gay people raising children

harmless_little_f*** · June 2006

Meatwagon wrote:

Thanks Harmless. That pretty much raps it up. I like the connection to plastic surgery.

lol it was a long rant. I got there in the end.

Binaural · June 2006

London Calling wrote:

Gonna have to agree with you.
I like to think i'm liberal on most things but not homosexuality.

Over himself, over his ownbody and mind, the individual is sovereign.

PEACE

darkcrow · June 2006

gay people bringing up kids? god forbid! hahaha. sorry.

i dont see the problem. if a child has loving, caring parents then it shouldn't matter wheather they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, two men and a woman, two women and a man....

just becuase you are gay does not mean you cannot raise children

mca47 · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Yes, it's related to populus numbers as a means of control. It is a mutation... It is also evolutionary dead end for a specific reason.

why so many clueless people have such strong opinions when they pose uninformed, factless, conjectured arguments again and again...I'll never know....:rolleyes: anyhow I'll state my beliefs again.

Yes they have the right to adopt and raise children absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that. I do, however, take issue at genetic influence when they have chosen their path, or their path is chosen for them (i.e. god v.s. evolution). I do not support unnatural reproduction.
Any species that cannot reproduce naturally must follow the chosen path of nature, not decieve, or manipulate it.

"Clueless people"? Please state you credentials for being so "in the know."
I happen to have a degree in Biology/Biochemistry and have taken many courses in evolution and animial behavior. So, I'm curious...what is you knowledge based on? Google?
You haphazardly use the word "mutation" over and over again. Clearly, you aren't a genetics expert because this would not be coming out of your 'mouth'.

rightondude · June 2006

mca47 wrote:

"Clueless people"? Please state you credentials for being so "in the know."
I happen to have a degree in Biology/Biochemistry and have taken many courses in evolution and animial behavior. So, I'm curious...what is you knowledge based on? Google?
You haphazardly use the word "mutation" over and over again. Clearly, you aren't a genetics expert because this would not be coming out of your 'mouth'.

Great. I would be interested to hear your views on how homosexuality has it's place in contributing to the human gene pool. Would you consider homosexuality a natural human progression, or is the word "mutation" on some level misleading? What would you offer as evidence towards homosexuality as a normal course of evolution i.e. not deviated in some way? Degrees don't mean much without experience, I have some degrees too...

please enlighten me...

surferdude · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Yes, it's (homosexuality) related to populus numbers as a means of control.

Such a bold statement. Do you have any science behind this? Or did you just masquerade opinion for fact?

rightondude · June 2006

surferdude wrote:

Such a bold statement. Do you have any science behind this? Or did you just masquerade opinion for fact?

Numerous tests have been conducted. If you would care to show me the opposite, I'll take note of your opinion...

Hinny · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Numerous tests have been conducted. If you would care to show me the opposite, I'll take note of your opinion...

I'd really like to know what tests have been conducted, and by what bodies, and what kinds of critiques have been made of the tests. Do you have any links to any journal articles or websites with this information?

mca47 · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Great. I would be interested to hear your views on how homosexuality has it's place in contributing to the human gene pool. Would you consider homosexuality a natural human condition, or is the word "mutation" on some level misleading? What would you offer as evidence towards homosexuality as a normal course of evolution i.e. not deviated in some way? Degrees don't mean much without experience I have some degrees too...

please enlighten me...

I see you didn't answer my question.
Annnnyways :rolleyes:
The problem is that human evolution is difficult to understand unless you look at the genetic aspect of it. Many different forms of taxonomy can be put forth based on genetic mapping. Whoa!
Despite the google search of a fellow jammer earlier, there still hasn't been any significant...and I repeat, SIGNIFICANT data to support any claim that there is a "gay gene." :eek: If I could get my old genetics professor on here I would, but I don't think that's reasonable.
Yes, "mutation" is misleading. Based on what I just said, a mutation is an abnormality based on the expression/or lack thereof of a specific gene.
"The normal course of evolution"? What is normal? Over time, what seems like would be the natural occurance of an event always seems to take a deviation in some aspect from what one would expect. Look back...in many cases what Darwin said as being the definition of "the survival of the fittest" isn't always clear. Nature has it's own way of expressing itself (that's in the most non-anthropomorphic way I can describe.)
I'm going to go talk to the wall now...

mca47 · June 2006

Hinny wrote:

I'd really like to know what tests have been conducted, and by what bodies, and what kinds of critiques have been made of the tests. Do you have any links to any journal articles or websites with this information?

Credentials and proof aren't his strong point.

rightondude · June 2006

mca47 wrote:

I see you didn't answer my question.
Annnnyways :rolleyes:
The problem is that human evolution is difficult to understand unless you look at the genetic aspect of it. Many different forms of taxonomy can be put forth based on genetic mapping. Whoa!
Despite the google search of a fellow jammer earlier, there still hasn't been any significant...and I repeat, SIGNIFICANT data to support any claim that there is a "gay gene." :eek: If I could get my old genetics professor on here I would, but I don't think that's reasonable.
Yes, "mutation" is misleading. Based on what I just said, a mutation is an abnormality based on the expression/or lack thereof of a specific gene.
"The normal course of evolution"? What is normal? Over time, what seems like would be the natural occurance of an event always seems to take a deviation in some aspect from what one would expect. Look back...in many cases what Darwin said as being the definition of "the survival of the fittest" isn't always clear. Nature has it's own way of expressing itself (that's in the most non-anthropomorphic way I can describe.)
I'm going to go talk to the wall now...

First off don't be condescending towards me it makes you look like a dickhead. Let's get that straight right now be adults about ok? I don't waste my time on child mentality...those users fill up my kill file rather quickly. I don't need to thump my chest re: my credentials. Besides I could lie like hell what's the point?

Have you read any of my earlier posts? An entirely gay society would lead to extinction of the species. Would you consider this a desirable trait? Survival of the fittest? how does that apply to no survival at all? Homosexuality exists because emotional loopholes, and bending the rules, have allowed it to. Perhaps you are confusing homosexuality with Bisexuality?

I found this article somewhat interesting...

"However, the new studies boost the hypothesis that homosexuality has a genetic basis and is not simply the result of learned behavior."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

IndianSummer · June 2006

i am disapponted at how the thread developed.

i had not asked if its normal to be gay, if gays should marry, or if homosexuality is a dead end or not. i wont accept the blame for any illinformed or anti-homo statements anyone made here.

MY ONLY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THEM RAISING KIDS.
ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT IT FROM THE KIDS POINT OF VIEW.

to all the people who have given to the point answers, thank you.

their answers basically fall in 2 categories -

one believe it would be too hard on the child to have daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy instead of dam and mom.

another set believe that it wont be a problem at all, and often drive home their point by giving examples of kids with single parents, kids with drug addict parents and how these situations are not better than having gay parents.

to them i ask - put yourself in their shoes.

who amongst us can even contemplate what it would have been like to grow up knowing that we have 2 dads or 2 moms??

my answer to the question i asked - should gays raise kids ?? NO

since thats very selfish of them. they just want to get all the pleasures of life. which is perfectly ok for everyone, as long as its not at the expense of another person. i cant rape someone cos raping gives ME pleasure (at the victim's expense). in this case the 2 dads or the 2 moms will have all the joys of parenthood at the expense of leaving their child (who for no fault of his or hers will not have a normal set of parents) very disturbed and confused from a very young age. like Harmless_little said, ""Children aren't a right, they are a blessing."".

rightondude · June 2006

mca47 wrote:

Credentials and proof aren't his strong point.

wow you got anything to add except mouth? I'm great at insults too but I don't fling em...

mca47 · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

wow you got anything to add except mouth? I'm great at insults too but I don't fling em...

"Science would call you a fool then. Your emotions would seem to cloud your vision of reality and the laws of nature for that matter.

Why so many clueless people have such strong opinions when they pose uninformed, factless, conjectured arguments again and again...I'll never know.... anyhow I'll state my beliefs again."

DOH!

...Still waitin on your expertise...

"Hey Pot",
"What's that kettle?"
.
.
.

"You're black!!!"

Hinny · June 2006

IndianSummer wrote:

their answers basically fall in 2 categories -

one believe it would be too hard on the child to have daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy instead of dam and mom.

another set believe that it wont be a problem at all, and often drive home their point by giving examples of kids with single parents, kids with drug addict parents and how these situations are not better than having gay parents.

to them i ask - put yourself in their shoes.

who amongst us can even contemplate what it would have been like to grow up knowing that we have 2 dads or 2 moms??

I don't support either view. What I'm saying is that it doesn't automatically produce a certain set of problems, or that there will be no problems whatsoever.

I'm not going to generalise this entire cohort of children. I was on this tv panel discussion of this issue, which involved children from such families. They did not have any problems that they perceived was derived from their parents being homosexual. As far as they were concerned, they were just parents, plain and simple.

I'm not suggesting that this is the case for all such children. I'm a social worker by profession, one which is all about putting myself in my clients shoes. To make such a valued judgement on what is surely a large number of children with differing life experiences isn't empathy. It's proselytisation, in disregard for the individual differences from person to person.

rightondude · June 2006

IndianSummer wrote:

who amongst us can even contemplate what it would have been like to grow up knowing that we have 2 dads or 2 moms??

Honestly I don't think it would matter all that much to the child. They would have to adopt at a very young age i.e. 3yrs or younger though to reduce the impact. The child would love both parents equally imo. Later it could lead to problems, but probably less severe than those of not being loved and cared for at all.

I would trade 2 (or one) loving parents for no loving parents, or for two hateful psycho hetero parents. A happy home is a happy home. Love as an emotion has no sexual orientation...best case scenario is to be like the "status quo". We all know how being labelled as different messes up a kid's self confidence growing up...anyhow that's just my opinion.

rightondude · June 2006

mca47 wrote:

"Science would call you a fool then. Your emotions would seem to cloud your vision of reality and the laws of nature for that matter.

Why so many clueless people have such strong opinions when they pose uninformed, factless, conjectured arguments again and again...I'll never know.... anyhow I'll state my beliefs again."

DOH!

...Still waitin on your expertise...

"Hey Pot",
"What's that kettle?"
.
.
.

"You're black!!!"

nicely taken out of context to suit your immature ego... you missed some ...but what the hell is your point other than to be troublesome here?

again do you have anything positive to contribute?....no one likes a smart ass...see there's another one I just made...wow...

Scarletstarlet · June 2006

A divorced couple can grow up a child.
A single woman/man can too.
A widower can grow up a child.
But a gay can not.
Why not?

mca47 · June 2006

IndianSummer wrote:

MY ONLY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THEM RAISING KIDS.
ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT IT FROM THE KIDS POINT OF VIEW.
to all the people who have given to the point answers, thank you.
their answers basically fall in 2 categories -
one believe it would be too hard on the child to have daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy instead of dam and mom.
another set believe that it wont be a problem at all, and often drive home their point by giving examples of kids with single parents, kids with drug addict parents and how these situations are not better than having gay parents.
to them i ask - put yourself in their shoes.
who amongst us can even contemplate what it would have been like to grow up knowing that we have 2 dads or 2 moms??
my answer to the question i asked - should gays raise kids ?? NO
since thats very selfish of them. they just want to get all the pleasures of life. which is perfectly ok for everyone, as long as its not at the expense of another person. i cant rape someone cos raping gives ME pleasure (at the victim's expense). in this case the 2 dads or the 2 moms will have all the joys of parenthood at the expense of leaving their child (who for no fault of his or hers will not have a normal set of parents) very disturbed and confused from a very young age. like Harmless_little said, ""Children aren't a right, they are a blessing."".

You should take a look at what social pyscologists say about this.
DOH...again!

Consider, and I'm far from being a social psycologist (despite what I have read from them...).

I generalize, but we all grew up in an age where homosexuality was "taboo" to a point but not as much as it was 20 yrs. prior. At that time "homos" were freaks who had no respect in society. Consider the steps taken over the years and to think that those "mutants" can raise a child is fucking insane. :rolleyes: It has never been prooved that a child raised under gay parents has been proove to be more gay than any other...in fact a recent report prooves this not to be true.

harmless_little_f*** · June 2006

IndianSummer wrote:

i am disapponted at how the thread developed.

i had not asked if its normal to be gay, if gays should marry, or if homosexuality is a dead end or not. i wont accept the blame for any illinformed or anti-homo statements anyone made here.

MY ONLY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THEM RAISING KIDS.
ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT IT FROM THE KIDS POINT OF VIEW.

to all the people who have given to the point answers, thank you.

their answers basically fall in 2 categories -

one believe it would be too hard on the child to have daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy instead of dam and mom.

another set believe that it wont be a problem at all, and often drive home their point by giving examples of kids with single parents, kids with drug addict parents and how these situations are not better than having gay parents.

to them i ask - put yourself in their shoes.

who amongst us can even contemplate what it would have been like to grow up knowing that we have 2 dads or 2 moms??

my answer to the question i asked - should gays raise kids ?? NO

since thats very selfish of them. they just want to get all the pleasures of life. which is perfectly ok for everyone, as long as its not at the expense of another person. i cant rape someone cos raping gives ME pleasure (at the victim's expense). in this case the 2 dads or the 2 moms will have all the joys of parenthood at the expense of leaving their child (who for no fault of his or hers will not have a normal set of parents) very disturbed and confused from a very young age. like Harmless_little said, ""Children aren't a right, they are a blessing."".

Those who answer 'Yes!' to your question (the first post) will state that this thought is just too simple. To suggest that gay parents cannot parent a child simply because it may result in bullying/discrimination or some such because of the way society views these children just isn't enough. You cannot make an argument based on the way society's discriminations are presently.

If you did, then surely you could say that mentally or physically disabled parents cannot parent a child because of the way society views them/their children as well. The fact that the child may see some bullying because of his/her parents having these problems doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been concieved by them. Their problem is caused by society not accepting them, it's not the fault of their own. Same for gay people.

I do not believe that gay couples should have the right to medical birth intervention. I'm not sure if I believe gay people shouldn't parent children, but even if I did, it wouldn't be for the reasons you state.

gay people raising children

Comments

Categories