Same-Sex Parenting

[AEON]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Everyone biologically has the ability to be a parent, either by them-self or with a partner, opposite sex or not. Should my mother and grandmother not have raised me and given me up for adoption instead since I wouldn't have a male parent figure?

Of course no pac mule. It sounds like your mother and grandmother did an amazing job and you were fortunate to have them in your life. But it sounds like they teamed up because they loved you and cared for you already. However, by your own admission - you did still long for a father.

A homosexual couple that wants to adopt or artificially inseminate has already determined the child will be denied a mother or a father.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

True. But pac mule also shared his desire for a father, even though his mother and grandmother made the best of the situation. Homosexual parents are purposely denying a mother or father when they choose to have children.

This part stood out for me. By saying homosexual parents are purposely denying a mother or father to their children, is basically criticizing their sexual orientation as a whole. Homosexuals are not going to get involved with someone of the opposite sex just so their future children will have two parents of different genders. They just can't and won't. They naturally want someone of their gender, so if they want to marry and raise children, they will do so with another man or woman. It seems like your comment indicates homosexuals should be forced to share their lives with someone of the opposite sex for the sake of their children, which just can't be done for numerous reasons.

[jeevey]

I'm also confused by the term false model. A model, in the sense that I think you are using it, is simply a form or a pattern. In what way is it false? It factually exists- it is not a mirage or a falsehood. It is not false in the sense of a false proposition in logic. It's not a fallacy- it really does what it claims to do, which is raise children. And it does it well- statistically speaking the children of straights have nothing on the children of gays. It is not a false model- it is a real existing model that works.

I think what you mean to claim is that it is a morally wrong model. But other than the fact that your holy scripture says so (and it doesn't really speak about gay identification or gays raising kids at all, come to think of it, just the act of sex) there is no reason to base social policy on this claim. There's no evidence that it's a harmful or ineffective model at all.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

I'm also confused by the term false model. A model, in the sense that I think you are using it, is simply a form or a pattern. In what way is it false? It factually exists- it is not a mirage or a falsehood. It is not false in the sense of a false proposition in logic. It's not a fallacy- it really does what it claims to do, which is raise children. And it does it well- statistically speaking the children of straights have nothing on the children of gays. It is not a false model- it is a real existing model that works.

Calling a hatchback a sedan does not make it so. A hatchback is a certain model with certain features that a sedan does not have. If someone is saying there is no difference, then I am saying their assumption is false.

Originally Posted by jeevey

there is no reason to base social policy on this claim.

Probably true.

[Pearl]

Based on that NY Times magazine article I posted, it seems like children of same sex parents could help make things easier for heterosexual couples - if those kids grow up to be heterosexual themselves, which is very likely. The young woman in the article talked about how some forms of the heterosexual world turned her off because it was ridden with sexism. But she's had good, healthy relationships with men who didn't hold onto the patriarchal view of straight relationships. I just think the acceptance of homosexuality in general can open the door for more kindness between the genders once we see some gender roles and stereotypes aren't needed anymore, and should never have been needed.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

This part stood out for me. By saying homosexual parents are purposely denying a mother or father to their children, is basically criticizing their sexual orientation as a whole. Homosexuals are not going to get involved with someone of the opposite sex just so their future children will have two parents of different genders. They just can't and won't. They naturally want someone of their gender, so if they want to marry and raise children, they will do so with another man or woman. It seems like your comment indicates homosexuals should be forced to share their lives with someone of the opposite sex for the sake of their children, which just can't be done for numerous reasons.

Is it not true that a natural consequence of a homosexual relationship is no children? Is it also not true - that is such a couple that desires to bring a child into the home to raise is choosing to do so knowing they are purposely denying that child a mother or father?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Based on that NY Times magazine article I posted, it seems like children of same sex parents could help make things easier for heterosexual couples - if those kids grow up to be heterosexual themselves, which is very likely. The young woman in the article talked about how some forms of the heterosexual world turned her off because it was ridden with sexism. But she's had good, healthy relationships with men who didn't hold onto the patriarchal view of straight relationships. I just think the acceptance of homosexuality in general can open the door for more kindness between the genders once we see some gender roles and stereotypes aren't needed anymore, and should never have been needed.

Well, it sound like we share many of the same goals (better treatment for everyone, less sexism, more kindness). In this instance, I'm not sure the ends justifies the means - but that is only my own opinion.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by AEON

I found this to be a very interesting statement. I haven't thought of parenting as a right as much as I've seen it as calling or a responsibility to the society in which we live.

With Irvine's premise that same sex adoption is legal (thus, no one is disputing whether the right to same sex adoption should exist), the conversation has swayed between the optimal model for raising children and the acceptable model for raising children. That being said, I found the NY Time article made a few leaps in logic to essentially dismiss the role of a biological mother in rearing children.

I start with AEON's quote, as it points to striving for an optimal model (and let's not fall into the trap that anything that is not optimal is wrong). [Whether parenting is a fundamental right is a separate issue and I would point to the ease in which some social service agencies can remove a child from a home.]

What might be helpful is to define what we believe is the optimal model for raising children.

For example, the optimal model for parenting is: a biological mother and father in a committed loving relationship, who intentional have children taking full, primary responsibility to love, teach and raise their children.

Take any one of those elements away, and you have a less than optimal model. Examine society through the lens of this model and you will find plenty of same sex couple being better parents than male/female couples.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Calling a hatchback a sedan does not make it so. A hatchback is a certain model with certain features that a sedan does not have. If someone is saying there is no difference, then I am saying their assumption is false.

How are gay parents doing something other than parenting?

If it looks and acts and creates results exactly as a family, how is it something other than a family?

You are claiming that a "real family" is one mother, one father. But that is simply the genetic components of conceiving a child. The truth of history and science is that families have frequently been many things other than one woman and one man. Again, other than the story of Eden, (not even "Scripture" where obviously exceptions abound) I don't think you have any solid basis for making that claim. Basically you are making a fallacious appeal to nature: that which occurs naturally is therefore (the only) right and good.

And why anyone who doesn't have faith in the story of Eden should consider it important-- why it should matter in terms of social policy-- is the most mysterious part of this whole topic.

[PhilsFan]

The problem I have with this is that people who share the same opinion as AEON - which is only an opinion and seems to go strongly against the actual evidence - often believe that because they hold this opinion, it's enough to make public policy.

I'm certainly not accusing you of doing that, but by agreeing with them and perpetuating on with this baseless opinion, you're sort of allowing the ill-advised to run amok, aren't you?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

With Irvine's premise that same sex adoption is legal (thus, no one is disputing whether the right to same sex adoption should exist), the conversation has swayed between the optimal model for raising children and the acceptable model for raising children. That being said, I found the NY Time article made a few leaps in logic to essentially dismiss the role of a biological mother in rearing children.

I start with AEON's quote, as it points to striving for an optimal model (and let's not fall into the trap that anything that is not optimal is wrong). [Whether parenting is a fundamental right is a separate issue and I would point to the ease in which some social service agencies can remove a child from a home.]

What might be helpful is to define what we believe is the optimal model for raising children.

For example, the optimal model for parenting is: a biological mother and father in a committed loving relationship, who intentional have children taking full, primary responsibility to love, teach and raise their children.

Take any one of those elements away, and you have a less than optimal model. Examine society through the lens of this model and you will find plenty of same sex couple being better parents than male/female couples.

A great summary, NB. I've always appreciated your gift of sifting through a thread and discovering (or bringing back) the focus of the discussion.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Take any one of those elements away, and you have a less than optimal model.

Would you concede that is "wrong" to willfully remove/deny any of these elements?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

[Whether parenting is a fundamental right is a separate issue and I would point to the ease in which some social service agencies can remove a child from a home.]

I don't think anyone is claiming it is. The argument is over what strips you of the privilege.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Is it not true that a natural consequence of a homosexual relationship is no children? Is it also not true - that is such a couple that desires to bring a child into the home to raise is choosing to do so knowing they are purposely denying that child a mother or father?

It is true that homosexuals cannot naturally have children together, no one is denying that.

But your next sentence seems to indicate that homosexuals are purposely choosing to deny the opposite sex from their lives almost entirely. If homosexuals had a choice, they wouldn't be gay; they'd be straight.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

And why anyone who doesn't have faith in the story of Eden should consider it important-- why it should matter in terms of social policy-- is the most mysterious part of this whole topic.

For the record - I take the story of Eden as allegory...

Regarding your appeal to science (which is a valid appeal) - is it possible for a research scientist to publish a conclusion that is contrary to the homosexual parenting crowd? Would they not get crucified in the press? Would their careers not be ruined?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

If homosexuals had a choice, they wouldn't be gay; they'd be straight.

Interesting. So you think that homosexuals are not only in need of healing, but also desire it?

I think that will be a fundamental issue in the near future - as science truly gives people the opportunity to choose/realign their sexual orientation. Then, discussions around vague concepts such as "model" and "nature" become relevant once again.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

But your next sentence seems to indicate that homosexuals are purposely choosing to deny the opposite sex from their lives almost entirely.

No, I am simply stating they are willfully denying that child either a mother or a father.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Would you concede that is "wrong" to willfully remove/deny any of these elements?

but you're adding another element, which is a second mother or father, who is a fully unique and independent person and may be as complimentary a parent as a man and a woman might be.

i think you're putting too much emphasis on the visual presentation of a family, like you said it startles you when you see men holding hands at DisneyLand. with all due respect, you're the one with the problem, aren't you?

likewise, and what i think the article does do nicely, is accept that, yes, there may be unique challenges faced by the children of SS couples, some of those might be the fault of a society that needs to work on acceptance of diversity. i think every gay person feels a sense of difference, of outsiderness, of being a bit alien in a culture that is overwhelmingly heterosexual. you are different, even if you live amongst people who accept and embrace your difference, and it does stand to reason that children might feel different as well. but do you really wish these children hadn't been born? or that they had stayed in foster care rather than be adopted by SS parents?

there are, of course, ways to address this, as most gay parents are trained to do, much in the way that interracial or international adoption works best when parents are able to help a child embrace whatever culture he or she is from -- Russia, Vietnam, Guatemala, etc. all these are issues and challenges that an adopted child may face, but i don't see them as necessarily any greater than having 2 mothers or 2 fathers. and some families will be better at this than others.

and just as i feel some alienation being gay, there are also tremendous advantages to being gay. unique perspectives, interesting and unusual people, and i'd argue the ability to identify and emphasize with other minorities because you understand difference (and i believe studies show that the children of LG parents are more open to difference and less likely to be bullies). there may be advantages to having 2 mothers and 2 fathers.

one example: given that we know that 1 out of every 3 women on the planet is abused by a male domestic partner at some point in their lives, and that the vast, vast majority of sexual abuse occurs at the hands of an older male, perhaps children are actually safer with two female caretakers?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

No, I am simply stating they are willfully denying that child either a mother or a father.

and perhaps offering myriad other advantages.

should these children not exist? would you encourage an abortion to a life with a SS couple? would you rather them in foster care?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Interesting. So you think that homosexuals are not only in need of healing, but also desire it?

I didn't say that. I never once indicated gays want to be "healed" of their orientation. I fail to see where you think I believe that.

Homosexuality is not a choice and every gay and lesbian will tell you that. There are scientific studies that agree with them.

What I meant was IF - big emphasis on if - they had a choice they would choose to be straight and not gay.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I didn't say that. I never once indicated gays want to be "healed" of their orientation. I fail to see where you think I believe that.

Homosexuality is not a choice and every gay and lesbian will tell you that. There are scientific studies that agree with them.

What I meant was IF - big emphasis on if - they had a choice they would choose to be straight and not gay.

Then I apologize - I misunderstand your statement.