised by one.

Unless of course you have data to show otherwise.

That's why we disagree, because we are looking at the same question from different sides. It is because people are on the line, that some wish to take quick decisive action, lest an injustice is prolonged. It is because people are on the line, that others wish to exercise caution, lest the situation is made worse for lack of forethought.

That's basically the only difference in opinion here. Give it time, or not.

The only problem with waiting for change is that it may never happen especially given the attitudes of Religoius Morality. Change is bad thing to many.

In the case of the US, it's best to let the states decide. Some would be ok with the issue. Many would not.

In the case of the children, they are better served out of the system. Ours is rather piss poor when it comes to taking care of them. If the hit 18, they are evicted. They are not trained for living on their own. What can really screw them is they are in the system in an expensive place to live. You can't make it with minimum wage.....

There is a complete absence of credible evidence that people are genetically gay or straight as a result of some random mutation.

In the absence of such evidence, anecdotal evidence that sexual orientation is a subconsciously acquired trait, is what I have to go on.



Eh? Like what for instance. I have lived around gays my whole life. I am very hetro. My gay friends will laugh at the suggestion I may not know I am gay.

Gravity is gay. Falling down is homosexual.

Damn, that explains my friends yelling at me back when I was in Rec. Soccer as a kid, would try to bust out a blocking kick and falling on my ass:

"Dude, you totally fucked that up. What a fuckin' gay-ass fag!"

:p

TacGrace, I, an utterly wretched and doubtless-soon-to-be-kicked-offlist-for-being-avicious-prick poster would like to say, from what I've seen here, you're all right by me. Despite our vast differences. Thanks.

There isn't anything wrong with a kid ending up gay, as I said, it is inevitable that some will anyway. And obviously all will be born to heterosexuals, most will be raised by married heterosexual couples, etc. My only problem is making changes to current practice which may tilt the balance. It's not something with which I would personally tinker.
But if there is nothing wrong with them turning out gay, then why is it so bad that more would end up being gay? If it isn't a problem for one in ten being gay strictly gay with a large portion somewhere between gay and straight, why is shift that percentage to 2 in 10 or even 5 in 10 matter? If being gay is okay, then why does the ammount of gays matter? It doesn't prevent them from being happy, and doesn't impact anyone else but them


The surrounding environment, same as before, and after. To whom is one first attracted, and how? Some combination of features... for most, the subject will be of the opposite sex, for some, the subject will be the same sex. One's sexual orientation may not be fixed at once, in fact it probably won't be. But this is something that is poorly understood. There is no brain circuitry present at birth and pre-wired, to which we can look. It seems to me, and my experiences and anecdotal evidence suggests to me, that circuitry is pretty much a blank slate, it powers up and looks around, cues are picked up. Kids learn a lot about social norms subconsciously. This could be just another element.
So if a child is raised in a climate that not only says "being gay is wrong" but goes so far as to say "Gays are a parasite on society and must be subjected to medical experiments, tortured, and eventually put to death", it would be rational and reasonable to say that being gay would even be an option to them?
There is also then the issue of who was the first gay? If homosexuality is truly a stricly learned issue, then someone had to have been the first, lest it could not be taught. Where did they learn it then? Someone would have had to "invent" homosexuality.
I contest that there is no pre-wiring. It is clear that a baby straight from the womb has a personality. While I don't claim that anything is strictly nature, I find it equally wrong to say anything is pure nurture. For example, IQ's have a preset limit. Reaching those limits is nurture, but the limits themselves are nature. There IS pre-wiring.
I think the subject requires further study. Perhaps if a few countries take the leap and someone does studies in the decades that follow, this theory could be backed up or undermined. I am reluctant to back a universal policy until there are stats on specifically this situation. Giving the question some thought would be a far more productive approach than complaining about homophobia.I would say it doesn't matter if the policies would create more gays. Most people will preface their comments with "Not that there is anything wrong with being gay but...". Throwing in that "but" means that said person does find something wrong with it. If there was nothing wrong, then there would be no issue. So some more children end up being gay. So what? What is the inherent problem with that? Why is this a bad thing?

Teh gay Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)
Should give you guys sufficient source material for your argument there.

I'd just like to say that I don't get what the big deal is. Why SHOULDN'T gay parents be allowed to become foster parents, let alone adopt children? Are we saying it's unnatural for single parents? For that same reason, you could justify taking children away from single parents, be it a divorcee or a widow(er). A child who grows up in a same-sex parent household is not likely to turn out messed up any more than a child in a single-parent household, and we allow that.
The other thing that gets me is "they might turn out homosexual!". Thus, how do you account for all the gays and lesbians that come from straight-parent families?
I'm just sick of the anti-homosexual attitudes. The simple fact is that they feel their needs are best fulfilled by members of the opposite sex, and that's just the way it is. Love is love. The bible is not law, at least not in my country (for the most part, although God forbid Harper has his way with things). People are people.

I'd just like to say that I don't get what the big deal is. Why SHOULDN'T gay parents be allowed to become foster parents, let alone adopt children? Are we saying it's unnatural for single parents? For that same reason, you could justify taking children away from single parents, be it a divorcee or a widow(er). A child who grows up in a same-sex parent household is not likely to turn out messed up any more than a child in a single-parent household, and we allow that.
The other thing that gets me is "they might turn out homosexual!". Thus, how do you account for all the gays and lesbians that come from straight-parent families?
I'm just sick of the anti-homosexual attitudes. The simple fact is that they feel their needs are best fulfilled by members of the opposite sex, and that's just the way it is. Love is love. The bible is not law, at least not in my country (for the most part, although God forbid Harper has his way with things). People are people.

that was beautiful...I think I'm in love ^_^.

I would say it doesn't matter if the policies would create more gays. Most people will preface their comments with "Not that there is anything wrong with being gay but...". Throwing in that "but" means that said person does find something wrong with it. If there was nothing wrong, then there would be no issue. So some more children end up being gay. So what? What is the inherent problem with that? Why is this a bad thing?
While persecution is wrong, some behaviours one may find preferable. It is a paradoxical opinion to hold, but social politics are never straightforward, are never a case of one thing or the other with nothing in between. Compare it to the Animal Farm line about equality and greater equality if you wish, but that essentially sums up what I think. You would be mistaken to read specific disapproval into it.

While persecution is wrong, some behaviours one may find preferable. It is a paradoxical opinion to hold, but social politics are never straightforward, are never a case of one thing or the other with nothing in between. Compare it to the Animal Farm line about equality and greater equality if you wish, but that essentially sums up what I think. You would be mistaken to read specific disapproval into it.

Maybe you should sit and examine it, rather than accepting it?

Paradoxical might mean you just haven't resolved.

I encountered a similar paradox in my thinking about race, and 'positive discrimination'. Close examination resolved the issue... there IS no 'positive' discrimination - and my paradigm had to shift to accomdate.

There are no 'normal' households..

Ever heard of the nuclear family? My family is straight, white, middle-class and proud of it.

.

Ever heard of the nuclear family? My family is straight, white, middle-class and proud of it.

Personally, I find the idea of being 'proud' of one's skin tone ridiculous... much like being proud of which gender one finds attractive... or finding 'pride' in ones position in the scale of earnings.

You have nothing I'd be 'proud' of.

Do you actually realise what 'normal' means? It means that - of ten of your family - one is avowedly, openly gay. It means your extended family has a prostitute, a junkie, and three people with tattoos.

It means your parents had two children, and just under half of another. It means your household has slightly less than two whole cars.

The nuclear family is a myth. If anyone really WAS a nuclear family, THAT alone, would make them abnormal.

Personally, I find the idea of being 'proud' of one's skin tone ridiculous... much like being proud of which gender one finds attractive... or finding 'pride' in ones position in the scale of earnings.

You have nothing I'd be 'proud' of.

Nitcpick: naively assuming there is at least some relation between scale of earning and performance I do not think it is unreasonable to be proud of that one. Of course, the first two words of the previous sentence are pretty important.

Nitcpick: naively assuming there is at least some relation between scale of earning and performance I do not think it is unreasonable to be proud of that one. Of course, the first two words of the previous sentence are pretty important.

I can understand being proud of the work you do. Even of the fact that it is appreciated by others.

But, how much one gets paid has nothing to do with how good, or how important the work is... or what a good example one presents of the field. It is only a reflection of how much one gets paid.

I think it illogical to feel 'pride' for that - it is not something one does or is... it is just a relection of what someone else wants to spend.

Similarly, social 'class' is one of those things that I have never seen actually linked to a true 'worth' of a person.

Now - if one does good work (or good works), maybe one can be proud of THAT... but the value is in the work(s), not the wage or the recognition.

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.

Define a 'normal' household? The ones that met on elimidate and blind date. The ones that married on some other reality show. Heterosexuals don't have a monopoly on healthy households and if one just looks at the television they appear to making every effort to destroy it.

Now, of course, if one looks for a particular 'style' of family rather than just looking for healthy loving families, they're barking up the wrong tree. These children need the healthiest and most loving family available and we better not be excluding any families that want to do that for them just because it's not 'normal'.

I can understand being proud of the work you do. Even of the fact that it is appreciated by others.

But, how much one gets paid has nothing to do with how good, or how important the work is... or what a good example one presents of the field. It is only a reflection of how much one gets paid.

I think it illogical to feel 'pride' for that - it is not something one does or is... it is just a relection of what someone else wants to spend.

Similarly, social 'class' is one of those things that I have never seen actually linked to a true 'worth' of a person.

Now - if one does good work (or good works), maybe one can be proud of THAT... but the value is in the work(s), not the wage or the recognition.

Of course, some of the most important work is done in absense of money. Nobody got rich being a foster parent or by helping AIDS babies. The greatest artists in history died penniless. Some of the greatest scientists were denied during their lifetimes. Nowadays some important discoveries are monetarily discouraged.

Money is not a factor in how important one's work is.

Of course, some of the most important work is done in absense of money. Nobody got rich being a foster parent or by helping AIDS babies. The greatest artists in history died penniless. Some of the greatest scientists were denied during their lifetimes. Nowadays some important discoveries are monetarily discouraged.

Money is not a factor in how important one's work is.

:) You know what I do for a living... and how vital it is to a lot of people. You also know I get paid Jack for it. I even did the same work without remuneration... that's how 'important' it is.

:) You know what I do for a living... and how vital it is to a lot of people. You also know I get paid Jack for it. I even did the same work without remuneration... that's how 'important' it is.

I often teach for free. It's far more important than my rather well-paying job. My girlfriend teaches for Americorps teaching dropouts to prepare them for their GED, helping them turn their life around. She is barely making ends meet. I often have to pay for her food. Tell me that's a measure of how important that is.

I think that there's nothing wrong with gay couples raising children, so long as they don't try and force their sexuality on their children. Surely so long as they care for the child and let it make its own decesions about itself, it doesn't matter, does it?
You mean unlike all those straight parents who try to force their sexuality on their gay children?

I often teach for free. It's far more important than my rather well-paying job. My girlfriend teaches for Americorps teaching dropouts to prepare them for their GED, helping them turn their life around. She is barely making ends meet. I often have to pay for her food. Tell me that's a measure of how important that is.

Exactly - that's why I see 'pride' in 'class' or earnings, as kind of bizarre and irrelevent.

Exactly - that's why I see 'pride' in 'class' or earnings, as kind of bizarre and irrelevent.
I dunno, I take pride in my earnings. I'm extremely proud of my financial independence, and of the way I choose to manage my money, because I feel that it reflects my work ethic and my sense of personal responsibility.

But, then again, I live at the poverty line. :P

Ever heard of the nuclear family?
Grave said, "There are no 'normal' households." You seem to think that the nuclear family is "normal," even though it is a very recent invention that is, in terms of history, totally abnormal and unusual.

While persecution is wrong, some behaviours one may find preferable. It is a paradoxical opinion to hold, but social politics are never straightforward, are never a case of one thing or the other with nothing in between. Compare it to the Animal Farm line about equality and greater equality if you wish, but that essentially sums up what I think. You would be mistaken to read specific disapproval into it.
I have to echo Grave here...Either it is discrimination, or it isn't. You say persecution is wrong, which, admittedly, is a more extreme form of discrimination. However, you are still encouraging a form of discrimination. You aren't saying there is something difinitively bad about homosexuality, but you are arguing that they do not deserve the same rights, responsibilities, and options as their heterosexual, and even some bisexual, counterparts. Either you encourage discrimination, or you don't. you currently do.
I don't think it is terribly mistaken to read a specific disapproval into it. You say there is nothing wrong with it. Okay. But then you say that every measure to prevent it should be taken. But if it isn't wrong or bad, then why should it be prevented?

I always find this a bizarre subject. If it were a lesbian long term partnership either one could go and have a child of their own and then they would bring it up together.

Any guy with a dick can be a dad but a parent is a totaly different kettle of fish. It doesnt come down to sexuality, most peoples fears of gay adoption are deep rooted in the biggotry and perceptions that most gay men are paedophiles and thats the bottom line.

Being a gay parent myself and having spoken with countless others I think if anyone has the perceived notion that a child will be brainwashed into a particularl sexuality its only a further sign of a biggoted viewpoint

.

Ever heard of the nuclear family? My family is straight, white, middle-class and proud of it.
aside from the straight part, the majority of the world does not fit that paradigm. Most people are not white and are not middle class. Most do not live in a nuclear family...be it that they retain elders, or are from a polygamous society, or what have you. Hell, even the western nations have disolved the nuclear family.
"Normal" is a term that is defined by our minds. You will find it quite impossible to find a single family that actually fits that model. Not to mention, according to Bradshaws theory of families, every family is dysfunctional to some degree. That, in itself, makes families "not normal", despite the fact that it is actually more "normal" than what "normal" is defined as...if that made any sense....

:) You know what I do for a living... and how vital it is to a lot of people. You also know I get paid Jack for it. I even did the same work without remuneration... that's how 'important' it is.
I must ask...what is it you do for a living? If you don't want to reveal it hear, feel free to TG it to me, and if this question is out of place, feel free to ignore it:)

hmmmm normal family? Mum works long hours packs child off to daycare as soon as its popped out, father works long hours and rarely sees the child.

they come home sit in front of the telly to a TV dinner and rarely converse. Child grows up in isolation unloved and with limited social interaction with parents. goes off to college lives the other side of the country and sees parents once or twice a year!

Cos that sounds wholesome and nurturing!

I can understand being proud of the work you do. Even of the fact that it is appreciated by others.

But, how much one gets paid has nothing to do with how good, or how important the work is... or what a good example one presents of the field. It is only a reflection of how much one gets paid.

I think it illogical to feel 'pride' for that - it is not something one does or is... it is just a relection of what someone else wants to spend.

Similarly, social 'class' is one of those things that I have never seen actually linked to a true 'worth' of a person.

Now - if one does good work (or good works), maybe one can be proud of THAT... but the value is in the work(s), not the wage or the recognition.
Exactly. I didn't pick to be white. I didn't pick to be from what, in world terms, would be called a fairly wealthy family. I didn't pick to be born in America.

What I did choose was to work my ass off in school. I did choose to be an English education major. I did choose to go to a very difficult school. And I choose to continue to work hard to do the best that I can...not because I want an A, but because I want to be the best teacher I can be.

I forget if it is from the bible or one of the philosophers, but they said that charity isn't truly charity unless it causes you to change how you live. A man who makes $5 a day who gives $1 is making much more of a sacrifice, and deserves more esteem than, say, a man who makes $500 a day and gives one.

I always find this a bizarre subject. If it were a lesbian long term partnership either one could go and have a child of their own and then they would bring it up together.

Any guy with a dick can be a dad but a parent is a totaly different kettle of fish. It doesnt come down to sexuality, most peoples fears of gay adoption are deep rooted in the biggotry and perceptions that most gay men are paedophiles and thats the bottom line.

Being a gay parent myself and having spoken with countless others I think if anyone has the perceived notion that a child will be brainwashed into a particularl sexuality its only a further sign of a biggoted viewpoint
just out of curiosity, are you/your partner the biological parent, or did you adopt?

Im the biological father was married previously. I have joint custody of my son.

they're not a family unit. NO

for the purposes of fostering I see no reason why homeosexual couples can not do the job, as if they pass the stringent tests then it shows they have the skills and apptitude to provide the nurturing environment the child needs.

it would be like saying a stay at home dad is not capable of doing the job and bringing up a child, or a single parent is not capable.

they're not a family unit. NO
So what's a family unit?

they're not a family unit. NO
define "family unit". I promise that I can find a few dozen "family units" that don't fit your model, yet very clearly are...be my examples from other cultures or western cultures.

So what's a family unit?

It's the piece of furniture that the family keeps the TV in.

It's the piece of furniture that the family keeps the TV in.
A table?

I'm going to take a shot here and say the family unit is this:

according to the norms of our society, a "family unit" would be a husband, a wife, and kids.

that can EASILY be changed though, it's just the ignorant majority out there that want to follow the old ways instead of opening to a new possibility.

I'm going to take a shot here and say the family unit is this:

according to the norms of our society, a "family unit" would be a husband, a wife, and kids.

that can EASILY be changed though, it's just the ignorant majority out there that want to follow the old ways instead of opening to a new possibility.
that would be my guess as to what they were implying...however, interestingly enough, that "family unit" is decreasing in western nations, and not even the norm around the world.

that's true. But there are people that are trying to convince everyone otherwise. That this is the norm in our world and we need to keep it that way. And if we go against that, we'd ruin the whole sanctity of marriage and all that crap.

Bunch of BS if you ask me <_<

that's true. But there are people that are trying to convince everyone otherwise. That this is the norm in our world and we need to keep it that way. And if we go against that, we'd ruin the whole sanctity of marriage and all that crap.

Bunch of BS if you ask me <_<
my personal favorite is when people wax for the good ol' days. If you look into those "good ol' days", they wern't so great. popular culture is great at remembering the happy parts of decades (sock hops, peace love and happiness, jazz) and even romanticize it beyond recognition (speakeasies)

but hey, thats just me :)

There are no good reasons gay couples should not be allowed to adopt or foster children.

People say it wouldn't be fair to the kid, what would happen at parent teacher conferences when two Mommy's or two Daddy's show up, imagine how the kid would get teased! My response to this - puh-leeze! Ohmigod, a kid will get teased! That is so horrible, we cant allow it. Instead, keep the kid in an orphanage or some state run facility, that will be sooooo much better for the child. This is like saying kids shouldn't get glasses, because they might get teased. If its what is best for the child's health - emotional, physical, and mental - then there is no reason not to allow it. I was teased as a kid. My sisters were teased, my parents were teased, my brothers were teased. Cmon, list 10 people you know who have never been mocked in their whole lives. You can't. Everyone gets teased for one reason or another.

People say it will cause the kid to be gay. This is silly. It might cause the kid to be more open minded about sexualities besides hetero, and if the kid already was gay, perhaps "coming out" will be easier for him or her. But homosexuality is not "contagious". One will not get it by living with anyone who is GLBT. It is also clearly not learned, since most gays were raised by straight parents. If straight parents can have gay children, it should follow that gay parents can have straight children. (duh.)

People say its not "normal". First of all, where I come from, normal is a dirty word. I'd rather be a bitch than be normal. The nuclear family is not normal, its a product of the Industrial Revolution. (I think I remember that correctly, if not, please tell me when it did come about). Today, teens are having babies, parents have joint custody, and kids have two addresses. Grandparents raise children while parents work. Dad's stay home while Mom's work. There is no such thing as "normal", especially when it comes to families. And don't anyone dare to tell me a family that doesnt have two parents, one from each sex, is not a real family. Just don't.

So thats my two cents.

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.

I myself am a Heterosexual, married, and have 1 child, 2 years old. This said, i TOTALLY AGREE with the above quote! It doesnt matter what sexuality you are, same as what color, or religion, etc you are-NONE of these things determine if your a good person, a loving person with room, ability, and the sheer financial ability to care for a child. What does matter is that child is getting everything they need in terms of love and support, and that they can be properly provided for.

People need to learn responsibility for their actions. You dont have 12 kids then rant and rave and moan about the 'cruelty of the system' by putting them in bi, lesbian, or gay households because you (the person in question) couldn't be responsible enough to use the proper birth control methods. There are many such options, so those who fail to do so but continue to 'pop out' children, really should have no say-because if they are not even THIS responsible, what sort of parents would they make?

my personal favorite is when people wax for the good ol' days. If you look into those "good ol' days", they wern't so great. popular culture is great at remembering the happy parts of decades (sock hops, peace love and happiness, jazz) and even romanticize it beyond recognition (speakeasies)

but hey, thats just me :)
I call it selective memory. Everyone does it. You think about how great life was as a kid, but if you went back and met yourself, it may've been okay, but not great. All kinds of social, familial, and school pressures. The difficulties of adjusting to life. But we don't wanna remember being unhappy, so we just remember playing kickball and dodgeball and summers off at the pool.

I myself am a Heterosexual, married, and have 1 child, 2 years old. This said, i TOTALLY AGREE with the above quote! It doesnt matter what sexuality you are, same as what color, or religion, etc you are-NONE of these things determine if your a good person, a loving person with room, ability, and the sheer financial ability to care for a child. What does matter is that child is getting everything they need in terms of love and support, and that they can be properly provided for.

People need to learn responsibility for their actions. You dont have 12 kids then rant and rave and moan about the 'cruelty of the system' by putting them in bi, lesbian, or gay households because you (the person in question) couldn't be responsible enough to use the proper birth control methods. There are many such options, so those who fail to do so but continue to 'pop out' children, really should have no say-because if they are not even THIS responsible, what sort of parents would they make?
Good first post!

I call it selective memory. Everyone does it. You think about how great life was as a kid, but if you went back and met yourself, it may've been okay, but not great. All kinds of social, familial, and school pressures. The difficulties of adjusting to life. But we don't wanna remember being unhappy, so we just remember playing kickball and dodgeball and summers off at the pool.
very very true. And I don't claim that I don't do it myself...the good stays while the bad fades away.

But it just bothers me when people rant and rave about how great (for example) the 50's were...yeah...wonderful. perfect families, great economy, the end of a world war. lynchings. racism. fear of communists resulting in a witch hunt. Or the 60's. Hippies and peace and free love and drugs...and Viet Nam. And one of the largest gaps between culture and subculture. But you get my point and I'm rambling.

very very true. And I don't claim that I don't do it myself...the good stays while the bad fades away.

But it just bothers me when people rant and rave about how great (for example) the 50's were...yeah...wonderful. perfect families, great economy, the end of a world war. lynchings. racism. fear of communists resulting in a witch hunt. Or the 60's. Hippies and peace and free love and drugs...and Viet Nam. And one of the largest gaps between culture and subculture. But you get my point and I'm rambling.
Yeah I know what you mean.....But everyone dreams of a better time. (Disclaimer, I'm about to make some gross generalizations. I don't think they actually apply to YOU, the reader, I'm just saying oftentimes this is the case). Young people tend to dream about making a difference in the world and having a better future. Older people tend to dream of the better times that they remember from their past. I think it's better to dream of better times in the future, so we can go about making those dreams come true. IE, the dream that one day in the grand ol' US of A gays will be able to get married, adopt, foster children, divorce, and all those other things heterosexuals tend to take for granted.

Yeah I know what you mean.....But everyone dreams of a better time. (Disclaimer, I'm about to make some gross generalizations. I don't think they actually apply to YOU, the reader, I'm just saying oftentimes this is the case). Young people tend to dream about making a difference in the world and having a better future. Older people tend to dream of the better times that they remember from their past. I think it's better to dream of better times in the future, so we can go about making those dreams come true. IE, the dream that one day in the grand ol' US of A gays will be able to get married, adopt, foster children, divorce, and all those other things heterosexuals tend to take for granted.
hear, hear. And nice swing back onto topic.

hear, hear. And nice swing back onto topic.
Thank you, I try! *grins proudly*

Thank you, I try! *grins proudly*just to be nice im not saying anything

I think it's better to dream of better times in the future, so we can go about making those dreams come true. IE, the dream that one day in the grand ol' US of A gays will be able to get married, adopt, foster children, divorce, and all those other things heterosexuals tend to take for granted.
You can actually make a nice combination of the two:

If you look back into the past, you see that all this has happened before. All these shrieks about the sanctity of marriage and the iminent collapse of society were raised back when we finally started allowing women to own their own property and vote. "Society will collapse!" they cried. "Think of the children!"

All the terror over the loss of "normal" families was expressed by the people who didn't want to let blacks marry whites. "It's unnatural!" they cried. "Think of the CHILDREN!"

Look at the present. Society has not collapsed, marriage has not been abolished, and the children are still as beloved and spoiled as they've ever been.

Now, look to the future, and know that those who oppose gay marriage are no different than those who opposed women's suffrage or interracial marriage. Know that Americans between the ages of 16 and 25 overwhelmingly feel that gay marriage is no big deal. The next generation of American voters think gay marriage is a no-brainer. There WILL be gay marriage in our lifetimes, and we WILL be having to explain all this insanity to our curious grandchildren, who will ask us if it's really true that Americans were once silly enough to think that gay people didn't have the same rights as straight people.

I think homosexual parents are fine.

All for it.

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?

One is enough. :)

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?

That we need more people with decent dress sense. Therefor all in favour !

Now, look to the future, and know that those who oppose gay marriage are no different than those who opposed women's suffrage or interracial marriage.

Better yet, I bet quite a few of the anti-gay-marriage people are the very same people who earlier on fought for inter-racial marriages.

They met arguments against inter-racial marriages with basically the same arguments we are now using for same-sex marriages, yet use arguments against same-sex marriages which were basically the same as those used against inter-racial marriages.

Yes, the human mind is a funny thing.

I think that there's nothing wrong with gay couples raising children, so long as they don't try and force their sexuality on their children. Surely so long as they care for the child and let it make its own decesions about itself, it doesn't matter, does it?

I wish I'd had gay parents. My straight mom worked out just fine, but my straight dad tried to foist his heterosexuality on me against my nature, and he's never completely given up his delusions that I just need to meet "the right girl." So if kids who are inherently straight should be "spared" being raised by gay parents, shouldn't kids who are inherently gay be spared being raised by straight parents who don't understand and might not accept them?

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.

The year was 1989, and the place was a seedy swing-set on the wrong side of town. I was downing a grape juice box, drowning my sorrows as it were, when all of a sudden it happened. The sexuality fairy wafted down on a fluorescent cloud lit by tiny disco balls, waved her magical vibrating wand, and WHAM. I was gay.

One thing is for certain. I would never be the same after that summer.


haha. Nearly happened to me too. But at the time I was wearing a plaid shirt, and during the '90s that was like gay kriptonite.

Ever heard of the nuclear family? My family is straight, white, middle-class and proud of it.

Good for you! I think alot of people on this forum should see this person and his family as a role-model. Think about all the work it must have taken to become white and straight!

Out of curiosity, what if it were true that gay parents = gay children (theoretical)? As long as they were happy would it make any difference?

Unless we make the assumption that heterosexuals were in some way superior to homosexuals, the sexual preference of a child makes no difference, nor of the parents.

My personal preference would be for adoptive children to go into an extended family as opposed to a nuclear family. That way they have a larger family, which is better for social skills, respect for different age groups and have a better appreciation for the family unit.

Thankfully parts of the western world are seeing the light regarding gay adoption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_Adoption_Map_Europe.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_Adoption_Map_North_America.png

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.

I agree. It is a well-known fact children cannot resist eating homosexual's brains.

I agree. It is a well-known fact children cannot resist eating homosexual's brains.

what about bi-sexuals? do the children only eat half of the brain? or only one of the partners?

It's allready legal here and I'm fine with it.

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.

Well not necessarily. I mean, they can't be parents, but it's not like their very presence will cause a problem. But to reinforce my view, Ill say this. Think about this. Every human culture that has ever existed since the dawn of time has come up with the same concept of man+woman= family with kids. Every single one, check history books. This calls into question other things like marriage. Here's a question, do think marriage is something instituted by human kind or maybe it's something beyond us, bigger than humanity, instituted by God himself, if you don't belive in god, then then desire of continuation created it. Marriage is not man made. Thats it, we didn't make it we only konw about it. We have no right to change it. Ok that's more on gay marriage but heres the connection. Every culture has also understood the importance of a woman raising the child, and a father teaching that child how to survive in the culture, things like how to hunt, how to hold honor, that sort of thing. I believe the amazon culture has the woman and man roles reversed but whatever. My point is, the helathy family unit, man, woman, and hildren has origins beyond the mere creation of man, we are not in our righs to change that. Try to realize that some things in this world arent just happily tailored to what you want it to be and that some things are jsut plain beyond us, bigger than us.

Well not necessarily. I mean, they can't be parents, but it's not like their very presence will cause a problem. But to reinforce my view, Ill say this. Think about this. Every human culture that has ever existed since the dawn of time has come up with the same concept of man+woman= family with kids. Every single one, check history books.

Actually quite a few came up with "dominant male + wife + wife + wife + wife + wife + wife + etc = kids". Significantly less reversed the male and female role, but they still existed. Some even used "collective resources provided by the tribe = place to raise kids"; or to rephrase: "we do not care who the biological mommy and daddy are but we are all one big happy family that sticks together".

Every culture has also understood the importance of a woman raising the child, and a father teaching that child how to survive in the culture, things like how to hunt, how to hold honor, that sort of thing.

See above. Many cultures used different systems. Some in fact still do.

I don't see many straight people bitching when straight parents force their sexuality on their children. In fact, I see many, many straight people encourage it. Why the double-standard?

Being "straight" is normal. Homosexuality is completely abnormal, and shouldn't be tolerated.

Being "straight" is normal. Homosexuality is completely abnormal, and shouldn't be tolerated.

I agree completely. Like Monotheism. All these bizarre bastards running around polluting the world with ideas of 'one god' instead of Pantheism the way our ancestors intended things to be have had their way for far too long. Hell, between Jews, christians and Muslims these Monotheists have almost destroyed the world.

We need to get back to our roots and worship the gods again. MOnotheists should not be tolerated.

Being "straight" is normal. Homosexuality is completely abnormal, and shouldn't be tolerated.

Why? What difference does it make to you? Is your hold on your sexuality so tenuous that people of a different sexuality are a threat to you?

Well not necessarily. I mean, they can't be parents, but it's not like their very presence will cause a problem. But to reinforce my view, Ill say this. Think about this. Every human culture that has ever existed since the dawn of time has come up with the same concept of man+woman= family with kids. Every single one, check history books.
first of all, that isn't history, it is anthropology. Second of all, it is just blatantly wrong. The most culturally popular marriage form is polygyny. The only reason that it is not the most widely practiced is because polygamy is expensive. And there are even a few cultures that perform polyandry.
Your model doesn't even work in the modern western world. What about kids raised by a single mom? Or single dad? Or raised by parents and grandparents? Are those not families?
This calls into question other things like marriage. Here's a question, do think marriage is something instituted by human kind or maybe it's something beyond us, bigger than humanity, instituted by God himself, if you don't belive in god, then then desire of continuation created it. Marriage is not man made.There is no god, and a desire cannot create, as it, also, does not exist in any tangible form. Man created marriage. And no, even that isn't 100% culturally universal (iirc).
Thats it, we didn't make it we only konw about it. We have no right to change it.
We have every right to change it, as it has never been static, as you seem to think.
Ok that's more on gay marriage but heres the connection. Every culture has also understood the importance of a woman raising the child, and a father teaching that child how to survive in the culture, things like how to hunt, how to hold honor, that sort of thing.
Yes. We should ban those damn single mothers.
Is it important for a child to have both a male and female role model? Yes. Is that role model always the mother and father, even in this "man+woman+child" situation? No. Just because they have gay parents does not mean they wont be exposed to a person of the opposite sex.
I believe the amazon culture has the woman and man roles reversed but whatever. My point is, the helathy family unit, man, woman, and hildren has origins beyond the mere creation of man, we are not in our righs to change that. Try to realize that some things in this world arent just happily tailored to what you want it to be and that some things are jsut plain beyond us, bigger than us.When someone can show me anything that can not, and more over, has not been adjusted to suit the needs of humans, then I will believe you. But marriage will STILL not be one of those, given the fact that it has never been a static institution, nor is it a cultural universal.

I'm shocked to find so many homophobes.

There is nothing wrong with gay couples raising kids. That is, as long as it is a kid of the opposite sex so the child isn't molested.

humor

I'm shocked to find so many homophobes.

There is nothing wrong with gay couples raising kids. That is, as long as it is a kid of the opposite sex so the child isn't molested.

humor

Whew. I was worried for a second there. ;)

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.

Yea! They might get gay cooties! :rolleyes:

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.

Agreed. By actually coming into contact with them they might get the crazy idea that homosexuals are not repulsive demons from hell, but pretty normal people.

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.
I always worry about people like you, why do you think this?

first of all, that isn't history, it is anthropology. Second of all, it is just blatantly wrong. The most culturally popular marriage form is polygyny. The only reason that it is not the most widely practiced is because polygamy is expensive. And there are even a few cultures that perform polyandry.
Your model doesn't even work in the modern western world. What about kids raised by a single mom? Or single dad? Or raised by parents and grandparents? Are those not families?
There is no god, and a desire cannot create, as it, also, does not exist in any tangible form. Man created marriage. And no, even that isn't 100% culturally universal (iirc).

We have every right to change it, as it has never been static, as you seem to think.

Yes. We should ban those damn single mothers.
Is it important for a child to have both a male and female role model? Yes. Is that role model always the mother and father, even in this "man+woman+child" situation? No. Just because they have gay parents does not mean they wont be exposed to a person of the opposite sex.
When someone can show me anything that can not, and more over, has not been adjusted to suit the needs of humans, then I will believe you. But marriage will STILL not be one of those, given the fact that it has never been a static institution, nor is it a cultural universal.

You think the world is about you doing what you want to make you happy don't you.
There is a God, desire does create, the intangiblie things are often the most powerful, for example, love has more force behind peoples actions than any other one thing in the world, it has even overcome the will to survive numerous times. As for polygamy, they had the concept of husband and wife, but with a male dominant culture, men got greedy (lust) and took several wives. The core concept of man finds woman to make baby has always always always been around, even in the animal kingdom. Any species, the male looks for female and the female looks for male so they can get together and make baby. Now not all species have a father that hang around, but many do. But animals are animals, not people, that fact that we are so different from animals is an important part of being human.

Banning single mothers? You reallly think sarcasm is a win-all don't you. Single mothers are heros doing the best they can in a wolrd that has given them circumstances they shouldn't be in. How about guys stop fucking girls and leaving them to struggle with a lifelong responsibility of raising a child without a father figure. Guess what, as single parenting increses, so it seems that crime rate does and a variety of societal (not sure societal is a word but you get the point) problems. The basic fallin apart of society can be mostly blamed on bad parents and bad family settings. If a child is never shown what's good and normal (thats a very difficult term to use) how can we expect him to be taht way? If the child doesnt understand that man needs woman and that woman needs man do you think that women will ever be treated equally, or that society's image of man will ever be accurate? Now im not saying someone raised in a bad family can't be a good person it can hapen, but theh are severely handicapped in becoming good people wihtout a model of what is good and natural for humanity.

I always worry about people like you, why do you think this?

Once again, a simple matter of physics, even if he is slightly misguided. I think he believes that homosexuals, exerting as they do greater gravity, will cause any children they encounter to forcibly collide with them, leading to injury both in the case of the children, and, occasionally, the homosexual.

However, this is misguided because the gravitational force exerted by homosexuals is not great enough to cause actual movement of the children, and can only influence their trajectory in life, often leading to the children themselves becoming homosexuals.

I'm shocked to find so many homophobes.And I'm pleased as punch to find so many rational, open-minded people in this thread. Seriously, what a difference twenty years makes. There is nothing wrong with gay couples raising kids. That is, as long as it is a kid of the opposite sex so the child isn't molested.humor

:eek:heh.:p

You think the world is about you doing what you want to make you happy don't you.
There is a God, desire does create, the intangiblie things are often the most powerful, for example, love has more force behind peoples actions than any other one thing in the world, it has even overcome the will to survive numerous times. As for polygamy, they had the concept of husband and wife, but with a male dominant culture, men got greedy (lust) and took several wives. The core concept of man finds woman to make baby has always always always been around, even in the animal kingdom. Any species, the male looks for female and the female looks for male so they can get together and make baby. Now not all species have a father that hang around, but many do. But animals are animals, not people, that fact that we are so different from animals is an important part of being human.

Banning single mothers? You reallly think sarcasm is a win-all don't you. Single mothers are heros doing the best they can in a wolrd that has given them circumstances they shouldn't be in. How about guys stop fucking girls and leaving them to struggle with a lifelong responsibility of raising a child without a father figure. Guess what, as single parenting increses, so it seems that crime rate does and a variety of societal (not sure societal is a word but you get the point) problems. The basic fallin apart of society can be mostly blamed on bad parents and bad family settings. If a child is never shown what's good and normal (thats a very difficult term to use) how can we expect him to be taht way? If the child doesnt understand that man needs woman and that woman needs man do you think that women will ever be treated equally, or that society's image of man will ever be accurate? Now im not saying someone raised in a bad family can't be a good person it can hapen, but theh are severely handicapped in becoming good people wihtout a model of what is good and natural for humanity.

You haven't seen any of the studies about chemicals that cause passion, desire, love, etc. have you? That reduces them to tangible, so there's one argument.

And hold on here... children raised by homosexual parents= bad treatment of women?

Bwhuh?

...

Okay, let me explain something. Homosexuality used to be much more frowned upon in the US than it is today. At the same time, women used to have many less rights than they do today. I'm not saying that one of these caused the other, but with homosexuality becoming more accepted, according to you, women should have lost what rights they had.

You think the world is about you doing what you want to make you happy don't you.
There is a God, desire does create, the intangiblie things are often the most powerful, for example, love has more force behind peoples actions than any other one thing in the world, it has even overcome the will to survive numerous times. As for polygamy, they had the concept of husband and wife, but with a male dominant culture, men got greedy (lust) and took several wives. The core concept of man finds woman to make baby has always always always been around, even in the animal kingdom. Any species, the male looks for female and the female looks for male so they can get together and make baby. Now not all species have a father that hang around, but many do. But animals are animals, not people, that fact that we are so different from animals is an important part of being human.

Banning single mothers? You reallly think sarcasm is a win-all don't you. Single mothers are heros doing the best they can in a wolrd that has
given them circumstances they shouldn't be in. How about guys stop fucking girls and leaving them to struggle with a lifelong responsibility of raising a child without a father figure. Guess what, as single parenting increses, so it seems that crime rate does and a variety of societal (not sure societal is a word but you get the point) problems. The basic fallin apart of society can be mostly blamed on bad parents and bad family settings. If a child is never shown what's good and normal (thats a very difficult term to use) how can we expect him to be taht way? If the child doesnt understand that man needs woman and that woman needs man do you think that women will ever be treated equally, or that society's image of man will ever be accurate? Now im not saying someone raised in a bad family can't be a good person it can hapen, but theh are severely handicapped in becoming good people wihtout a model of what is good and natural for humanity.

You do realize that Christianity is traditionally a patriarchal religion, yes? Your argument is one of the most profound against many current traditions. These tradtions are the same ones that are prevengin people from accepting non-nuclear families.

Agreed. By actually coming into contact with them they might get the crazy idea that homosexuals are not repulsive demons from hell, but pretty normal people.

Ok try on this metaphor. You have legs, your normal ok? Your friend has no legs, he needs a wheelchair. You get to walk up and down stairs all you want (oh joy!) He can't, he needs something to help him get up those stairs to his destination. Does the fact that your friend has no legs make him any lesser of a being than you? No, but he has a handicap, sucks, not his fault but hes gotta deal with it. Lets say heterosexuality is like legs and that bi and homo is like not having legs. Let's say the top fot he stairs is like a normal relationship, helathy, brings about children, allows you to go to heaven. (no doesnt mean you cant go to heaven if your gay ill explain) You can walk up those stairs on your normal legs, where your friends needs help to get up them (therapy and understanding that homosexual urges are unnatural). If your friend accepts that he is handicapped and is willing to work on the fact that he can't reach the top without some help, he can turn and ask you. You help him up the stairs (either his sexuality is reversed back to normal or he understands that he is stuck with a life of celibacy) He gets there and everyone is happy. Being gay, more often than not is completely outside your control, you have to accept that it's not normal, that you have to resist homosexual desires as they have no good end.

An ideal life is one in which every action has a goal for something good.

You haven't seen any of the studies about chemicals that cause passion, desire, love, etc. have you? That reduces them to tangible, so there's one argument.

And hold on here... children raised by homosexual parents= bad treatment of women?

Bwhuh?

...

Okay, let me explain something. Homosexuality used to be much more frowned upon in the US than it is today. At the same time, women used to have many less rights than they do today. I'm not saying that one of these caused the other, but with homosexuality becoming more accepted, according to you, women should have lost what rights they had.

Ineviteable, i start going of on tangents and you make connections that don't exist, arguing base points that aren't an issue. I neve said that those two equal one another. Take more than just one look at what I said and try to grasp what understanding means.

Ok try on this metaphor. You have legs, your normal ok? Your friend has no legs, he needs a wheelchair. You get to walk up and down stairs all you want (oh joy!) He can't, he needs something to help him get up those stairs to his destination. Does the fact that your friend has no legs make him any lesser of a being than you? No, but he has a handicap, sucks, not his fault but hes gotta deal with it. Lets say heterosexuality is like legs and that bi and homo is like not having legs. Let's say the top fot he stairs is like a normal relationship, helathy, brings about children, allows you to go to heaven. (no doesnt mean you cant go to heaven if your gay ill explain) You can walk up those stairs on your normal legs, where your friends needs help to get up them (therapy and understanding that homosexual urges are unnatural). If your friend accepts that he is handicapped and is willing to work on the fact that he can't reach the top without some help, he can turn and ask you. You help him up the stairs (either his sexuality is reversed back to normal or he understands that he is stuck with a life of celibacy) He gets there and everyone is happy. Being gay, more often than not is completely outside your control, you have to accept that it's not normal, that you have to resist homosexual desires as they have no good end.

An ideal life is one in which every action has a goal for something good.

So you don't consider pleasure a good end? Oh, and how is staying celibate any better than gay sex?

If homosexuality is unnatural, why does it occur in nature?

You do realize that Christianity is traditionally a patriarchal religion, yes? Your argument is one of the most profound against many current traditions. These tradtions are the same ones that are prevengin people from accepting non-nuclear families.

I said nothing Unchristian. You think you've found something, tell me what's so unchristian and perhaps I can further explain what was meant.

I said nothing Unchristian. You think you've found something, tell me what's so unchristian and perhaps I can further explain what was meant.

I didn't say you said something unChristian. You spoke out against patriarchy and Christianity is traditionally highly patriarchal. I consider being anti-patriarchal to be very Christian. It does go strongly against the majority of the religion called Christianity, however.

Ineviteable, i start going of on tangents and you make connections that don't exist, arguing base points that aren't an issue. I neve said that those two equal one another. Take more than just one look at what I said and try to grasp what understanding means.

Okay, let's review. You said...

If the child doesnt understand that man needs woman and that woman needs man do you think that women will ever be treated equally.

Now, presumably, the two things that would prevent a child understanding that are A) a completely sexless society or B) A child being raised in an environment where there are no heterosexuals.

As neither of those is likely, (well, I suppose the first one could be if the child was raised in a monastary/nunnery) let's reduce that to A) a child being raised by completely celibate parents (priests, eunuchs, whatever) or B) A child being raised by homosexual parents.

Since celibacy isn't the issue being addressed here, it stands to reason that you meant a child being raised by homosexual parents.

You haven't seen any of the studies about chemicals that cause passion, desire, love, etc. have you? That reduces them to tangible, so there's one argument.

Also, love is not jsut some mere emotion. Hell it would take days to explain what love is but ok. Emotion like attraction, sadness, anger etc.. is chemical. But for humans there is often a little more than just chmicals, like what does it take to trigger them? Anyways point is, Love is not jsut an emotion, it causes emotion. Love is a desire for another's well being essentially. It's not the strong want of the person for yourself, that's part of the reason sex is so mistreated. Love is a choice. CHOICE. It's not a reaction which is what all emotions are. So no the arguement is not void.

Also, love is not jsut some mere emotion. Hell it would take days to explain what love is but ok. Emotion like attraction, sadness, anger etc.. is chemical. But for humans there is often a little more than just chmicals, like what does it take to trigger them? Anyways point is, Love is not jsut an emotion, it causes emotion. Love is a desire for another's well being essentially. It's not the strong want of the person for yourself, that's part of the reason sex is so mistreated. Love is a choice. CHOICE. It's not a reaction which is what all emotions are. So no the arguement is not void.

Wait, so you get to pick if you love someone?

News to me, whether it's chemical or spiritual.

I dunno, I take pride in my earnings. I'm extremely proud of my financial independence, and of the way I choose to manage my money, because I feel that it reflects my work ethic and my sense of personal responsibility.

But, then again, I live at the poverty line. :P

When you consider family size, I actually weigh in below the poverty line, at the moment. Which is insane - when you allow for the fact that I have the lives of at least 10,000 people in my hands, pretty much every day.

Okay, let's review. You said...



Now, presumably, the two things that would prevent a child understanding that are A) a completely sexless society or B) A child being raised in an environment where there are no heterosexuals.

As neither of those is likely, (well, I suppose the first one could be if the child was raised in a monastary/nunnery) let's reduce that to A) a child being raised by completely celibate parents (priests, eunuchs, whatever) or B) A child being raised by homosexual parents.

Since celibacy isn't the issue being addressed here, it stands to reason that you meant a child being raised by homosexual parents.

What I am trying to convey is that the HEALTHY relationship between husband and wife (man and woman) is the primary educator of children on how people shold be treated. The reason for poor treatment of women to this day is the fact that majority of realtionships between man and woman are unhealthy is which the male often feels as though the wife is a possession and he is greater. That concept is conveyed to children and the male supremacy continues. In recent history that sense has grealy fallen but there is stall a male dominance issue in society. Now what I'm saying about homosexual parents effect on the child is that (and this is more hypothetical than anything) A child reaised by two gay fathers would more likely than not, have no idea how to react to women. And vice versa.

Maybe that makes my point clearer

Wait, so you get to pick if you love someone?

News to me, whether it's chemical or spiritual.
you may not choose whom you are attracted to, but you can choose who to love, love isn't an emotion but a commitment.

People seem to confuse love and attraction a lot these days.

Wait, so you get to pick if you love someone?

News to me, whether it's chemical or spiritual.

Yes, you get to choose love. If you feel compelled to love, you are infatuated, or in lust or both. No that doesn't sound right. If you "fall" into to love, it can be infatuation or lust or it can be your natural subconsious desire for that person's good due to the fact that the more you know the person the more you want them to be happy. But you still have the choice of love. You can always choose not to love someone, and you can choose to love them. Example you have to CHOOSE to love your enemies. You wont fall in love with your enemies and probably not our negihbors (annoying neighbors i mean really :) ) Though allowing for the concept that perhaps sometimes love can be divinely inspired, but for that I have no insight into or knowledge of. so I couldn't tell you.

What I am trying to convey is that the HEALTHY relationship between husband and wife (man and woman) is the primary educator of children on how people shold be treated. The reason for poor treatment of women to this day is the fact that majority of realtionships between man and woman are unhealthy is which the male often feels as though the wife is a possession and he is greater. That concept is conveyed to children and the male supremacy continues. In recent history that sense has grealy fallen but there is stall a male dominance issue in society. Now what I'm saying about homosexual parents effect on the child is that (and this is more hypothetical than anything) A child reaised by two gay fathers would more likely than not, have no idea how to react to women. And vice versa.

Maybe that makes my point clearer

They would know how to treat women though, just the way a child raised by a single mother knows how to react to men. Just because you don't have them as parents does not mean you don't interact with them in day to day life. Children are affected more by their peers than by their parents.

Ok try on this metaphor. You have legs, your normal ok? Your friend has no legs, he needs a wheelchair. You get to walk up and down stairs all you want (oh joy!) He can't, he needs something to help him get up those stairs to his destination. Does the fact that your friend has no legs make him any lesser of a being than you? No, but he has a handicap, sucks, not his fault but hes gotta deal with it. Lets say heterosexuality is like legs and that bi and homo is like not having legs. Let's say the top fot he stairs is like a normal relationship, helathy, brings about children, allows you to go to heaven. (no doesnt mean you cant go to heaven if your gay ill explain) You can walk up those stairs on your normal legs, where your friends needs help to get up them (therapy and understanding that homosexual urges are unnatural). If your friend accepts that he is handicapped and is willing to work on the fact that he can't reach the top without some help, he can turn and ask you. You help him up the stairs (either his sexuality is reversed back to normal or he understands that he is stuck with a life of celibacy) He gets there and everyone is happy. Being gay, more often than not is completely outside your control, you have to accept that it's not normal, that you have to resist homosexual desires as they have no good end.

An ideal life is one in which every action has a goal for something good.


Congratulations! You managed to offend two segments of the population with one post -- that's a rare gift. I'm not sure which is more offensive, your implication that homosexuality is some sort of disability, or your cavalier attitude to the disabled.

For the record, I'm disabled not gay. And gays aren't disabled (unless of course they also have a disability).

What I am trying to convey is that the HEALTHY relationship between husband and wife (man and woman) is the primary educator of children on how people shold be treated. The reason for poor treatment of women to this day is the fact that majority of realtionships between man and woman are unhealthy is which the male often feels as though the wife is a possession and he is greater. That concept is conveyed to children and the male supremacy continues. In recent history that sense has grealy fallen but there is stall a male dominance issue in society. Now what I'm saying about homosexual parents effect on the child is that (and this is more hypothetical than anything) A child reaised by two gay fathers would more likely than not, have no idea how to react to women. And vice versa.

Maybe that makes my point clearer

So, since they wouldn't come to view the wife as a possession, it would seem that they have a better chance of not being sexist.

Although this would presume that not only are they raised by two fathers, they don't have any friends who have heterosexual parents.

you may not choose whom you are attracted to, but you can choose who to love, love isn't an emotion but a commitment.

People seem to confuse love and attraction a lot these days.

YES!!!!! Thank you. Hard to find people who get that. Hmm now the post after yours that I left seems overworded and confusing. But yeah what Smunkee said made it clearer.

You think the world is about you doing what you want to make you happy don't you. No. Actually, I tend to put myself last. I also don't think the world is "about" anything. It just is.
There is a God,
I will not turn this into a religious debate, so I will not respond to this.
desire does create
desire provides motivation and inspiration. Man, however, is still the tool of the creation. An intanglible cannot manipulate.
the intangiblie things are often the most powerful, for example, love has more force behind peoples actions than any other one thing in the world, it has even overcome the will to survive numerous times.
I don't claim intangibles don't exist. I do claim that they, by themselves, have no power. They must have something to impact which can then manipulate reality.
As for polygamy, they had the concept of husband and wife, but with a male dominant culture, men got greedy (lust) and took several wives.Do your research. That is not the reasoning for polygyny. There is also the case of polyandry. The Surui come to mind.
The core concept of man finds woman to make baby has always always always been around, even in the animal kingdom. Any species, the male looks for female and the female looks for male so they can get together and make baby. Most animals don't practice any form of monogamy, be it strict monogamy or serial monogamy. There are also countless examples of homosexuality in nature.
But animals are animals, not people, that fact that we are so different from animals is an important part of being human. Then why would you mention animals in the first place?:confused:

Banning single mothers? You reallly think sarcasm is a win-all don't you. But if you think that only a man and a woman should have a child, then single mothers should not.
Single mothers are heros doing the best they can in a wolrd that has given them circumstances they shouldn't be in.I tend to agree. That isn't my point.
How about guys stop fucking girls and leaving them to struggle with a lifelong responsibility of raising a child without a father figure. Um, you do know most single mothers are a product of a divorce? And all of the weight doesn't come on the guy. The girl consented to sex.
Guess what, as single parenting increses, so it seems that crime rate does and a variety of societal (not sure societal is a word but you get the point) problems. The basic fallin apart of society can be mostly blamed on bad parents and bad family settings. If a child is never shown what's good and normal (thats a very difficult term to use) how can we expect him to be taht way? First of all, there is a reason "normal" is difficult to use. It doesn't exist. It isn't even an intangible...it just isn't. And I tend to agree that alot of problems relate to poor parenting. However, that has nothing to do with gay parents...two loving parents, regardless of genders.
If the child doesnt understand that man needs woman and that woman needs man do you think that women will ever be treated equally, or that society's image of man will ever be accurate?As I said before, children have role models beyond their parents. And, oddly enough, the heterosexual monogamous marriage did more to degrade women than anything else.
Now im not saying someone raised in a bad family can't be a good person it can hapen, but theh are severely handicapped in becoming good people wihtout a model of what is good and natural for humanity.Is this implying that gay parents are a bad family? I'd rather not assume that and have you clarify before I respond...

<snip> Lets say heterosexuality is like legs and that bi and homo is like not having legs. Let's say the top fot he stairs is like a normal relationship, helathy, brings about children, allows you to go to heaven.<snip>.Excellent example of misdefining an issue so you can control the argument.

For what it's worth, sexuality isn't like legs. The physical nature of a leg makes it a poor comparison for the complex, mental-physical blend that is sexuality. What we're finding scientifically is that the flavor of one's sexuality is dependent on a large number of factors, most of them genetic-based. With legs, one either has working copies or doesn't. One might could say you don't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

And heaven? Your invisible super-being doesn't exist, thereby nullifying the vast majority of your argument.

What I am trying to convey is that the HEALTHY relationship between husband and wife (man and woman) is the primary educator of children on how people shold be treated. The reason for poor treatment of women to this day is the fact that majority of realtionships between man and woman are unhealthy is which the male often feels as though the wife is a possession and he is greater.

Again, you fail to recognize that many of the unhealthy views of women by men is based on the version of Christianity taught by the church. Women are treated as property in many areas of the compiled Bible.

That concept is conveyed to children and the male supremacy continues.

Propped up most strongly by patriarchal religious groups.

In recent history that sense has grealy fallen but there is stall a male dominance issue in society. Now what I'm saying about homosexual parents effect on the child is that (and this is more hypothetical than anything) A child reaised by two gay fathers would more likely than not, have no idea how to react to women. And vice versa.

Maybe that makes my point clearer

First false assumption - that there are only homosexual men. There are obviously homosexual men, so your first assumption that they wouldn't know how to deal with women is false.

Second false assumption, that children only learn about relationships from their parents. Do these homosexuals have parents? Siblings? Friends? There is no reason to assume that children of homosexuals will not encounter healthy heterosexual relationships.

Third, you admit you don't have evidence for your claims but you are willing to deny people rights based on your made up theories. Scary.

YES!!!!! Thank you. Hard to find people who get that. Hmm now the post after yours that I left seems overworded and confusing. But yeah what Smunkee said made it clearer.
I should point out that while I see what you are trying to say the rest of the time, and I probably could articulate it better, I don't agree with it, so I won't. ;)

So, since they wouldn't come to view the wife as a possession, it would seem that they have a better chance of not being sexist.

Although this would presume that not only are they raised by two fathers, they don't have any friends who have heterosexual parents.

Maybe less sexest, mayb moreso the results could be worse, it would leave to much guesswork as to the place to put a woman. I can't tell you what would happen in every specific situation. But IDEALLY the best situation is helathy mother and father to give clear example to the child. Yes, I konw that ideal families are rare, but we should limit the number of situations that are not ideal as best as we can, and under no circumstance is homosexual parents ideal for children.

Maybe less sexest, mayb moreso the results could be worse, it would leave to much guesswork as to the place to put a woman. I can't tell you what would happen in every specific situation. But IDEALLY the best situation is helathy mother and father to give clear example to the child. Yes, I konw that ideal families are rare, but we should limit the number of situations that are not ideal as best as we can, and under no circumstance is homosexual parents ideal for children.

An assumption you've shown no support for other than your own prejudice. By your arguments, we should try to keep children away from many Christian families. Many marriages still include the words "and obey".

Maybe less sexest, mayb moreso the results could be worse, it would leave to much guesswork as to the place to put a woman. I can't tell you what would happen in every specific situation. But IDEALLY the best situation is helathy mother and father to give clear example to the child. Yes, I konw that ideal families are rare, but we should limit the number of situations that are not ideal as best as we can, and under no circumstance is homosexual parents ideal for children.

So the child can live in a an adoption dumping ground with no parents, rolemodels, rules or structure or it can have two loving parents that love and care for him/her? Isn't a circumstance where homosexual parents would be ideal and isn't that what we're talking about?

Again, you fail to recognize that many of the unhealthy views of women by men is based on the version of Christianity taught by the church. Women are treated as property in many areas of the compiled Bible.



Propped up most strongly by patriarchal religious groups.



First false assumption - that there are only homosexual men. There are obviously homosexual men, so your first assumption that they wouldn't know how to deal with women is false.

Second false assumption, that children only learn about relationships from their parents. Do these homosexuals have parents? Siblings? Friends? There is no reason to assume that children of homosexuals will not encounter healthy heterosexual relationships.

Third, you admit you don't have evidence for your claims but you are willing to deny people rights based on your made up theories. Scary.

I was only looking at one aspect of homosexual parents. The majority of realtionship is learned fromt he parent but not all. And third, well the therioes have solid logic but it seems I am bad at conveying that, at least in a forum. It would take a lot of time to understand what Im trying to say as it took a lot of time to come up with it, I was just trying to give crash course with apparently weak results.

I won't deny the many male dominant references in the bible, but it was written in a time where that was the onyl understanding. The concept behind why that is and all that stuff is not the issue and I couldn't explain it fully if I wanted to, but what im saying is stil not unchristian, we all agree that man and woman are equal, but when we say equal everyone thinks the same. Equal does note denote identical, Woman and men are equal but each play different roles in religion, society, and life in general.

So the child can live in a an adoption dumping ground with no parents, rolemodels, rules or structure or it can have two loving parents that love and care for him/her? Isn't a circumstance where homosexual parents would be ideal and isn't that what we're talking about?

No adoption is not ideal and we ned to fix that, but alas, it is quite a difficult and very complex problem. I haven't thought of a solution but we dont need to vreate more problesm by allowing homosexual foster care.

No adoption is not ideal and we ned to fix that, but alas, it is quite a difficult and very complex problem. I haven't thought of a solution but we dont need to vreate more problesm by allowing homosexual foster care.

I don't think it really would create more problems, the child would be better off because it would learn about relationships and cooperation between partners even if its not within the normal nuclear family environment.

Maybe less sexest, mayb moreso the results could be worse, it would leave to much guesswork as to the place to put a woman. I can't tell you what would happen in every specific situation. But IDEALLY the best situation is helathy mother and father to give clear example to the child. Yes, I konw that ideal families are rare, but we should limit the number of situations that are not ideal as best as we can, and under no circumstance is homosexual parents ideal for children.

Not if you view homosexuality as bad to begin with. However, your theory that homosexual parents is not ideal is based on two concepts that I can see.

One, homosexuality is 'unnatural'. To which I resubmit my earlier question. Why, then, does it occur in nature?

Two, children raised by homosexual parents won't know how to deal with the gender that the parents or not.

To this, I resubmit the question, couldn't they learn from the other people they are in contact with?

So unless you can satisfactorilly answer those questions, or point out another reason that homosexual parents are not ideal, I submit that healthy homosexual parents are no worse than healthy heterosexual parents.

I was only looking at one aspect of homosexual parents. The majority of realtionship is learned fromt he parent but not all. And third, well the therioes have solid logic but it seems I am bad at conveying that, at least in a forum. It would take a lot of time to understand what Im trying to say as it took a lot of time to come up with it, I was just trying to give crash course with apparently weak results.

I won't deny the many male dominant references in the bible, but it was written in a time where that was the onyl understanding. The concept behind why that is and all that stuff is not the issue and I couldn't explain it fully if I wanted to, but what im saying is stil not unchristian, we all agree that man and woman are equal, but when we say equal everyone thinks the same. Equal does note denote identical, Woman and men are equal but each play different roles in religion, society, and life in general.

So if you admit that the male superiority in the bible was not truly due to God, but due to the general mood of the times, couldn't the same be portrayed to the already shakey announcements in the bible that homosexuality is bad?

I was only looking at one aspect of homosexual parents. The majority of realtionship is learned fromt he parent but not all. And third, well the therioes have solid logic but it seems I am bad at conveying that, at least in a forum. It would take a lot of time to understand what Im trying to say as it took a lot of time to come up with it, I was just trying to give crash course with apparently weak results.

I won't deny the many male dominant references in the bible, but it was written in a time where that was the onyl understanding. The concept behind why that is and all that stuff is not the issue and I couldn't explain it fully if I wanted to, but what im saying is stil not unchristian, we all agree that man and woman are equal, but when we say equal everyone thinks the same. Equal does note denote identical, Woman and men are equal but each play different roles in religion, society, and life in general.

We are not claiming the same. However, when women are treated as property that is not equal. My brother's in-laws were preparing for his wedding. The mother-in-law was racing around and because of it was getting hot. The father-in-law was resting on the couch, waiting. The mother-in-law comes to my brother's bride-to-be and asks if she will ask her father to increase the air conditioning. She needed permission. Absurd.

You excuse the information in the Bible as "they didn't know any better". Did God? How can an 'infallible' document be blamed on the cultural values of the people who were supposedly only the vessels? I'm always curious at that excuse.

The most dangerous ideology to the equality of women is not homosexuality, it's patriarchy.

So if you admit that the male superiority in the bible was not truly due to God, but due to the general mood of the times, couldn't the same be portrayed to the already shakey announcements in the bible that homosexuality is bad?


Ok hers the difficult part. Being gay isn't bad per say. It's doing gay things that are bad, because they have no good end. Sex is for the purpose of drawing the couple together and the create new life, cnat create new life with butt sex or oral. The sex must always be open to new life (no contraception, penis in vagina) and must be between a married couple (man and woman) That was not ever misconstrued.

I won't deny the many male dominant references in the bible, but it was written in a time where that was the onyl understanding. The concept behind why that is and all that stuff is not the issue <snip>.It is very much the issue. You maintain that homosexuality is "bad" not based on any scientific evidence, but on your moral code, which you readily admit (heterosexuals get to go to heaven... remember?) is based on a Christocentric religion. The holy text of that religion? Yep, the Bible. Which as you freely admit also is rife with commands for a patriarchal society that places women in a subservient role, which strictures you take issue with, excuse and negate. So why do you pitifully cling to the antiquated attitudes from that Bible that are the foundation for your argument?

Ok hers the difficult part. Being gay isn't bad per say. It's doing gay things that are bad, because they have no good end. Sex is for the purpose of drawing the couple together and the create new life, cnat create new life with butt sex or oral. The sex must always be open to new life (no contraception, penis in vagina) and must be between a married couple (man and woman) That was not ever misconstrued.
what brand o' Christian are you btw? it's interesting to me..........

We are not claiming the same. However, when women are treated as property that is not equal. My brother's in-laws were preparing for his wedding. The mother-in-law was racing around and because of it was getting hot. The father-in-law was resting on the couch, waiting. The mother-in-law comes to my brother's bride-to-be and asks if she will ask her father to increase the air conditioning. She needed permission. Absurd.

You excuse the information in the Bible as "they didn't know any better". Did God? How can an 'infallible' document be blamed on the cultural values of the people who were supposedly only the vessels? I'm always curious at that excuse.

The most dangerous ideology to the equality of women is not homosexuality, it's patriarchy.

I don't know what's worse for women. But it is absurd that she needed permission and that the guy wasn't helping. The bible has perfect values and meaning, sometiems the poorly worded transcription from divine to paper is misconstrued.

what brand o' Christian are you btw? it's interesting to me..........

Im a Catholic, the first kind.

No adoption is not ideal and we ned to fix that, but alas, it is quite a difficult and very complex problem. I haven't thought of a solution but we dont need to vreate more problesm by allowing homosexual foster care.

I say we accept your arguments but bring them to logical conclusions rather than the conclusions you wish them to bring.

Patriarchy is bad. That's your argument. You come to the illogical conclusion that homosexuality has ANYTHING to do with patriarchy. A ridiculous concolusion. A more rational conclusion is to protect children from patriarchy.

So let's look for families that promote patriarchy and keep their chidlren away from them. I wonder how the religious right will react when we take their chidlren away.

Ok hers the difficult part. Being gay isn't bad per say. It's doing gay things that are bad, because they have no good end. Sex is for the purpose of drawing the couple together and the create new life, cnat create new life with butt sex or oral. The sex must always be open to new life (no contraception, penis in vagina) and must be between a married couple (man and woman) That was not ever misconstrued.

Where in the bible does it say that the only purpose for sex is to draw the couple together (homosexual sex can do so, I'm certain, although I do not speak from experience) and to create new life?

Im a Catholic, the first kind.
that's pretty much what I figured but didn't want to assume. Thanks. ;)

It is very much the issue. You maintain that homosexuality is "bad" not based on any scientific evidence, but on your moral code, which you readily admit (heterosexuals get to go to heaven... remember?) is based on a Christocentric religion. The holy text of that religion? Yep, the Bible. Which as you freely admit also is rife with commands for a patriarchal society that places women in a subservient role, which strictures you take issue with, excuse and negate. So why do you pitifully cling to the antiquated attitudes from that Bible that are the foundation for your argument?

Again, being gay isnt bad, doing it is. Anyways, I gave scientific evidence earlier, how about gay never reproduces as necessary for het srvival of the species.

I said some of the things the bible says are misconstrued do to time gap, the message is the same. read the idea, not how it was presented.

Ok hers the difficult part. Being gay isn't bad per say. It's doing gay things that are bad, because they have no good end. Sex is for the purpose of drawing the couple together and the create new life, cnat create new life with butt sex or oral. The sex must always be open to new life (no contraception, penis in vagina) and must be between a married couple (man and woman) That was not ever misconstrued.

Again, not according to the Bible. According to the Bible, there are important aspects of sex not including procreation. It is certainly not the only purpose of sex. The Bible encourages acts for other than procreation. Given this, you make another flawed argument. And there is much in the Bible that goes against prostitution, but little that discourages sex outside of marriage.

Also, the homosexual acts you complain about have nothing to do with you. What difference does it make on whether or not a child can be raised in the environment? None. You want to punish homosexuals and you're willing to punish children to do it.

Quick, what does fornication mean when the Bible was originally using it?

Where in the bible does it say that the only purpose for sex is to draw the couple together (homosexual sex can do so, I'm certain, although I do not speak from experience) and to create new life?
(shh....it doesn't)

My friend is a Catholic who thinks I am going to hell because I let my husband get a vasectomy, but then my friend who is Unitarian thinks that I am living in hell because I submit to my husband. I just can't get along with anyone :p

On topic in the thred though, there are many things that I think are immoral, but one of them is trying to push your beliefs on another, so I don't think it's my place to really say if homosexuals can or should raise children.

I think that as long as a child is not being abused, they are probably in an adequate housing situation. I try not to let my personal views get in the way of someone else's pursuit of happiness, however, I do have them, and they aren't always the popular opinion. I try to remember though, if we removed children from homes because thier parents did something immoral, they would probably take my kids away (based on some people's idea of morality, that by chance didn't totally agree with mine)

Where in the bible does it say that the only purpose for sex is to draw the couple together (homosexual sex can do so, I'm certain, although I do not speak from experience) and to create new life?


Homosexual sex can't draw the couple together because the sort of love necessary for that to be true cannot be found between homosexuals. And the create new life thing is in the gospels Im sure of that, and Im pretty sure its in various parts of both the old and new testament. Ill have to rifle through my bible to get some verses.

Im a Catholic, the first kind.
Wasn't the Assyrian church the first, followed by the oriental, then the catholic and eastern, then protestant?

(shh....it doesn't)

My friend is a Catholic who thinks I am going to hell because I let my husband get a vasectomy, but then my friend who is Unitarian thinks that I am living in hell because I submit to my husband. I just can't get along with anyone :p

On topic in the thred though, there are many things that I think are immoral, but one of them is trying to push your beliefs on another, so I don't think it's my place to really say if homosexuals can or should raise children.

I think that as long as a child is not being abused, they are probably in an adequate housing situation. I try not to let my personal views get in the way of someone else's pursuit of happiness, however, I do have them, and they aren't always the popular opinion. I try to remember though, if we removed children from homes because thier parents did something immoral, they would probably take my kids away (based on some people's idea of morality, that by chance didn't totally agree with mine)

Ok, I'm not pushing my beliefs, your right you should't push. I am simply having deabte, they can all choose to ignore me and Ill let that go, Im not gonna do anything to them for it. But anyways. Vasectomy is wrong, limits the chance of life, not sure if your going to hell, only God really knows that.
And it does say in the bible that's what sex is about, not in those words. Ok now where is my bible....

Homosexual sex can't draw the couple together because the sort of love necessary for that to be true cannot be found between homosexuals. And the create new life thing is in the gospels Im sure of that, and Im pretty sure its in various parts of both the old and new testament. Ill have to rifle through my bible to get some verses.

How do you know that they don't have that "sort of love"?

Wasn't the Assyrian church the first, followed by the oriental, then the catholic and eastern, then protestant?

No, the Catholics were first because I said so.

How do you know that they don't have that "sort of love"?

Because homosexuality is sinful, silly.

What? What circular logic?

Again, being gay isnt bad, doing it is. Anyways, I gave scientific evidence earlier, how about gay never reproduces as necessary for het srvival of the species.

I said some of the things the bible says are misconstrued do to time gap, the message is the same. read the idea, not how it was presented.
gays can produce children. There is nothing about homosexuality that makes people sterile.
And the "idea" of the bible seems to paint women worse than just about anyone.

Ok, I'm not pushing my beliefs, your right you should't push. I am simply having deabte, they can all choose to ignore me and Ill let that go, Im not gonna do anything to them for it. But anyways. Vasectomy is wrong, limits the chance of life, not sure if your going to hell, only God really knows that.
And it does say in the bible that's what sex is about, not in those words. Ok now where is my bible....

Well, you are saying that laws should be passed based on your religious beliefs.

Ok, I'm not pushing my beliefs, your right you should't push. I am simply having deabte, they can all choose to ignore me and Ill let that go, Im not gonna do anything to them for it. But anyways. Vasectomy is wrong, limits the chance of life, not sure if your going to hell, only God really knows that.
And it does say in the bible that's what sex is about, not in those words. Ok now where is my bible....
ah, I know (or I believe I do based on what I have read in scripture and what I believe it to mean)

I have read the entire Bible through about 20 times, in depth going back to the original languages, studying the history of the time ect. I find many verses on the sanctity of life, that you are created for a purpose, ect. but nothing about sex only being for the creating of life. If you don't create life, do you go to hell? I mean Abram and Sarai had a lot of sex for a while, and didn't have kids until he was over 100..........

Again, being gay isnt bad, doing it is. Anyways, I gave scientific evidence earlier, how about gay never reproduces as necessary for het srvival of the species.

I said some of the things the bible says are misconstrued do to time gap, the message is the same. read the idea, not how it was presented.

Amusing. There are benefits to the species outside of reproduction. There is much to indicate that homosexuality has species advantages. For one, there is evidence of male homosexuality occurring more frequently in later children in families with multiple male children. This has the advantage of having the later males supporting their older brothers rather than competing with them, thus encouraging the passing on of their genes. More protectors for the children. More providers. Genetic advantage. Secondly, there is evidence that the same genes that promote homosexuality in men, promote fertility in women. Thus, the homosexual man would be in a position to provide for and support the children of his sister.

You oversimplify species advantage in your argument. Your conclusions are not supported by your arguments, your arguments are unsupported by fact.

No, the Catholics were first because I said so.
well, who can argue with illogic like that?

Ok, I'm not pushing my beliefs, your right you should't push. I am simply having deabte, they can all choose to ignore me and Ill let that go, Im not gonna do anything to them for it. But anyways. Vasectomy is wrong, limits the chance of life, not sure if your going to hell, only God really knows that.
And it does say in the bible that's what sex is about, not in those words. Ok now where is my bible....

So if I find verses that say otherwise, will you admit you don't know what you're talking about?