BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
You've done extensive research, heh?
You're so full of it.
gay parents "comparable" to straight parents
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You've done extensive research, heh?
You're so full of it.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
it must be because you're so hot. and they wanted to recruit you.
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
is that a Louisville Slugger in your pocket?
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
diamond said:
So...uh...tell 'em no thanks, you're not interested, and move on?
And of course, let's not forget things such as the numerous examples of sleazy men hitting on women that have occurred over the years.
I dunno. I just know that I hear stories such as the one of Scott Peterson, this Neil Entwistle guy, people like that-and these people had children or were about to have children, too...and think to myself, yep, heterosexual marriages/households are just so devoid of any dangers whatsoever, right?
Angela
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i'm in my 20s..i get hit on by straight girls all the time...offered money etc..and they would try and sell me on the idea i was straight etc..it was creepy.
diamond said:
So what's next? Quoting from the "Protocols of Zion" to justify anti-Semitism?
Melon
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
so ... getting back on the topic.
there's talk about how "every child does best with a mother and a father."
so, to extend this thought, do we prevent single straight women from adopting (like the woman next door from me who just brought Diego back from Guatemala last week)? do we prevent lesbian couples from being artificially inseminated? do we prevent gay men from finding egg doners and surrogate wombs? or does this only apply to adoption, and thus, why are children up for adoption subject to different rules than children who remain with their biological parents?
there's talk about how "every child does best with a mother and a father."
so, to extend this thought, do we prevent single straight women from adopting (like the woman next door from me who just brought Diego back from Guatemala last week)? do we prevent lesbian couples from being artificially inseminated? do we prevent gay men from finding egg doners and surrogate wombs? or does this only apply to adoption, and thus, why are children up for adoption subject to different rules than children who remain with their biological parents?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I may have to revise my five-star vote for this thread. The amount of homophobic bullshit in here masquerading as objectivity, intellect, and/or "experience" is incredible.
Here's some "experience" for y'all to chew on. I see parents every single day in my job. Straight, two-parent families fuck up their kids something fierce, so claiming that you think this is the best for them isn't based on anything true or researched. It's based on prejudices, bigotry, and religious fear. Please don't tart it up as anything else.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
well don't get stuck on stupid, ms. anitram
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
okay, i want to try and inject some substance back into this thread.
thinking about the reasoning against gay adoption, i have a couple of questions/comments. it seems to me that, over and over, we hear that "children do best with a mother and a father." however, at least according to the studies presented, and the fact that there's only a small (but growing) amount of studies on gay parenting (all of it very much in accord with the idea that children do just as well with gay parents as with straight parents), it seems to me that this oft-repeated maxim "children do better with a mother and a father" is more accurately stated as "children do better with two parents than with one" as the "mother and a father" is rather slippery langauge -- children do better with two parents than with one, and most often, the two parents are a mother and a father, but there is no evidence behind this statement that says "the opposite-sex pairing is crucial to a child's development." and, in fact, to support such a statement we'd have to delve into rather sexist notions of natural gender roles and how men should behave and how women should behave.
and let's expand this. if children do better with a mother and a father, and therefore we say that gay couples should therefore not adopt, let's go further. if we are shooting for ideals and optimum outcomes, and we are most concerned with the welfare of the child above all else, and we are not going to take couples as individuals but as members of a group first and foremost (gay vs straight), i think we should extend this to other categories:
1. children should only be adopted by couples making at least $100,000
2. children should only be adopted by couples with MA's or more, preferably PhD's
3. children should only be adopted by South Asian Indian parents (and, correlated to this, no black or hispanic couples should ever adopt children)
under the logic asserted previously, these conditions will provide the "best" environment for the adopted child.
and we all want the ideal, don't we?
thinking about the reasoning against gay adoption, i have a couple of questions/comments. it seems to me that, over and over, we hear that "children do best with a mother and a father." however, at least according to the studies presented, and the fact that there's only a small (but growing) amount of studies on gay parenting (all of it very much in accord with the idea that children do just as well with gay parents as with straight parents), it seems to me that this oft-repeated maxim "children do better with a mother and a father" is more accurately stated as "children do better with two parents than with one" as the "mother and a father" is rather slippery langauge -- children do better with two parents than with one, and most often, the two parents are a mother and a father, but there is no evidence behind this statement that says "the opposite-sex pairing is crucial to a child's development." and, in fact, to support such a statement we'd have to delve into rather sexist notions of natural gender roles and how men should behave and how women should behave.
and let's expand this. if children do better with a mother and a father, and therefore we say that gay couples should therefore not adopt, let's go further. if we are shooting for ideals and optimum outcomes, and we are most concerned with the welfare of the child above all else, and we are not going to take couples as individuals but as members of a group first and foremost (gay vs straight), i think we should extend this to other categories:
1. children should only be adopted by couples making at least $100,000
2. children should only be adopted by couples with MA's or more, preferably PhD's
3. children should only be adopted by South Asian Indian parents (and, correlated to this, no black or hispanic couples should ever adopt children)
under the logic asserted previously, these conditions will provide the "best" environment for the adopted child.
and we all want the ideal, don't we?
tommyvill
The Fly
Irvine511 said:
Sure we do!
but...mmmh...i don't think actually those categories are actually the best...
okay, rich families may assure a future to the child, but you know, too much rich family can go against the "regular family" principle...
Money doesn't means happiness...
it's a stress actually for the child to be considered son of a rich family, we all knows what I'm talking about...same with the study titles...they should be regular, not too much huge in study...and for the races, no problems at all (there are no races but the human one) but I would prefer the same human genre of the child...
Do the most to avoid the psychological stress to him...
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
tommyvill said:
so, you're saying that there might be exceptions to the rules? that poor people can be just as good parents as rich people? that white people can be just as good parents as Indian people? are you saying that we need to evaluate each potential couple on their individual merits instead of seeing how perfectly they fit into our predetermined "ideal" categories?
tommyvill
The Fly
VintagePunk said:
Hey I'm not! I'm not excluding anyone!
I'm just expressing my doubts and if someone demonstrate me I'm wrong, okay! To me it's better for a child to be raised in a dedicated institute than raised
within a family whose guide can be misleading (just as the case of a single parents and lots more...)
and just one more thing vintage punk:
my message of oneness and unity wasn't to be read in a banal way: it's just a message because I find that in the gay world there is a lot of self disscrimination as if they were talking about a separated race that can do whatever they want, but WE ARE ALL THE SAME, the child and the gay have the same rights...come out and share thoughts, don't take a defensive line, talk freely!!! anyone is taking away your rights, we're talking about expanding them. And I don't fully agree, but hey that's not up to me!
My oneness message doesn't constitute a paradox since I don't see a couple right of adoption, we're not dealing with a right issue here, something more like a responsability to grow up somebody....so it's not at all a discrimination of a segment of population...I told you, I only see the child right to be well educated...
And to me this whole question is going to be distorched since there are ideological arguments that I don't like actually...I read carefully the research that originated this topics, and i found out that there were some questions not discussed there...so I wanna to talk about it...
But I prefer to wait next further researches to talk again, I'm gonna leave this thread...no offence here but I would have preferred a more "open minded" environment here, it's "free your mind" here isn't it?
so respect my ideas...
farewell all!!
a-mole
War Child
i fully believe that gay people can be just as (in) capable as any straight couple
unfortunately chirldren are not only raised and affected by their homes. Society will make it gives the kid a hart time -quite possible leading to the suffereing of teh kid -> leading to the conclusion that we knew it all along - gay parents is a no-go
a couple of years ago ALL single raised kids where also supposed to be drug users and messed up - well, being a child raised by a working est-german mother during the time when the berlin wall fell (some people who know about the changes in society and economy resulting from this will get the signifcance)... i have yet to take my 1st drugs and fail an exam
unfortunately chirldren are not only raised and affected by their homes. Society will make it gives the kid a hart time -quite possible leading to the suffereing of teh kid -> leading to the conclusion that we knew it all along - gay parents is a no-go
a couple of years ago ALL single raised kids where also supposed to be drug users and messed up - well, being a child raised by a working est-german mother during the time when the berlin wall fell (some people who know about the changes in society and economy resulting from this will get the signifcance)... i have yet to take my 1st drugs and fail an exam
Last edited:
tommyvill
The Fly
Irvine511 said:
Ups!
hehehe!!!
sorry Irvine but i can't help but aswer this, but I promise, t's the LAST!
(so be patient once again...
)well...
not really that way, nor poor nor rich...mediocre i would say...
I wuoln't extend the whole thought to "no categories at all"...
categories are always ugly but actually
are necessary if we wanna talk about something...
and yes, I would evalutate every single
"regular couple" for it's adapt qualities (rather than merits...)
otherwise would be a matter of racism...but as I said, gays and lesbians are not races, we're human being all the same! Some can have child and some don't, that's a pity but what can we do? nobody's perfect!
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
tommyvill said:
You are excluding! Your entire premise is based upon exclusion. So far, from what I gather, you're not even willing to look at things on a case-by-case basis. Nor have you addressed any of the valid arguments that myself and others have expressed, showing how heterosexual families can be detrimental to a child's development.
Without getting too personal here, I am a single parent. I've raised an exceptional human being. I could list her qualities and achievements, but I won't bore you. Are you trying to tell me that she would have done better had her father been around? Or that she should have been removed from my care, and placed in a two parent family? If so, you have much to learn about human nature, and the wisdom of looking at things on an individual basis.
And to bring this point around to the topic, I'm hetero, but if I were a lesbian, I really don't see how the quality of my parenting would have been different.
I really don't think I was, I was merely countering your points, which, in my opinion, are full of fallacies.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
^ great signature
and congrats on raising a wonderful daughter!
and congrats on raising a wonderful daughter!
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Thanks! It's best for me not to get going in proud mom mode, because I can go on and on forever.
tommyvill
The Fly
VintagePunk said:
It's not exclusion because as I said it's not a rights issue. In adoption I only see children's right, whereas from the parent's side there are responsabilities...the most generous couple of all wants to take this responsability, and if they are fit they can adopt, otherwise they don't.
And I know that heterofamilies can be detrimental, but those are exceptions, and we're talking about not "what it is" but "what should be", the normal families...even I does never use "normal" as an adjective...and case-by-case could be very important, but if it's applied to regular families...exception in a way or other may be apinful for the child, every other adoption expert can tell you this...
tommyvill
The Fly
VintagePunk said:
I forgot this part....
Yeah really congratulation!! I'm sure you are a wonderful parent, but that's not what I was saying...
Natural parents are a thing, adopted parents another one...
For the adoption, I would privilege a regular family...(mother father middle earning same origin as the child)
Nobody wants, or even can remove the child from you without a strong reason...but in much of Europe isn't possible for a single parents to adopt a child...and I don't criticise this choice...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
tommyvill said:
Well if this is your idea of a freed mind than see ya!
A "regular family"? What's a regular family? Is that a mother, a father, and 2 children none of which have any race mixture? Because we know you can't mix the races, that's not "regular". Or is like those families defined in the Bible; One father, many wives, and numerous children?
If you're poor, mixed race, gay, or your mother passed away you are not regular or are not living in a regular home. My condolences to all of you irregulars.
Oh wait, shit I'm an irregular...
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
makes sense
dbs
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:makes sense
dbs
tommyvill
The Fly
BonoVoxSupastar said:
A "regular family"? What's a regular family? Is that a mother, a father, and 2 children none of which have any race mixture? Because we know you can't mix the races, that's not "regular". Or is like those families defined in the Bible; One father, many wives, and numerous children?
If you're poor, mixed race, gay, or your mother passed away you are not regular or are not living in a regular home. My condolences to all of you irregulars.
Oh wait, shit I'm an irregular...
Sorry but I can't see no sense here. I wasn't absolutely talking about races and I remember you that the word "race" is banned from the U.N. as referred to human being. So there are no problems with mixtures at all. All the other words are what YOU said, but I don't. And I still wonder why I care about what you say when you seem to put words in my mouth that I didn't said. I just wanna have a share of thought with you all, since difference in position is good, but it requires not just a passive acceptance of thoughts, but a confrontation phasis, and you should accept this, if you wanna be ready for a democratic confrontation. otherwise we would be separated in our position forever, in two intellectual ghettos...stand up for your ideas, I don't care about how "rude" you might be, but please, try to accept that some people could not think like you...not farewell him, try to understand him. But once again, we derailed from the topic....
and the definition of "regular family", if you wanna know, it's a "a man and a woman founding a family": the regular fact is given by the average of the families of a country or an area so that the child suffer less the integration problem. You know, if you have a particularly noticeable position the child may suffer of psychological stress even if it's not adopted, immagine an adopted one!
As incredible as you may think I'm not a racist and not even an homofobic (I just had a dinner with a dear friend of mine who is gay and we had lots of loughters and all).
ok let's get back in the race, and please don't feel afraid of support your opinion, we're not deciding anything here, we're just talking with our brains open. I repeat what I truly believe: free your mind!
Last edited:
