homosexual people have a "he can scratch his ass in public so i should also be allowed to do so" kind of attitude towards everything.
do all children in the world have a general feeling about not having gay parents?? i dont think so. i think most children who do not have parents would love to have two or one parent(s) even if they are gay.
There are so many children out there that are put up for adoption, so many children who are "unwanted" by their biological parents - so what if two adults want to pool their resources to raise a child?
It doesn't matter what their sex is. The child would grow up accepting their parents - and the parents would love their child. Moreso than the heterosexual couple who cared so much about the child that they just got rid of it.
So yes, if two people, man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman, want to adopt a child because they can give it a better life than it will have in an orphanage or whatnot, I'm all for it. End of story.
I don't care what the bible says about it. I don't care if there are people out there who think its a disease. All that matters is that a child has parents who will watch over and protect them and treat them as family. That is what is best for the child.
There are so many children out there that are put up for adoption, so many children who are "unwanted" by their biological parents - so what if two adults want to pool their resources to raise a child?
It doesn't matter what their sex is. The child would grow up accepting their parents - and the parents would love their child. Moreso than the heterosexual couple who cared so much about the child that they just got rid of it.
So yes, if two people, man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman, want to adopt a child because they can give it a better life than it will have in an orphanage or whatnot, I'm all for it. End of story.
I don't care what the bible says about it. I don't care if there are people out there who think its a disease. All that matters is that a child has parents who will watch over and protect them and treat them as family. That is what is best for the child.
My thoughts exactly. If any two people are capable of loving a child and giving him/her a good life then there is nothing wrong with it. The child can decide for themself what they think of homosexuality, and undoubtledly would become an open-minded and unprejudiced individual.
I can see it from the point of view that gay parents are better than no parents to me a man and a woman should raise kids.I know being a man and a woman doesn't automatically make you good parents but that's just the way I think it should be.I just think for the most part this is about gay people wanting the right to raise kids rather than thinking about the kids' point of view.
I'm with darkcrow on this.
I really dont know honestly. When someone decides (i know its not a "im gonna be gay" decision) to live a gay lifestyle, having kids is a physical impossibility to do naturally, so maybe that should be a sacrifice you make if you live a gay lifestyle.
Like you said it's not that kind of choice. But, they can have a child if one of the guys has good sperm, all they need to do is find a woman that wants to carry it for them.
There has been alot of talk in this thread about wheteher or not a gay couple would be capable of raising a child. Of course they would be capable. Is it ideal? No.
There has been alot of talk about homosexuality, parenting and evolution. I don't really no exactly where evolution fits into the original question, but, I'll say this. Whether you believe humanity came into existence by evolutionary accident, or humanity is a divine creation, it seems obvious that heterosexuality is the way nature or God (depending on what you believe, it doesn't really matter) intended things to work. Its quite obvious we were evolved/created for heterosexuality. I am not saying this out of any hatred or fear of homosexuality. I assure you I have neither. But elementary biology, you know, birds, bees, pistils, stamens (choose your favorite analogy and insirt it here) is quite clear on this. Is homosexuality wrong? Not for me to say. Should gay couples raise children? Also not for me to say other than I don't think it is ideal. But there is really no question as to whether or not its natural. It simply isn't. Its not the way nature/God intended things.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Like you said it's not that kind of choice. But, they can have a child if one of the guys has good sperm, all they need to do is find a woman that wants to carry it for them.
but why should they (just like hetero couple that cant concieve) be going to these lengths have a child in an unatural fashion, when there are thousands of children available for adoption?
There has been alot of talk in this thread about wheteher or not a gay couple would be capable of raising a child. Of course they would be capable. Is it ideal? No.
There has been alot of talk about homosexuality, parenting and evolution. I don't really no exactly where evolution fits into the original question, but, I'll say this. Whether you believe humanity came into existence by evolutionary accident, or humanity is a divine creation, it seems obvious that heterosexuality is the way nature or God (depending on what you believe, it doesn't really matter) intended things to work. Its quite obvious we were evolved/created for heterosexuality. I am not saying this out of any hatred or fear of homosexuality. I assure you I have neither. But elementary biology, you know, birds, bees, pistils, stamens (choose your favorite analogy and insirt it here) is quite clear on this. Is homosexuality wrong? Not for me to say. Should gay couples raise children? Also not for me to say other than I don't think it is ideal. But there is really no question as to whether or not its natural. It simply isn't. Its not the way nature/God intended things.
did nature intend for us to pollute the planet? did nature intend for us to create hundreds of different religions and then start wars over them? there are a whole host of things nature did not intend for us to do but being humans we go against the grain. in our enlightened times surely it makes no difference if you are gay or straight, if you can give a child a happy upbringing with love and all things a child needs then thats all that should matter??
but why should they (just like hetero couple that cant concieve) be going to these lengths have a child in an unatural fashion, when there are thousands of children available for adoption?
did nature intend for us to pollute the planet? did nature intend for us to create hundreds of different religions and then start wars over them? there are a whole host of things nature did not intend for us to do but being humans we go against the grain. in our enlightened times surely it makes no difference if you are gay or straight, if you can give a child a happy upbringing with love and all things a child needs then thats all that should matter??
When did i say pollution was a good thing? When did I say war (especially war in God's name was a good thing? When did I say these things are natural? I'm not sure I'm getting your point. In fact I think your doing your point harm by making these analogies. Yes pollution is unnatural. Its also a bad thing!! "Going against the grain" is not always a good thing. Would you call someone who pollutes the earth "enlightened"? Would you call George Bush in all his warmongering, or Osama Bin Laden in his call for Jihad "enlightened"?
Again, you try to justify a potentally negative situation, by pointing to worse situations, and you can't really do that.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
It seems to me that the only problems that children raised by homosexual people will have, is the ignorant comments and bullying that comes from ignorant adults teaching there kids backward ideas.
All any child needs to grow up happy and healthy is a loving adult or two.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
There has been alot of talk in this thread about wheteher or not a gay couple would be capable of raising a child. Of course they would be capable. Is it ideal? No.
I don't know one single family that raises their children ideally. Even the idealists I know. We're people and we do the best we can with what we've got. 2% of the population is considered self-actualised and even these people are considered very aware of their human flaws, and feel great remorse when they make mistakes. They make them none the less. The point is, as parents we all know we make some big mistakes. And we all know love is healing and is what binds a family together.
Some of the greatest gifts I've had to offer my children has been the understanding that we can overcome what is not ideal. Now that they have that to take into the world, they are equipped with the ability to deal with the imperfection all around, so that they may be free to outlet their dreams.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't know one single family that raises their children ideally. Even the idealists I know. We're people and we do the best we can with what we've got. 2% of the population is considered self-actualised and even these people are considered very aware of their human flaws, and feel great remorse when they make mistakes. They make them none the less. The point is, as parents we all know we make some big mistakes. And we all know love is healing and is what binds a family together.
Some of the greatest gifts I've had to offer my children has been the understanding that we can overcome what is not ideal. Now that they have that to take into the world, they are equipped with the ability to deal with the imperfection all around, so that they may be free to outlet their dreams.
I understand what you're saying. I certainly am not a perfect parent (although I am a damn good one:D ). And if you notice, I havn't said here "absolutely not! Never! Gay couples should never raise children!" I havn't said that. I've only said that I don't believe it isn't necessarily the best option. Honestly, I have my hands full with my own children. I don't have the energy or interest to raise anyone else's. Nor do I have the expertise needed to write an advice column on parenting.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
one, is directed to rightondude... on more than one occasion you referance adding someone/something to your "killfile"... what exactly does that mean? I read it as some juvenile "people to kill" list. Is that correct, or does it mean something else...
Killfile is a usenet thing. Here it is called 'Ignore'. You have the ability to add someone to your Ignore list so you don't have to read posts by them. Perhaps a bit more juvinile than simply exercising self-control and ignoring someone yourself, but if you don't have that capacity, it is nice that the forum software does it for you. It is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and humming "blah blah blah" to yourself.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
My thoughts exactly. If any two people are capable of loving a child and giving him/her a good life then there is nothing wrong with it. The child can decide for themself what they think of homosexuality, and undoubtledly would become an open-minded and unprejudiced individual.
well then this sounds like a nice compromise -
let the hosexual couple ADOPT kids. that way, they wont toy around with the life of a child yet to be born (by deciding to "have" a newborn) and will also bail out a child unfortunate enough to have been abandoned by his/her parents.
also, since the homosexual couple cant have a child between them in any case, they will always have to raise someone else's child. at the most one parent can be from this couple. so they may as well raise an orphan child.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I understand what you're saying. I certainly am not a perfect parent (although I am a damn good one:D ). And if you notice, I havn't said here "absolutely not! Never! Gay couples should never raise children!" I havn't said that. I've only said that I don't believe it isn't necessarily the best option. Honestly, I have my hands full with my own children. I don't have the energy or interest to raise anyone else's. Nor do I have the expertise needed to write an advice column on parenting.
I didn't mean to really call you out specifically. I didn't think you were crossing any lines. You seemed quite conscientious about that. (although I'm not through the whole thread, yet )
I meant to point to the idea that many of us forget how fallible we are. It's easy to get into an intellectual debate and overlook the reality. Most people I know have no idea how they are messing up their kids--what they are setting them up for.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Sure we can go on supporting it forever, but we are changing the laws of nature. We are breeding an undesirable trait (according to evolution) into society. Tossing mother nature aside always has grave consequences. Will it in this case? who knows. I am just stating that it is not natural and that canot be disputed without letting your emotions oppose the evolutionary process or the natural progression of nature.
The problem with looking logically at pieces of the puzzle is that we can overlook the bigger puzzle picture. Such as that the laws of nature evolved our brains through varying stages to where we are right now, including priming us towards the advances we've uncovered, not to mention the grand ethical considerations humans are capable of assessing--to a degree that can be purely inspiring.
At the same time, it's clear that masses are not seeing the big picture.
I personally champion the laws of nature and the impossibility of our changing them in a dysfunctional way. I marvel at our human arrogance at the idea that we run the show to the dismay of poor downtrodden nature. To me, such an indea depicts the imbalanced view of those seeing it, not the balanced truth of life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What makes a gay man gay? Gays are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce. Period. Nature would select them out. If you don't inderstand that I can't debate it with you as you're missing some key knowledge.
When a gay man mates with a hetero woman he in introducing this flaw into the gene pool...that's obvious. I'm not making this stuff up. That is nature that is evolution. Unless you wnat to start debating the laws of nature and evolution.
People who oppose this are using emotion over logic. Evolution is cruel but it has brought us thus far. Study the Thomsons gazelle. Ever wonder why the all look the same? Why most animals all look exactly the same? Because nature has made them perfect. Now look at all the screwed up genetic flaws size shapes, and mental diseases in people. Coincidence? Nope... human emotion has introduced much of these mutations by keeping alive things that would die in nature and they reproduce into the gene pool. Don't take my word for it learn something...read about it... ps the human condition is a useless argument in this case.
i guess it all comes down to if you truly see it as a 'flaw' or not. i mean, it happened along the way somewhere....is it a flaw, or perhaps some blip in your genetic make-up to keep population in check?
i've read your other posts....and you actually seem like you take zero issue with homosexuals actually RAISING children - which IS the actualy thread topic - just moreso take issue with their 'breeding'...? i hope i am understanding you correctly. further posts seem to suggest that even heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally on their own, should not either? so may i surmise that your true issue lay with the idea of assisted reproduction?...and not truly with homosexuals being parents? if so, that's an entirely different subject i won't even touch here....and just to stay with the topic then, you aren't acctually opposed to homosexuals being parents as long as they adopt. i may not agree with that, but i simply want to understand where you're coming from.
again, as far as homosexuality being an evolutionary dead-end, sure...it is. of course, you already gave the example of gay men mating with hetero women, lesbian women mating with hetero men, etc...and i am sure this happened a LOT....when homosexuality was not nearly as accepted, and thus many 'hid' in the guise of a hetero couple, and yes, procreated. however, i do not think there has been proven any facts of homosexuals passing on their 'gay genes'...so i really can't see them as 'flaws'. many a hetero couple has produced homosexual offspring...so doe that mean the parents, seeming 'normal'...are truly 'flawed'...? i just don't view it that way.
There has been alot of talk in this thread about wheteher or not a gay couple would be capable of raising a child. Of course they would be capable. Is it ideal? No.
There has been alot of talk about homosexuality, parenting and evolution. I don't really no exactly where evolution fits into the original question, but, I'll say this. Whether you believe humanity came into existence by evolutionary accident, or humanity is a divine creation, it seems obvious that heterosexuality is the way nature or God (depending on what you believe, it doesn't really matter) intended things to work. Its quite obvious we were evolved/created for heterosexuality. I am not saying this out of any hatred or fear of homosexuality. I assure you I have neither. But elementary biology, you know, birds, bees, pistils, stamens (choose your favorite analogy and insirt it here) is quite clear on this. Is homosexuality wrong? Not for me to say. Should gay couples raise children? Also not for me to say other than I don't think it is ideal. But there is really no question as to whether or not its natural. It simply isn't. Its not the way nature/God intended things.
while i understand your point/reasoning here..i don't think it's the full picture. human beings are NOT the only species to ever have homosexual tendencies...there HAVE been other species to be documented with homosexual practices/acts. is it the norm of all? of course not, b/c sure...they would eventually extinct themselves. but who is to say what nature 'intends'...? how is it to possibly be fully 'known' if homsexuality is merely nature trying to exert influnece over a species population? even within hetero couples, some cannot reproduce simply b/c they cannot....so they too are evolutionary dead-ends.....does that mean they have no purpose in the whole scheme of existence? i don't pretend to know these things...so i certainly do not look at homosexuals in such a light.
in regards to ideals of parenthood....in my mind, the ideal is two loving and supportive parents. for me, it ends there. i ceetainly respect anyone's right to disagree with that...but it's where my mind is at....and one can throw around all the evolution and what nature 'intends' all they like....b/c who knows? since all else in our society is not 'ideal'....why put such a standard on parenthood....ideal is no single parents...no parent who dies before their child...no abusive parents....etc. all worthy to try for ideals, and i think the ideal is two loving parents, i am unconcerned with their gender.
let the hosexual couple ADOPT kids. that way, they wont toy around with the life of a child yet to be born (by deciding to "have" a newborn) and will also bail out a child unfortunate enough to have been abandoned by his/her parents.
also, since the homosexual couple cant have a child between them in any case, they will always have to raise someone else's child. at the most one parent can be from this couple. so they may as well raise an orphan child.
Wow. you're going to "let" them adopt kids. Why do you feel you can decide their reproductive fate? Do you feel the same way about infertile hetero couples?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
This is bullshit. They might look the same to you but they have as many differences as humans.
You would less informed than you should be to assume that. Physically they are akin to identical twins in appearance from different mothers. Think about that concept for a second or two...or three, or however long you need
Oh please...spaz... get a grip on yourself. I am stating the facts of evolution. Thanks for your wonderfully candid, and apparently useless "opinions" they are very telling of your character.
State some facts to the opposite...otherwise you're just drooling on the floor...sigh...what a brainless response
good for you to be so astute in your observations.... my condolences to you as well...You're a big man to pick and point out flaws in others...wow I'm impressed. So what is your point again other to show lack of comprehension and emotional bias on the issue?
You would less informed than you should be to assume that. Physically they are akin to identical twins in appearance from different mothers. Think about that concept for a second or two...or three, or however long you need
if animals are genetically 'perfect'....why has there been documented cases of homosexual acts within some species? and no, i can offer no documented proof...b/c sure, i've read it in a few places, but yea...can't recall where...and i am just too damn lazy to look it up..so believe, or not, at will. how can that be if it is a 'flaw'...? and if physical looks are all that deem 'perfection'....well then, i just don't see it.
however, i still really fail to see the true connection to the thread topic? i thought it was all about homosexuals rasing children? even if you believe homosexuality to be a 'flaw'....do you think then they are just too 'flawed' to raise children or not? where does one draw the line? there are many 'flawed' people out in the world, with serious issues not visible to the naked eye. plenty of heterosexual couples who, physically, can reproduce, but perhaps for other reasons should not. what exactly about homosexuality makes one think, the possibility, that they should not raise children? it seems to me, the initial thread-starter didn't even touch upon reproduction, merely raising.
you know after reading this whole thread and seeing how it became a anti-homo rant at parts, i wish i had titled the thread differently.
new thread title (and far more to the point)
SHOULD A CHILD HAVE/DOES A CHILD DESERVE TO HAVE, TWO SAME-SEX ADULTS FOR HIS/HER PARENTS ???
It hasn't been that bad of a thread. One thing I think that has been overlooked is the legal side of this matter. Our system is behind the times and does not even give this any consideration. These families not only face a moral issue, but a legal one. Who has rights to the children when things go wrong? Can both same sex partners adopt a child and be equally seen as legal guardians? If only one parent can have custody, is it always going to be the better choice for the child? These are also issues that raise a red flag for me. No matter the debate, same sex partners are raising families and the children they are raising may be in trouble if/when their parents split up. A whole new set of issues to keep in mind.
if animals are genetically 'perfect'....why has there been documented cases of homosexual acts within some species? and no, i can offer no documented proof...b/c sure, i've read it in a few places, but yea...can't recall where...and i am just too damn lazy to look it up..so believe, or not, at will. how can that be if it is a 'flaw'...? and if physical looks are all that deem 'perfection'....well then, i just don't see it.
however, i still really fail to see the true connection to the thread topic? i thought it was all about homosexuals rasing children? even if you believe homosexuality to be a 'flaw'....do you think then they are just too 'flawed' to raise children or not? where does one draw the line? there are many 'flawed' people out in the world, with serious issues not visible to the naked eye. plenty of heterosexual couples who, physically, can reproduce, but perhaps for other reasons should not. what exactly about homosexuality makes one think, the possibility, that they should not raise children? it seems to me, the initial thread-starter didn't even touch upon reproduction, merely raising.
I can't read for you friend ...sorry it's all there already...
As for the in nature thing, most of it is for social dominance, and hierachy purposes, or as bonobos use it to defuse threating situations. They are mostly bisexual however, not strictly homosexual. Otherwise they would be selected out (as long as evironmental pollution could be ruled out as well mind you...another issue). I am just saying that not being mentally willing, or capable to breed is a huge indication of a seriously major problem....Why people continually seem to disagree with this simple fact is beyond anything I can comprehend as being intelligent. It does not surprise me though.
Wow. you're going to "let" them adopt kids. Why do you feel you can decide their reproductive fate? Do you feel the same way about infertile hetero couples?
ignore the "let"...
what was was trying to say is that raising kids as long as they were parentless orphan kids seemed like a compromise between homosexuals going without kids and them "fathering" a kid, just because they want to exercise their right to parenthood (nevermind the trauma to the child)
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I can't read for you friend ...sorry it's all there already...
well that is very helpful support to your statements. :rolleyes:
so then, since you won't continue to truly 'discuss' it further...i will surmise my thoughts on your ideas are correct...that you take zero issue on gays raising children as long as they don't reproduce. so then, what else is there to discuss here? all else you are talking about is an entirely different, albeit related, discussion.
personally...whatever you think is 'all there'...i obviously don't see it in that light, and i am not investing any emotions in it. why can the idea of homosexuality being a 'natural' system of nature, being a built-in check system for population control...be within the realm of possibility? again, if homosexuals are evolutionary 'dead-ends'...so are infertile heterosexuals...so then...both serve no purpose in life and...what?....what exactly does/should that mean? perhaps they are simply here to play a supportive role, part of the cvlan, support other offspring, assist the family unit, etc. i mean, even healthy and strong, fertile people get eaten off by a gazelle now and again...so maybe all these 'evolutionary dead-ends'...are there to assist?
edit - and perhaps you missed, or simply disregarded, my previous posts adrdressing/questioning yours. if you truly believe3 all you say is so 'right'..i would simply think you'd like to enlighten the rest of us, b/c thus far, you'ver proven nothing to me...and i've read all your posts. if by 'you can't read for me'...you are going to point me to other sources, well then, please do so.
what was was trying to say is that raising kids as long as they were parentless orphan kids seemed like a compromise between homosexuals going without kids and them "fathering" a kid, just because they want to exercise their right to parenthood (nevermind the trauma to the child)
i think the issue lies in, if heterosexuals can freely choose to undergo assisted reproduction, why not homosexuals? why should one being given such rights and not the other? it is a very vaild question.
Comments
do all children in the world have a general feeling about not having gay parents?? i dont think so. i think most children who do not have parents would love to have two or one parent(s) even if they are gay.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
There are so many children out there that are put up for adoption, so many children who are "unwanted" by their biological parents - so what if two adults want to pool their resources to raise a child?
It doesn't matter what their sex is. The child would grow up accepting their parents - and the parents would love their child. Moreso than the heterosexual couple who cared so much about the child that they just got rid of it.
So yes, if two people, man-man, woman-woman, or man-woman, want to adopt a child because they can give it a better life than it will have in an orphanage or whatnot, I'm all for it. End of story.
I don't care what the bible says about it. I don't care if there are people out there who think its a disease. All that matters is that a child has parents who will watch over and protect them and treat them as family. That is what is best for the child.
I'm with darkcrow on this.
Like you said it's not that kind of choice. But, they can have a child if one of the guys has good sperm, all they need to do is find a woman that wants to carry it for them.
naděje umírá poslední
There has been alot of talk about homosexuality, parenting and evolution. I don't really no exactly where evolution fits into the original question, but, I'll say this. Whether you believe humanity came into existence by evolutionary accident, or humanity is a divine creation, it seems obvious that heterosexuality is the way nature or God (depending on what you believe, it doesn't really matter) intended things to work. Its quite obvious we were evolved/created for heterosexuality. I am not saying this out of any hatred or fear of homosexuality. I assure you I have neither. But elementary biology, you know, birds, bees, pistils, stamens (choose your favorite analogy and insirt it here) is quite clear on this. Is homosexuality wrong? Not for me to say. Should gay couples raise children? Also not for me to say other than I don't think it is ideal. But there is really no question as to whether or not its natural. It simply isn't. Its not the way nature/God intended things.
but why should they (just like hetero couple that cant concieve) be going to these lengths have a child in an unatural fashion, when there are thousands of children available for adoption?
did nature intend for us to pollute the planet? did nature intend for us to create hundreds of different religions and then start wars over them? there are a whole host of things nature did not intend for us to do but being humans we go against the grain. in our enlightened times surely it makes no difference if you are gay or straight, if you can give a child a happy upbringing with love and all things a child needs then thats all that should matter??
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Beats me, I'm all for adoption.
naděje umírá poslední
When did i say pollution was a good thing? When did I say war (especially war in God's name was a good thing? When did I say these things are natural? I'm not sure I'm getting your point. In fact I think your doing your point harm by making these analogies. Yes pollution is unnatural. Its also a bad thing!! "Going against the grain" is not always a good thing. Would you call someone who pollutes the earth "enlightened"? Would you call George Bush in all his warmongering, or Osama Bin Laden in his call for Jihad "enlightened"?
Again, you try to justify a potentally negative situation, by pointing to worse situations, and you can't really do that.
All any child needs to grow up happy and healthy is a loving adult or two.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Some of the greatest gifts I've had to offer my children has been the understanding that we can overcome what is not ideal. Now that they have that to take into the world, they are equipped with the ability to deal with the imperfection all around, so that they may be free to outlet their dreams.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I understand what you're saying. I certainly am not a perfect parent (although I am a damn good one:D ). And if you notice, I havn't said here "absolutely not! Never! Gay couples should never raise children!" I havn't said that. I've only said that I don't believe it isn't necessarily the best option. Honestly, I have my hands full with my own children. I don't have the energy or interest to raise anyone else's. Nor do I have the expertise needed to write an advice column on parenting.
Killfile is a usenet thing. Here it is called 'Ignore'. You have the ability to add someone to your Ignore list so you don't have to read posts by them. Perhaps a bit more juvinile than simply exercising self-control and ignoring someone yourself, but if you don't have that capacity, it is nice that the forum software does it for you. It is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and humming "blah blah blah" to yourself.
well then this sounds like a nice compromise -
let the hosexual couple ADOPT kids. that way, they wont toy around with the life of a child yet to be born (by deciding to "have" a newborn) and will also bail out a child unfortunate enough to have been abandoned by his/her parents.
also, since the homosexual couple cant have a child between them in any case, they will always have to raise someone else's child. at the most one parent can be from this couple. so they may as well raise an orphan child.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
I meant to point to the idea that many of us forget how fallible we are. It's easy to get into an intellectual debate and overlook the reality. Most people I know have no idea how they are messing up their kids--what they are setting them up for.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
new thread title (and far more to the point)
SHOULD A CHILD HAVE/DOES A CHILD DESERVE TO HAVE, TWO SAME-SEX ADULTS FOR HIS/HER PARENTS ???
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
The problem with looking logically at pieces of the puzzle is that we can overlook the bigger puzzle picture. Such as that the laws of nature evolved our brains through varying stages to where we are right now, including priming us towards the advances we've uncovered, not to mention the grand ethical considerations humans are capable of assessing--to a degree that can be purely inspiring.
At the same time, it's clear that masses are not seeing the big picture.
I personally champion the laws of nature and the impossibility of our changing them in a dysfunctional way. I marvel at our human arrogance at the idea that we run the show to the dismay of poor downtrodden nature. To me, such an indea depicts the imbalanced view of those seeing it, not the balanced truth of life.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i guess it all comes down to if you truly see it as a 'flaw' or not. i mean, it happened along the way somewhere....is it a flaw, or perhaps some blip in your genetic make-up to keep population in check?
i've read your other posts....and you actually seem like you take zero issue with homosexuals actually RAISING children - which IS the actualy thread topic - just moreso take issue with their 'breeding'...? i hope i am understanding you correctly. further posts seem to suggest that even heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally on their own, should not either? so may i surmise that your true issue lay with the idea of assisted reproduction?...and not truly with homosexuals being parents? if so, that's an entirely different subject i won't even touch here....and just to stay with the topic then, you aren't acctually opposed to homosexuals being parents as long as they adopt. i may not agree with that, but i simply want to understand where you're coming from.
again, as far as homosexuality being an evolutionary dead-end, sure...it is. of course, you already gave the example of gay men mating with hetero women, lesbian women mating with hetero men, etc...and i am sure this happened a LOT....when homosexuality was not nearly as accepted, and thus many 'hid' in the guise of a hetero couple, and yes, procreated. however, i do not think there has been proven any facts of homosexuals passing on their 'gay genes'...so i really can't see them as 'flaws'. many a hetero couple has produced homosexual offspring...so doe that mean the parents, seeming 'normal'...are truly 'flawed'...? i just don't view it that way.
while i understand your point/reasoning here..i don't think it's the full picture. human beings are NOT the only species to ever have homosexual tendencies...there HAVE been other species to be documented with homosexual practices/acts. is it the norm of all? of course not, b/c sure...they would eventually extinct themselves. but who is to say what nature 'intends'...? how is it to possibly be fully 'known' if homsexuality is merely nature trying to exert influnece over a species population? even within hetero couples, some cannot reproduce simply b/c they cannot....so they too are evolutionary dead-ends.....does that mean they have no purpose in the whole scheme of existence? i don't pretend to know these things...so i certainly do not look at homosexuals in such a light.
in regards to ideals of parenthood....in my mind, the ideal is two loving and supportive parents. for me, it ends there. i ceetainly respect anyone's right to disagree with that...but it's where my mind is at....and one can throw around all the evolution and what nature 'intends' all they like....b/c who knows? since all else in our society is not 'ideal'....why put such a standard on parenthood....ideal is no single parents...no parent who dies before their child...no abusive parents....etc. all worthy to try for ideals, and i think the ideal is two loving parents, i am unconcerned with their gender.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
This is bullshit. They might look the same to you but they have as many differences as humans.
naděje umírá poslední
Wow. you're going to "let" them adopt kids. Why do you feel you can decide their reproductive fate? Do you feel the same way about infertile hetero couples?
cross the river to the eastside
You would less informed than you should be to assume that. Physically they are akin to identical twins in appearance from different mothers. Think about that concept for a second or two...or three, or however long you need
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
good for you to be so astute in your observations.... my condolences to you as well...You're a big man to pick and point out flaws in others...wow I'm impressed. So what is your point again other to show lack of comprehension and emotional bias on the issue?
if animals are genetically 'perfect'....why has there been documented cases of homosexual acts within some species? and no, i can offer no documented proof...b/c sure, i've read it in a few places, but yea...can't recall where...and i am just too damn lazy to look it up..so believe, or not, at will. how can that be if it is a 'flaw'...? and if physical looks are all that deem 'perfection'....well then, i just don't see it.
however, i still really fail to see the true connection to the thread topic? i thought it was all about homosexuals rasing children? even if you believe homosexuality to be a 'flaw'....do you think then they are just too 'flawed' to raise children or not? where does one draw the line? there are many 'flawed' people out in the world, with serious issues not visible to the naked eye. plenty of heterosexual couples who, physically, can reproduce, but perhaps for other reasons should not. what exactly about homosexuality makes one think, the possibility, that they should not raise children? it seems to me, the initial thread-starter didn't even touch upon reproduction, merely raising.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I can't read for you friend ...sorry it's all there already...
As for the in nature thing, most of it is for social dominance, and hierachy purposes, or as bonobos use it to defuse threating situations. They are mostly bisexual however, not strictly homosexual. Otherwise they would be selected out (as long as evironmental pollution could be ruled out as well mind you...another issue). I am just saying that not being mentally willing, or capable to breed is a huge indication of a seriously major problem....Why people continually seem to disagree with this simple fact is beyond anything I can comprehend as being intelligent. It does not surprise me though.
weren't you the asshole who called gays an evolutionary dead-end and essntially worthless human beings?
you sputtered out a completely unfounded (and considering actual scientific theory, disproven) statement about evolution.
get your head out of your ass.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
what was was trying to say is that raising kids as long as they were parentless orphan kids seemed like a compromise between homosexuals going without kids and them "fathering" a kid, just because they want to exercise their right to parenthood (nevermind the trauma to the child)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
well that is very helpful support to your statements. :rolleyes:
so then, since you won't continue to truly 'discuss' it further...i will surmise my thoughts on your ideas are correct...that you take zero issue on gays raising children as long as they don't reproduce. so then, what else is there to discuss here? all else you are talking about is an entirely different, albeit related, discussion.
personally...whatever you think is 'all there'...i obviously don't see it in that light, and i am not investing any emotions in it. why can the idea of homosexuality being a 'natural' system of nature, being a built-in check system for population control...be within the realm of possibility? again, if homosexuals are evolutionary 'dead-ends'...so are infertile heterosexuals...so then...both serve no purpose in life and...what?....what exactly does/should that mean? perhaps they are simply here to play a supportive role, part of the cvlan, support other offspring, assist the family unit, etc. i mean, even healthy and strong, fertile people get eaten off by a gazelle now and again...so maybe all these 'evolutionary dead-ends'...are there to assist?
edit - and perhaps you missed, or simply disregarded, my previous posts adrdressing/questioning yours. if you truly believe3 all you say is so 'right'..i would simply think you'd like to enlighten the rest of us, b/c thus far, you'ver proven nothing to me...and i've read all your posts. if by 'you can't read for me'...you are going to point me to other sources, well then, please do so.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i think the issue lies in, if heterosexuals can freely choose to undergo assisted reproduction, why not homosexuals? why should one being given such rights and not the other? it is a very vaild question.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow