Same-Sex Parenting

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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 would have to concede this is possible.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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?

You may very well be right, Irvine. I do tend to put quite a bit of emphasis on the visual, the picture of things (which is why I like South Orange County) - and this may be the source of my problem(s).

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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?

I am still glad they are born and maybe.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

Yes, this may all be true. I do wish it was more like that anyway (non-bullying, empathy, understanding...)

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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?

Exist = yes
Abort = no
Foster Care = depends

[Pearl]

When you say, "depends" when it comes to foster care, what makes you not want to give a kid to a same-sex couple? What is your criteria?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

When you say, "depends" when it comes to foster care, what makes you not want to give a kid to a same-sex couple? What is your criteria?

There are really too many possible scenarios for me to give a definite answer.

[Diemen]

I take issue with this notion that gay couples are "willfully denying" a child a mother or father. What they are doing is giving a child a loving home. A child that might otherwise stay in the foster care system (or much worse), with little to no stability in their lives and no role models at all. It troubles me, Aeon, that you focus on what a gay couple would deny a child in that situation than what they would offer.

You strike me as a pretty compassionate person, so there's a strange discord when you use language in reference to gay couples looking to be parents that paints them as somehow unconcerned with child welfare, or as willful participants in doing harm (by omission, in this case) towards kids.

Surely you can recognize that even IF gay parents are somehow less than optimal, loving parents - period - are far better than no parents. Heterosexuality, in itself, does not impart some magical powers to parents that will automatically benefit their kids. It's the quality of the act of parenting that is of most benefit to a child's well being, not the gender of the parents themselves.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I take issue with this notion that gay couples are "willfully denying" a child a mother or father. What they are doing is giving a child a loving home. A child that might otherwise stay in the foster care system (or much worse), with little to no stability in their lives and no role models at all. It troubles me, Aeon, that you focus on what a gay couple would deny a child in that situation than what they would offer.

Perhaps we need to separate the foster home vs. artificial insemination situations.

Originally Posted by Diemen

You strike me as a pretty compassionate person, so there's a strange discord when you use language in reference to gay couples looking to be parents that paints them as somehow unconcerned with child welfare, or as willful participants in doing harm (by omission, in this case) towards kids.

If we talking about artificial insemination - then the motivation to be a parent is not about saving a child from the streets, it is about bringing a child into the world that would not have otherwise existed and purposely denying that child a mother or father. It seems such a couple is placing their own desires to be parents above the needs of the child. That is what it looks like from my perspective.

Now, if we are talking about adoption - and there is some shortage of caring, loving heterosexual couples - then I would tend to admit that homosexual parenting may be better than none. However, my time in the Catholic shelter for boys - with zero parenting - was an absolute blast.

Originally Posted by Diemen

Surely you can recognize that even IF gay parents are somehow less than optimal, loving parents - period - are far better than no parents. Heterosexuality, in itself, does not impart some magical powers to parents that will automatically benefit their kids. It's the quality of the act of parenting that is of most benefit to a child's well being, not the gender of the parents themselves.

There is so much involved with parenting - and gender modeling is a very important aspect of it.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by AEON

If we talking about artificial insemination - then the motivation to be a parent is not about saving a child from the streets, it is about bringing a child into the world that would not have otherwise existed and purposely denying that child a mother or father. It seems such a couple is placing their own desires to be parents above the needs of the child. That is what it looks like from my perspective.

Based on what?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

Now, if we are talking about adoption - and there is some shortage of caring, loving heterosexual couples - then I would tend to admit that homosexual parenting may be better than none.

Honestly, it boggles my mind that you still need to qualify it with "may be" better than none in any situation, let alone an adoption situation with a shortage of heterosexual couples. How can you rationally believe that giving a kid to a loving homosexual couple might be worse than leaving that child parentless?

It's hard not to jump to unflattering conclusions when presented with that kind of statement.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

There is so much involved with parenting - and gender modeling is a very important aspect of it.

Please explain this.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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

Just curious, what makes you say this?

Because if I had a choice, I wouldn't change a single bit. I'm comfortable with who I am. I am happy this way. Why would I want to change to something some people deem 'normal'?

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Perhaps we need to separate the foster home vs. artificial insemination situations.

If we talking about artificial insemination - then the motivation to be a parent is not about saving a child from the streets, it is about bringing a child into the world that would not have otherwise existed and purposely denying that child a mother or father. It seems such a couple is placing their own desires to be parents above the needs of the child. That is what it looks like from my perspective.

Now, if we are talking about adoption - and there is some shortage of caring, loving heterosexual couples - then I would tend to admit that homosexual parenting may be better than none. However, my time in the Catholic shelter for boys - with zero parenting - was an absolute blast.

There is so much involved with parenting - and gender modeling is a very important aspect of it.

Have you read my first post in this thread? It was in response to your post in the other thread about the whole artificial insemination issue.

For you that means denying a child a mother or a father.

For me that means giving the child an extra mother or father.

That's where the big difference comes from. In a lot of Same sex couples, that get a child through artificial insemination, the biological mother/father is still in the picture. It's someone they know, a friend of the family or someone otherwise nearby. So the second role model is still very much there. Nobody is denying the child that.

[Irvine511]

This is a topic that's starting to become very real and lived in for me as I know more and more gay parents, and begin pondering becoming one myself. It's something I take very, very seriously, and I spend a lot of time thinking about it.

I'll try to find time to post more about it this weekend.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Just curious, what makes you say this?

Because if I had a choice, I wouldn't change a single bit. I'm comfortable with who I am. I am happy this way. Why would I want to change to something some people deem 'normal'?

I've heard and read about many gay people saying this. If they had to choose between being accepted by society or being discriminated or even hated, they'd go with the former. Fortunately, it is more easier these days to be gay than ever before.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

This is a topic that's starting to become very real and lived in for me as I know more and more gay parents, and begin pondering becoming one myself. It's something I take very, very seriously, and I spend a lot of time thinking about it.

I'll try to find time to post more about it this weekend.

Thank you, Irvine. I look forward to reading more about this.

As for me - I've become more involved in this thread than I really want to be. I've ended up too focused on an issue that I'm not all that clear on. I'm also concerned that if I keep defending it - I will harden my heart.

Please forgive me if I take a breather from this subject and pray/meditate/ponder it further. I do not see these discussions as win/lose debates - but about sharing each other's viewpoints. However, I fear that this if I'm not careful - I will hurt more than help, and I certainly don't want to do that. Please try not to picture me as the man with a bullhorn outside of the stadium - instead, please view me as one of you at a pub, sitting around a table, drinking a pint, talking about life as Achtung Baby plays in the background.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

Please try not to picture me as the man with a bullhorn outside of the stadium - instead, please view me as one of you at a pub, sitting around a table, drinking a pint, talking about life as Achtung Baby plays in the background.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Perhaps we need to separate the foster home vs. artificial insemination situations.

If we talking about artificial insemination - then the motivation to be a parent is not about saving a child from the streets, it is about bringing a child into the world that would not have otherwise existed and purposely denying that child a mother or father. It seems such a couple is placing their own desires to be parents above the needs of the child. That is what it looks like from my perspective.

Now, if we are talking about adoption - and there is some shortage of caring, loving heterosexual couples - then I would tend to admit that homosexual parenting may be better than none. However, my time in the Catholic shelter for boys - with zero parenting - was an absolute blast.

There is so much involved with parenting - and gender modeling is a very important aspect of it.

This post neatly forgets that many gay people are in fact biological parents. Some are bi and had children before settling with a same sex partner, some came out later in life and had children in a straight relationship first. These arguments focus on children as an "aquisition" for gays, as if they wanted an accessory to go with their new shoes. But a great many gay people get their kids the old fashioned way, and the kids belong to them as naturally as any straight person.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

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?

It would be so neat if you addressed my questions.

As for if it is "possible" for a scientist to publish a conclusion contrary to the "homosexual parenting crowd"....

A. I feel your phrasing is kind of reductive and offensive. Homosexual parenting crowd? Is that the really powerful gang of gay parents who hang out in the lounge of the university research center?

B. No such study is necessary. My comment meant that a quick survey of reproductive medicine shows that there is an unlimited number of combinations for both gay and straight people to participate in the creation of a family in which they may or may not be genetically related to the children, and there may be much more than one woman and one man involved in the creation of the family. For example, imagine a straight couple, both infertile, who use the egg and sperm of a biologically related donor to conceive a child who will be carried by a surrogate. The possible combinations are limitless. (And a quick survey of history and cultures will show that a child raised in a household containing only one man and one woman who are the biological parents of the child are not a universal norm and may even be a minority, given the possibilities of parent death, polygamy, "alternative mating strategies" and so on.)

C. Remember how new acceptance of gayness in general is, and still how marginal. Cultural acceptance for this is still very new. If someone designed a real academic study and got funding for it, and it showed something reliable and important which cast doubts on the ability of gays to raise kids well, I think probably it could get published just fine. We publish all sorts of research. It may be subject to criticism, but I don't think the gay lobby that you worry about is strong enough to bury a real piece of research. Interestingly, though, research up til now seem indicate that by and large, the kids of gays do just fine.

[maycocksean]

Great discussion every one. I especially appreciate how difficult it must be for those for whom this topic is especially personal to be patient with views that I'm sure must hurt as they are shared.

The issue of "optimal" verses "acceptable" is an especially sensitive subject and it's one that gives even a strong supporter of SSM such as myself pause. Like AEON, I want to be careful about taking a strong stance without giving it a lot of thought and prayer.

So tentatively here is where my thinking is headed:

It seems to me that gender is innate. It can't be taught. What can be taught is the gender roles our society and culture expect us to play. It seems when we talk about needing a father or mother to teach us "what it means to be a man or woman" what we really mean is to teach us to the gender roles we are expected to fill. I think gender roles are not set in stone; they change not only over time but across cultures. Even now we are living in a time of extraordinary change regarding the roles men and women play. Further as a Christian, I don't know that Scripture really mandates a particular set of gender roles that should be followed by all for all time. Indeed, it's hard to say what God's ultimate intent will be for marriage as well. Christians on the forum may be familiar with Jesus' statement that in heaven there will be neither marriage or giving in marriage but we shall be like the angels. Who knows what that means. . .but more and more I'm convinced that Jesus was hinting that whatever the current understanding of marriage and family in a given culture, it's so far from the heavenly ideal that we can't even imagine it. But I digress.

Of course there are other issues surrounding the value in having an opposite and a same gendered parent. I'm not settled on those issues yet. . .

This discussion does remind me of some of what my wife and I went through when we got married. This was just 16 years ago but even that recently the concerns surrounding the idea of raising biracial children were a big deal. I may have mentioned the pastor friend of ours who when we told him we were getting married, told us "Well, as long as you don't have children. . ." The big question is "What will your child be?" and there was much concern about the social, emotional, and psychological impact of the child not belonging to any race. And growing up in a multi-racial family I have to admit that there are some very real challenges. That whole business about not really belonging anywhere? It's actually true. But in the long run, the advantages of not really belonging out weighed the disadvantages, at least for me (and I hope for my kids. . .really, I feel it will be much easier for them than it was for me). I can't help wondering if it isn't the same in the end for the children of gay parents.

I do appreciate that the article posted by the OP didn't shy away from the real challenges of gay parenting rather than just pretending that they don't exist.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

This discussion does remind me of some of what my wife and I went through when we got married. This was just 16 years ago but even that recently the concerns surrounding the idea of raising biracial children were a big deal. I may have mentioned the pastor friend of ours who when we told him we were getting married, told us "Well, as long as you don't have children. . ." The big question is "What will your child be?" and there was much concern about the social, emotional, and psychological impact of the child not belonging to any race. And growing up in a multi-racial family I have to admit that there are some very real challenges. That whole business about not really belonging anywhere? It's actually true. But in the long run, the advantages of not really belonging out weighed the disadvantages, at least for me (and I hope for my kids. . .really, I feel it will be much easier for them than it was for me). I can't help wondering if it isn't the same in the end for the children of gay parents.

I am really glad you shared this story, because it makes the particularly salient point that there have been countless types of relationships that have been branded "less than ideal" based on nothing more than the general comfort level of society with them. In the early 20th century in this country, for example, an Italian-Irish or Catholic-Protestant couple would have been frowned upon. The definition of "ideal" many conservatives are working with in the case of parentage veers suspiciously close to "normative."

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

No such study is necessary.

And I thought I was biased