equality blooms with spring, pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was a bit startled to read last week that a government adviser from the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners said lesbians made better parents than what we can no longer call “normal couples”.

I’m not sure this is quite right because, so far as I can remember, a woman is not able to have a child after having sexual relations with another woman. Unless that woman is from an athletics squad.

In order for a lesbian couple to have had a child, either a turkey baster must have been involved — which is not how most people would like to imagine they came into the world — or they must have visited the state-sponsored British Association for Adoption & Fostering, which thinks that anyone who objects to same-sex parents is a “retarded homophobe”.

Happily, I’m a bit more sensible than this. I do not think that someone who objects to homosexual parents is a retarded homophobe. I believe they have an opinion. But, that said, I emphatically don’t agree that lesbians necessarily make better parents than me. It is impossible to say that someone will make a better parent because she fancies other girls. There will be some lesbians who’ll go out all night and take drugs and there will be some who’ll read a child a bedtime story and be excellent.

I have done some checking on this, and the only evidence I can find comes from research endorsed by the national academy itself. The study examined children raised by just 27 single mothers, 20 lesbian couples and 36, er, differently genital-ed parents and concluded that those raised by women grew up with a better psychological wellbeing.



Call me a spoilsport but I’m glad my dad wasn’t a lesbian | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online
 
I’m not sure this is quite right because, so far as I can remember, a woman is not able to have a child after having sexual relations with another woman. Unless that woman is from an athletics squad.

No, he's not a "retarded homophobe" at all...

Is this another example of male discrimination?
 
Quite frankly, either your bible studies or your school did an extremely poor job on your history classes. But it's always interesting to see that people still fall for the occultism bullshit and easily ignore the makeup of European society, which was deeply rooted in the several Christian branches. Which also provided the basis for making out the Jews as enemy number one so easily, along with Gays, Sinti & Roma etc.

Occultism was very important to a lot of senior Nazis. Occult theories were absolutely crucial in the formation of the movement.
 
No, he's not a "retarded homophobe" at all...

Is this another example of male discrimination?

A woman is not capable of having a child with another woman, nor is a man capable of having a child by another man, by natural processes. In the real world, that's a pretty standard opinion, in the far left twilight zone, I guess it's retarded homophobia.
 
Except the study that this paper is referring to was clearly measuring effective "parenting" not biological reproduction.

Just because two women cannot combine their eggs to have a child by no means leads to the conclusion that they can't be better parents (as the author has concluded). Parenting is something that can be entirely removed from biology and conception does not equal parenting.
 
A woman is not capable of having a child with another woman, nor is a man capable of having a child by another man, by natural processes. In the real world, that's a pretty standard opinion, in the far left twilight zone, I guess it's retarded homophobia.

Are you serious? Read my post again, you missed a pretty big part.

:doh:
 
Occultism was very important to a lot of senior Nazis. Occult theories were absolutely crucial in the formation of the movement.

There was a stream that was engaging in occult practices. Hence also the reviving of old Germanic gods and such. But not everyone who took part was an actual believer in it. They did see, however, great value in how they could exploit this imagery, also in furthering the picture of the Arian Herrenrasse.
One of the many ironies of this bunch of idiots was that even though they were doing everything to cleanse and equalize the European society, they themselve were quite a diverse lot. And with the exception of a very few, most notably probably Heydrich, none were "Arians".



I generally like his humour, but some of his views are from yesteryear.
 
Why is there discussion of occultism, Nazism, and utopias in this thread? We've really lost the plot here.

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise families via either adoption or artificial insemination and given the same rights as heterosexuals for both the marriage and the family raising. Someone tell me why this isn't a good idea.
 
Why is there discussion of occultism, Nazism, and utopias in this thread? We've really lost the plot here.

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise families via either adoption or artificial insemination and given the same rights as heterosexuals for both the marriage and the family raising. Someone tell me why this isn't a good idea.

I guess we got a little carried away. I apologize for my part.

Let me ask you this Philly, what are your thoughts if all things are equal (meaning all participants are equally mentally stable, financially stable, educated, upright citizens...etc) - which would you say is the optimal home for a child's upbringing: male/female biological parents, male/female adoptive parents, male/male adoptive parents, or female/female adoptive parents?

At this point, I am not ask you to select one option and have it negate the others- I am just asking which is optimal for a child if all the parents in the scenario are essentially the same with the exception of sexual orientation.
 
I guess we got a little carried away. I apologize for my part.

Let me ask you this Philly, what are your thoughts if all things are equal (meaning all participants are equally mentally stable, financially stable, educated, upright citizens...etc) - which would you say is the optimal home for a child's upbringing: male/female biological parents, male/female adoptive parents, male/male adoptive parents, or female/female adoptive parents?

At this point, I am not ask you to select one option and have it negate the others- I am just asking which is optimal for a child if all the parents in the scenario are essentially the same with the exception of sexual orientation.

If all things are equal then one of them cant be better.
 
I guess we got a little carried away. I apologize for my part.

Let me ask you this Philly, what are your thoughts if all things are equal (meaning all participants are equally mentally stable, financially stable, educated, upright citizens...etc) - which would you say is the optimal home for a child's upbringing: male/female biological parents, male/female adoptive parents, male/male adoptive parents, or female/female adoptive parents?

At this point, I am not ask you to select one option and have it negate the others- I am just asking which is optimal for a child if all the parents in the scenario are essentially the same with the exception of sexual orientation.


a biological parent would be better, and that does include a same sex person over a straight adoptive couple.

but the real optimum would be a household where the parents offer the best care,
for kids these days I would put diet, nutrition, exercise, nurturing, hygiene, exposure to good art and culture ahead of some of the items on your list.

even with that being the case, I don't think we can legislate, or withhold rights and benefits to strive for an 'optimum' outcome.
I believe childhood obesity, which is leading to rises in childhood diabetes is a huge concern. Would it be better if these children were raised by same-sex couples with proper nutrition and exercise ?
 
"All things being equal," which is better?

1) A child adopted and raised by a loving homosexual couple.
2) A child born and raised by an abusive heterosexual married couple.

The problem with living in a world solely of ideals is that it doesn't live up to reality. If you're worried about children, then leave it to government-supervised social service and adoption agencies whose employees are trained in how to best place a child with potential adoptive parents and guardians. All credible studies show that children are not harmed by gay parents.
 
I guess we got a little carried away. I apologize for my part.

Let me ask you this Philly, what are your thoughts if all things are equal (meaning all participants are equally mentally stable, financially stable, educated, upright citizens...etc) - which would you say is the optimal home for a child's upbringing: male/female biological parents, male/female adoptive parents, male/male adoptive parents, or female/female adoptive parents?

At this point, I am not ask you to select one option and have it negate the others- I am just asking which is optimal for a child if all the parents in the scenario are essentially the same with the exception of sexual orientation.

This is still off topic since we all know you don't have to be married to have or adopt kids. There's a reason you go off topic so much.
 
"All things being equal," which is better?

1) A child adopted and raised by a loving homosexual couple.
2) A child born and raised by an abusive heterosexual married couple.


I concede that a loving homosexual couple would be more optimal than an abusive heterosexual married couple. However, do think it is wise to exhaust the "pool" of loving heterosexual couples before giving a child to homosexual couple?
 
a biological parent would be better, and that does include a same sex person over a straight adoptive couple.
This a good point. I would like to understand more about why you think a biological parent is so important.
 
I guess we got a little carried away. I apologize for my part.

Let me ask you this Philly, what are your thoughts if all things are equal (meaning all participants are equally mentally stable, financially stable, educated, upright citizens...etc) - which would you say is the optimal home for a child's upbringing: male/female biological parents, male/female adoptive parents, male/male adoptive parents, or female/female adoptive parents?

At this point, I am not ask you to select one option and have it negate the others- I am just asking which is optimal for a child if all the parents in the scenario are essentially the same with the exception of sexual orientation.




i know this was directed at Philly, but i'm not sure what parenting has to do with civil marriage.

many people choose to have children in the context of a marriage, and that's great, but marriage is not predicated upon having children.
 
A good friend of mine has two mommies and an uncle that provided a male role model, he probably had the best scenario I've ever seen. Extremely masculine and was still able to keep it in his pants at age 19.
 
I concede that a loving homosexual couple would be more optimal than an abusive heterosexual married couple. However, do think it is wise to exhaust the "pool" of loving heterosexual couples before giving a child to homosexual couple?



so we'll coax out all the semi-reluctant heterosexuals before we give a baby to the gay couple who's been trying for years to adopt?
 
I concede that a loving homosexual couple would be more optimal than an abusive heterosexual married couple. However, do think it is wise to exhaust the "pool" of loving heterosexual couples before giving a child to homosexual couple?

Again, issues of placement are relevant to each individual adoption case and prospective parents. Unless you know the facts regarding a specific case and the judgment of the adoption professionals involved, how can you make a blanket statement as to whom is the best fit for the child?
 
This a good point. I would like to understand more about why you think a biological parent is so important.



I do not think an adoptive parent will love a child any less than a biological parent, and there are plenty of biological parents that are terrible parents

but one reason a biological parent is 'better' is for medical reasons, and also children seem to want to know about their ancestors.

I have inherited health issues,
I better understand them because some members of my family are affected too.
 
Really? Really??

I concede that a loving homosexual couple would be more optimal than an abusive heterosexual married couple. However, do think it is wise to exhaust the "pool" of loving heterosexual couples before giving a child to homosexual couple?

Yeah! Back of the bus line for you, blacks gays!
 
Let me ask you this Philly, what are your thoughts if all things are equal (meaning all participants are equally mentally stable, financially stable, educated, upright citizens...etc) - which would you say is the optimal home for a child's upbringing: male/female biological parents, male/female adoptive parents, male/male adoptive parents, or female/female adoptive parents?

At this point, I am not ask you to select one option and have it negate the others- I am just asking which is optimal for a child if all the parents in the scenario are essentially the same with the exception of sexual orientation.

If they're all upright citizens, then you've answered your question already. None of them are better than the other. It's just that in one scenario the kid looks like the parents.
 
But, more importantly, as far as the law is concerned, you don't have to have children to get married. I understand that a lot of marriages do result in couples deciding they want children, but legally, there's no requirement. So, there really doesn't need to be any discussion of this here.
 
All credible studies show that children are not harmed by gay parents.

Perhaps not per se, But there are also studies which show children of gay couples are sometimes disadvantaged by being bullied at school, for example.

While of course this is wrong, kids shouldn't be the subject of a left-wing social experiment, or because Johnny and Alexander or Therese and Sophie demand kids 'of their own' as a human right.

Overall, I personally think that with moves towards reducing population growth, scientifically possible but controversial techniques of generating life by means of such processes as IVF to allow for gay couples that demand kids 'of their own' may become socially unpopular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom