equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

Have there been Christian-based utopias?

No.

[JanuaryStar]

Originally Posted by AEON

No.

Not even the thought of the future 'Kingdom Come'?

[phillyfan26]

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

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.

[martha]

What about the children?

[indra]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[deep]

Originally Posted by AEON

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 ?

[melon]

"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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

"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?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by deep

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[BVS]

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

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?

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

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?

[deep]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

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!

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[phillyfan26]

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.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by melon

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.