posted
Amka, are you telling me that if your husband died, you have no male friends or relatives that could "model" all things male?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, what of the heterosexual couple's girl who thinks blacks are morons, Hispanics lazy, and Asians goofy? Or the daughter whose dad believes the women is for the house only, girls can't play sports??
If you are going to argue that tact, you better be able to prove homosexuals have a greater risk of being bigots.
quote: Um, idle curiosity. . . if homosexuals didn't meet the evolutionary standard, why are they still around?
Heh, that is a simple question. IF (big if) homosexuality is completely genetic even so there is no possible way to remove it from the gene pool. What about cerebral palsy? Down syndrome? Things that pretty likely keep a person from reproducing but are still around.
edit out last comment. Too many folks will think it was "aimed" at them.
posted
Actually, I'd argue that homosexuals are in a better position to be open-minded, because they've experienced the hurt that discrimination brings.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some speculation that homosexuality is a reaction to overpopulation. Not that there is yet overpopulation, but there are very heavily crowded cities.
There are environmental factors, but to study those requires admitting that it may be an outcome of a mentally and emotionally unhealthy environment. This suggests there could even be a cure for some cases. And that isn't something the gay community wants to face up to right now.
There are other factors that could be involved and may be congenital, but not genetic. For instance, there is the hormonal environment of the womb.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those would be the people I spoke of that shouldn't have children, Bok.
Okay, lets hold off on the possible gender discrimination.
I have had much experience with a man, and therefore consider that I understand (to a point) how a man thinks. *You are thinking of sex now???!* Even a good young man has sex very much on the brain.
There is no father to talk to about dating boys. My dad talked to me about it. I heard it from two different point of views: my father and my mother. It gave me a lot to think about in my dating adventures. It shaped my young adulthood, and I think it helped me have a very healthy marriage.
How well can the lesbian mothers council their daughter on how to behave around men? On how to choose a good man? Even if her father was a good man, he was simply part of her life, not something she had to weigh and judge for fitness as a husband and father.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, if that were true, shouldn't there only be homosexuals in heavily crowded cities? I think we can agree that that is quite clearly not the case.
I don't like your usage of the word, "unhealthy". You're implying that being gay is an illness of sorts. Like alcoholism or aggression. It's that attitude that the gay community would be up in arms against. It could very well be the result of environmental factors, but these need not be regarded as unhealthy. Unless, of course, we all decide that all gays are vile, which I'm not willing to do.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And single parents, should they be discriminated against too? Love provided from one person, or two people is better than nothing at all.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
There is a difference between a father that has deceased and one that was never there at all.
And yes, the child really would have been better off if he had not died at all. While there would be friends around to help, that would only be a substitute: a stop gap measure because death had taken away what should have been there.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "... Of key importance is the value to children of regular interaction with two parents of the opposite sex - their father and mother. Husbands and wives complement each other and together provide a benefit to their children that is greater than the sum of their individual contributions.
Studies show that mothers and fathers interact with children differently [4] and that both types of interaction are valuable and even necessary for healthy child development. And while a mother's role is vital to all sorts of outcomes, so is the father's. Research shows that a father who is involved in the life of his child contributes to higher educational achievement, more pro-social behaviour, and higher self-esteem for the child. [5]
As author and researcher David Blankenhorn stated on the ABC television program Common Sense: with John Stossel, "The best mom in the world cannot be a father." Of course the reverse is just as true. The best environment for a child is a family setting with an involved mother and father.
The strength of heterosexual marriage can be accounted for by the following factors, among others, outlined by Dan Cere of McGill University:
> Marriage recognizes and addresses the fact of sexual difference and opposite sex attraction
> Marriage affirms the significance of sexual complementarity, as well as the important place of male-female bonding in human life
..."
Not great information, I admit.
And there are lines of hetero couples waiting to adopt. People don't seem to know this.
posted
Yes, but they want specific children, popatr. They don't want the older kids. They don't want the kids with any mental illnesses. They don't want special needs kids.
posted
Bob, the overcrowding factor is something that could be studied. Just because the trigger may be overcrowding doesn't mean it would not occur elsewhere. Just that the occurance would be greater in large cities than in rural areas.
Bob, see... that is exactly what I'm talking about. When I said unhealthy, I meant it. Overbearing parenting, sexual molestation, etc. Those could be contributing factors and to not allow anyone study that is to deny an honest search for truth. Why should that make you afraid?
On the single parent issue:
A heterosexual couple does have more to offer than a single parent. This isn't a judgement evaltuation of the specific individual. It is simply how it is. Rosie has lots of money. Most single parents must struggle just to make ends meet, and then do not have as much time or energy to spend with their children.
Because of my own religious views, that homosexual acts are sinful, I believe a single parent who got there by 'legitimate' means (ie a divorce because of infidelity, abuse, or addiction or death) is better than a homosexual couple.
But a mom who just messes around and has kids is probably a worse environment than a commited homosexual couple who wants to give the child a stable environment.
As to a mother who has never been married and wants to adopt, her income level and her ability to be with the child needs to be evaluated, and since there are so many married couples who desire an infant, she should probably not get 'first dibs', but be willing to help give a child, who otherwise might not find it, a stable home.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course they would. But there would also be, just as with the hetero couples, those gay folks who would WANT to take on the older kids, the mentally ill kids, or the special needs kids. Denying them the ability to adopts denies these children the chance at having parents.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope that my Aunt and Unce don't find it even harder to adopt in the future. That's the nicest way I can say it. (by the way, they were willing to take a set of older kids but couldn't get them.)
adoption by mother and father > adoption by gay parents
But both kinds of parents would be competing for the same kids. Which means the ones who are getting shafted are those that are given to gay parents instead of a mother and father.
But then... the ones who benefit are those who adopted into by gay parents instead of being left with the state.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did. There's nothing new since I sent you one a while ago. Am I missing something, or did you not get mine?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Sorry kid, we can't let a gay couple adopt you because a straight couple would be better for you, so you'll have to wait until a straight couple is available." "Sorry kid, we can't feed you burgers because fruit is better for you, so you'll have to starve until we get the right kind of food." "Sorry kid, we can't make you completely healthy, so there's no point in giving you any medicine at all until we can."
With the number of adoptable kids in the country, how dare you eliminate potential parents because you don't like their sex lives?
Yes, all other things considered equal, I would give a kid to a straight couple over a gay one. Not necessarily because they straight couple will magically turn out a better kid, but because the social pressures (thanks to bigots and short-sighted people) will be greater on the gay couple.
But I would give a kid to a gay couple over a straight one if the straight one wasn't as financially sound, or had odd things in their criminal records, or weren't especially stable. I would give a kid to a gay couple over a straight single person. And I wouldn't hesitate to give a kid to a gay couple rather than leave him to the gentle mercies of the state.
I can argue gay marriage civilly. It's not something that affects me directly, except for where it affects friends and society in general. But I can't imagine anyone harsh enough to deny a child a family and I can't see how it's at all defensible.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, all other things considered equal, I would give a kid to a straight couple over a gay one."
The difficulty here is that this is ALSO a largely arbitrary argument, and it's highly likely -- inevitable, even -- that gay couples who are permitted to marry and adopt will someday argue that this kind of discrimination is unfair.
That's because, as far as we can tell, it is.
So until we have some scientific evidence demonstrating that children reared by gay couples are in some way damaged by the experience, I would NOT give heterosexual couples preferential treatment when it comes to adoption.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, I probably would, all other things being perfectly equal. While all I have is anecdotal evidence, the kids of the gay couples I have known - one adopted, two by blood of parents who later discovered their homosexuality - have suffered from peer pressure because of their home lives. Note that I'm not sayng that the gay couple isn't as suitable as the straight couple, but that the kid of a gay couple is going into society with one strike against him already. I think society needs to grow up, but I'm not blind to how large parts of it act. I would sincerely like to see a time when it doesn't matter to anyone what genders your loving parents are, but we ain't there yet.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be interesting to see how it shakes out, though, and I hope that someday sexual orientation is the smallest part of what makes a couple suitable for adoption.
Tell me, folks against gay adoption - would a straight couple who happen to be heavily into private S&M be preferable to a "vanilla sex" gay couple? Careful how you answer...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
"S&M" refers to sadomasochism. While there are any number of variations, a simple version might be a couple containing a dominant and domineering person and a passive, submissive person. A wealth of detail is available if you need to know more, but suffice it to say that there are an awful lot of people out there who enjoy (or suffer) some form of consensual exchange of power in their sex lives. It would not surprise me a bit to find that there are more people (straight and gay) in this lifestyle than there are total gay people. "Vanilla sex" refers to sexual relations the "old-fashioned way": missionary position and a very few others, few if any props, "only" two people, etc. Not meant to be perjorative; vanilla is yummy.
[ August 08, 2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cause it's the way the missionaries do it. Right? We have a lot of missionaries here. Bueller?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
