In reply to: Owain, you can't speak for children! Yes I can. Everyone can. Thats the problem. Children cannot talk for themselves on these issues and need the guidance of adults. Hence my scepticim rather than opposition. Sadly as I've already said you cnat tell for sure until the generation has matured.
-
Gay Marrage
-
"Actually there are many studying and testimonies on children who grew up in a homosexual coupled family and they have turned out normal, if not actually more accepting of people and cultures."Ah...so your definition of "normal" is limited to whether or not they are more accepting of people and cultures? How convenient for gay folks who wish others would be more accepting of their behaviors. Sounds like "normal", by your definiton, equates to being willing little pushers of your agenda. That would not be my definition for "normal". What if other cultures included canabalism? No...I don't accept your definition.As for having children, I'm working on that right now. The usual, natural way. I'll be on the lookout for when the gay agenda pushers show up at school and threaten the administration with a media protest frenzy if they don't let them on campus to push there "people who don't think gays should have children are homophobic" agenda on my kids, too. Teaching kids to hate one group over another is no advance in my book.
-
In reply to: Ah...so your definition of "normal" is limited to whether or not they are more accepting of people and cultures? How convenient for gay folks who wish others would be more accepting of their behaviors. Sounds like "normal", by your definiton, equates to being willing little pushers of your agenda. That would not be my definition for "normal". What if other cultures included canabalism? No...I don't accept your definition People often take the values and political beliefs of their parents with them, heteros and gays. I dont think we could assign normal based on these beliefs. Anyway some gays are right-wing, a notible one from this country is Mathew Paris who told off like a schoolboy by Magerat Thatcher for jumping into the Thames to save a dog.
-
You need to back yourself up.>Ah...so your definition of "normal" is limited to whether or not they are more accepting of people and cultures? How convenient for gay folks who wish others would be more accepting of their behaviors. Sounds like "normal", by your definiton, equates to being willing little pushers of your agenda. That would not be my definition for "normal". What if other cultures included canabalism? No...I don't accept your definition.First off you have the nerve to tell people they read into your posts???? PLEASE! Secondly I put normal in quotes because who really can define normal? No one because normal is all in the eye of the beholder. So you can take your thought of what I think normal is a shove it, bluntly speaking.>As for having children, I'm working on that right now. The usual, natural way.Good for you. But when you do have children are you going to teach them intolerance as well?>I'll be on the lookout for when the gay agenda pushers show up at school and threaten the administration with a media protest frenzy if they don't let them on campus to push there "people who don't think gays should have children are homophobic" agenda on my kids, too.YAWN Get a grip, because now you are grasping. And did I ever call you homophobic? Nope, so watch putting words in my mouth. On the other hand I do think you are intolerant. My opinion of course.>Teaching kids to hate one group over another is no advance in my book.And what do you think you have been preaching in this whole thread? Nothing more the intolerance of people who are not the same as you. I think you need to take your own advice.
-
For every rule there is an exception. Only the foolish proceed forward with the assumption that they will always fall under the exception. You're just like Eddie...you don't know this guy either, but are right there ready to tell me what his problem is and isn't. His father was a lousy role-model for a straight boy by virtue of the fact that he was gay. How much more simple can you say it? Children copy what they watch...if your friend watched a lot of TV (something that I find very destructive to most kids) then he might have found his normal (hetero) role-model there. Hard to say. But when you've got a gay father, it's not like he's gonna go on a scouting trip with you. Do you have any idea how the other kids would teaze him? Is that fair? Are you then gonna force the boy to go and try to force everyone to change their behaviors and beliefs to what you think they should be for the sake of your child? What about their beliefs and their children? Aren't they just as important and valuable to them as yours are to you?Rules are made to benifit the majority. As we progress, it is hoped we all mature as a species to make rules that promote the dignity of our species. Selfish decisions made that are destructive or potentially destructive to our children and our future aren't going to get it done.
-
Please say you are kidding me??? WOW!We might now this kid, but I am sure the underlining problem this kid is having has to do more with the fact his father left his mother more than his father being gay. Things might have been different if the father divorced his mother properly and than said he was gay. The father went about it the wrong way, regardless if he was gay or straight.>But when you've got a gay father, it's not like he's gonna go on a scouting trip with youWhy not?? Are you one of the close-minded stereotyping people that think all gay men are prissy and flamboyant? Let me tell ya we’re not lol. Actually the majority of us aren’t. I love camping, hiking, hunting, fishing (as long as their aren’t worms LOL! If you read another thread that would make sense hehe), and football and other sports. So why wouldn’t a gay father want to go camping? I think you need to open your mind. I will state one more time... homosexuals are no different that heterosexuals except for the fact we desire someone of the same sex. THAT’S IT!>Do you have any idea how the other kids would teaze him? Is that fair? Are you then gonna force the boy to go and try to force everyone to change their behaviors and beliefs to what you think they should be for the sake of your child? What about their beliefs and their children? Aren't they just as important and valuable to them as yours are to you?As long as the father isn’t pushing his “homosexuality” on other people than there is no harm. Homosexuality is not a disease and spreads when being around people. There would be no harm in a father going on a camping trip with other families and his son. People need to focus less on the fact someone is gay and focus more on who that person is AS a person, not as a gay person.>Rules are made to benifit the majority.And the majority is what? Christian heterosexuals? You need to get a firm grip on reality. As a country we need to have rules that benefit ALL the citizens, not the majority. People should not have to feel like less of a citizen because they don’t fall within the majority bracket. That’s like saying because Caucasians are the majority race they should have special rights over the other races. Baloney!>As we progress, it is hoped we all mature as a species to make rules that promote the dignity of our speciesAnd you think it dignifies our race to degrade a class of people? You think that really makes us look good? Taking a section of people and making them feel like they are less human, would make us be more mature? Wow, you have an odd way of thinking.>Selfish decisions made that are destructive or potentially destructive to our children and our future aren't going to get it done.And treating gay people as second rate is? I think not. You have all these absurd ideas that are soo soo extreme that it’s almost hard to comprehend. I don’t see how I live my life effects you at all. I am not asking for people to accept homosexuality, but instead realize it does NOT effect their daily life. It doesn’t affect them when it comes to worshiping their god, doing their daily duties, loving their spouse/family. What I do in my life, my personal life, does not directly effect another person’s life. So why should someone like you tell me how I am to live my life and think you should have control over my personal life? Do I come into your home and tell you your love is wrong? No, so all I expect is the same courtesy returned.
-
Am I being treated second-rate because I can't go into a gyno and demand a pap-smear? I don't think so. As for gays being the same, scientific tests have shown otherwise. Generally, they are physically hyper-masculinized (not my words) and psychologically wired to think like women. I can spot somebody gay 9 out of ten times without them saying a word just by watching them for a few seconds. Their mannerisms usually give them away. For example, believe it or not, I knew YOU were gay before a word was spoken...based on that photo you had up before. Other guys are gonna know too...whether it's verbally mentioned or not. So will their kids. They're gonna be uncomfortable, right or wrong. Gays have a long way to go before they are accepted enough by the general public to not raise eyebrows at a boyscout camp...and there'll always be questions. Having a kid now and forcing them into that situation full of humiliation from their peers is not fair to the kid and can be damaging to his psyche...something you don't seem all that concerned about. My take on it is you're more concerned with doing everything straight folks do, by hook or by crook, regardless of how it effects other people. It's selfish, and I'm against it.
-
You really believe a child is better off in foster care than in an adoptive "homosexual" family of their own. You think that a child will suffers less harm from the horrid foster care system, with all of the its reported beatings, rapes and abuses, than growing up with homosexual parents. Even if a child goes through foster care never experiencing any abuse, they're still likely going to carry with them the notion that, "I was never good enough for someone to love" or "...someone to want to keep."...and that's better than growing up with gay parents'? Is that what you think?Since you advocate limiting adoptive families on the basis of sexual orientation, and since your trying to have a child, why not adopt? (I'm not trying to bait you, I'm just curious.) Why not go to a state that disallows homosexuals to adopt and rescue one of those kids out of foster care? To me personally, it only seems right that if you want to limit their chances you step up and take one of 'em into a "loving" home.
-
I think there are certain advantages, when it comes to raising a child, for the child to have some of your own DNA. You're able to get a better idea of family medical history (which, as I get older, I'm seeing more and more correlation with), you recognize and know better how to deal with certian personalities (they are often repeated withing the extended family) and there is also a blood-bond that is just different when the child is biologically yours.
As for your arguement to the idea that soembody didn't want to keep the child (or be in its life) in a foster-home, how is that any different with gay parents when it's obvious that at least one of them is not a parent? From my point of view, you'd just be traiding one problem for another. I don't see the value in that. The answer is to clean up the foster-parent system AND STOP HAVING KIDS OUT OF WEDLOCK WHEN YOU CAN'T ADEQUATELY GIVE THEM A NORMAL FAMILY ENVIRONMENT TO GROW UP IN!!! (In other words, if your parents haven't raised you not to have sex at so early an age that you don't fully understand what you're doing, at least don't allow this problem to be further exacerbated by getting or getting another pregnant and having kids when you don't know enough to raise them properly yourself.)
-
Thank you for your answer, though I couldn't disagree more I appreciate the direct response.
>>>"As for your arguement to the idea that somebody didn't want to keep the child (or be in its life) in a foster-home, how is that any different with gay parents when it's obvious that at least one of them is not a parent?"
My answer to that would be regardless of the gender or title there would be a loving person in the child's life on a consistent basis. As you have implied, as I read it, stability is important and I agree. A child need someone to turn to and know that they are going to be there next year or even next week...stability. The child would have home and know where they belong, again stability. I think that is the difference and I think it's not an inconsequential one.
>>>"...AND STOP HAVING KIDS OUT OF WEDLOCK WHEN YOU CAN'T ADEQUATELY GIVE THEM A NORMAL FAMILY ENVIRONMENT TO GROW UP IN!!! (In other words, if your parents haven't raised you not to have sex at so early an age that you don't fully understand what you're doing, at least don't allow this problem to be further exacerbated by getting or getting another pregnant and having kids when you don't know enough to raise them properly yourself.)"
That's a lofty goal and one I hope we someday reach, but it is by no means the current reality of the situation. What are we to do with all the kids in foster care now? Should they be condemned to suffer in the system for the mistakes of their parents?
For myself, I think it's an affront to any ethical minded person or god to abandon a child to the system when their is a loving home wanting, so desperately, to invite that child in, regardless of the sexual orientation of the family in the home. I use the word abandon here purposefully, for that is, it seems to me, what people do when they disallow a child entry into a loving family not providing any alternative. They seem to say, to the child, "I disagree with that family therefor you can't be apart of it." Then, they turn and walk away with the child left in the system, still waiting for a family who will love them. I find that rather cold and uncaring.
-
You don't get the idea about the absurdity of proving the negative. You want to not allow something? Then demonstrate the problem wrth allowing it. I am not interested in your philosophy or your religion. I want you to demonstrate that homosexual parents cause harm to the children in their care.
I have seen the result of the foster care system in Florida (in fact, I had a neighbor who had a constantly changing "family" of foster children), and it's not a good situation. There are many children who have little chance of being adopted by a heterosexual couple.
See The American Academy of Pediatrics (2002). These editors notes appear at the end of the article:
In reply to:
_EDITOR'S NOTE: The February issue of Pediatrics also contains "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents." The technical report provides details on the growing body of scientific literature that suggests children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children whose parents are heterosexual.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 55,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The original title of this News Release was "AAP Supports Adoption by Same-sex Parents."_
Here is the above-referenced technical report.
How about the American Psychological Association's article, Lesbian and Gay Parenting? The first paragraph of the conclusion of the summary:
In reply to:
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
Should I listen to them or to you? You never seem to be able to back up any of your opinions, except with more of your opinions. "There is no credible scientific evidence that the sexual orientation of parents has any effects either on the quality of parenting or on the well-being of their children", as one Web site said. Can you prove them wrong without trotting out your interpretation of the bible?
-
"My answer to that would be regardless of the gender or title there would be a loving person in the child's life on a consistent basis."
Stats show that, compared to hetero relationships, gay relationship (on the average now) are much less stable...folks choosing to switch partners much more frequently and not staying together for any length of time. Not all, of course...but on the average.
-
Given that half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, perhaps we shouldn't allow them to raise children either.Are you going to make believe you didn't see my post (with citations)? Is that a tacit admission that you have nothing factual to lean on, but just your religiously-inspired opinion?
-
gay guys aren't wiered to think more like girls,and aren't different physicaly!i don't care what scientific studies said, thats a load of crap.
-
There is evidence (but not proof!) of a genetic component to homosexualty, and if that is true, then that implies at least some small physical difference. But I don't see what relevance this has on the discussion. Eye color differences are due to genes, but I don't see how that affects parenting.
-
Well I'm glad to see this whole thread aint dead yet
Tho I do look fwd to it
When the whole world has equaity -
In reply to: gay guys aren't wiered to think more like girls,and aren't different physicaly!i don't care what scientific studies said, thats a load of crap. Something isnt the case because you dont like it, no matter what science says? The logic behind your posts is as helpless and unhelpful as christian moralism. Progressives love science when it supports what they say but as soon as it goes against their happy-go-lucky/egaliatrain beliefs they like to ignore it. Science is science. I dont always like what science tells me but if I can get multiple scientists from different backgrounds trying similar experiments and getting the same reuslts then I will not deny it for the sake of maintaining narrowminded beliefs. It will be a sad day when the traditional supporters of science, over religeon and philosophical imgainings, turn away from it for the sake of political correctness.
-
I agree with the gist of what you said, but...In reply to:Progressives love science when it supports what they say but as soon as it goes against their happy-go-lucky/egaliatrain beliefs they like to ignore it....I don't agree with that part. No need to smear a whole group of people. There are folks on all parts of the political spectrum who have problems with the idea of science. I have no idea what SilentTears political views are. All I know is that his feelings toward science are rather tentative, but he's only a single individual.
-
I get what your saying, though I use the term "progressive" as transgressive from the normal concept of the political spectrum. Afterall, despite being right-wing and a "concervative", I could be classed a social "progressive".Perhaps I allowed a slight niggle of mine to find its way into my post. My father once told me (I cant confirm the vadility of this but I dont imagine the fellow made it up) that a group of scientists discovered some evidence (I forget to what degree) that all sexual non-norms (such as a foot-fetish, homsexuals, necrophiliacs, paedophiles) had the same root genetic malfunction. When releasing this information these sceintists were told they werent allowed to use the words "homosexual" and "paedophile" in the same document. Whether the scientists were actualy right is irrellevant in that this was the first time I remember that I truely despised political correctness and has made me distrust any knocking of science without proper factual arguement. This perhaps made me go over the top in my response to SilentTears, though their are people out there who are willing to censor science. This is something (along with the rhetoric used by SilentTears) I consider very dangerous. But indeed I think now in hindsight my post was unneccasary.
-
What you said about the scientists and their issue with (for lack of a better phrase) political correctness sounds plausible. Unfortuantely, science is sometimes accosted by people with a political agenda, from all parts of the political spectrum. But also keep in mind that one or two studies or experiments pretty much never "proves" anything, yet the news media has a habit of running with the result of some experiment that may not have even been conducted well, and jumps to all kinds of conclusions.