gay parents "comparable" to straight parents - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-05-2006, 10:04 AM   #106
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:31 AM
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?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 10:32 AM   #107
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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)
and we all want the ideal, don't we?
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...
__________________

__________________
tommyvill is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 10:39 AM   #108
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by tommyvill


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...


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?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 10:56 AM   #109
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk



Excuse me for being cynical, but your message of oneness and unity is laughable to me, considering that you're advocating the exclusion of a segment of population from parenting, based upon the biology of who they love and feel sexual attraction for.
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!!
__________________
tommyvill is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 10:59 AM   #110
War Child
 
a-mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 665
Local Time: 07:31 AM
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
__________________
a-mole is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 11:03 AM   #111
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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?
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!
__________________
tommyvill is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 11:15 AM   #112
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by tommyvill
[B]

Hey I'm not! I'm not excluding anyone!
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.


Quote:
(just as the case of a single parents and lots more...)
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.

Quote:
don't take a defensive line
I really don't think I was, I was merely countering your points, which, in my opinion, are full of fallacies.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 11:26 AM   #113
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:31 AM
^ great signature

and congrats on raising a wonderful daughter!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 11:33 AM   #114
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 01:31 AM
Thanks! It's best for me not to get going in proud mom mode, because I can go on and on forever.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 11:39 AM   #115
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk


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.
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 is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 11:46 AM   #116
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk


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.
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...
__________________
tommyvill is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 01:52 PM   #117
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by tommyvill

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!!
Well if this is your idea of a freed mind than see ya!

Quote:
For the adoption, I would privilege a regular family...(mother father middle earning same origin as the child)
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...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 02:10 PM   #118
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:31 PM

makes sense

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 02:11 PM   #119
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
makes sense

dbs
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-05-2006, 06:08 PM   #120
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milano outskirts...
Posts: 266
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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!
__________________

__________________
tommyvill is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com