gay people raising children

Ahnimus · June 2006

merlin401 wrote:

completely different... thats their body malfunctioning. Its not choosing a lifestyle that will never naturally produce a child. Why can't I, as a single man, adopt a girl to raise? Same thing... its not going to happen, nor should it, no matter how much I wish for it to happen.

I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.

Collin · June 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.

Don't mention that on the adoption form.

decides2dream · June 2006

merlin401 wrote:

completely different... thats their body malfunctioning. Its not choosing a lifestyle that will never naturally produce a child. Why can't I, as a single man, adopt a girl to raise? Same thing... its not going to happen, nor should it, no matter how much I wish for it to happen.

is it really necessary to differentiate it? who cares honestly? and who's 'right' is it to make this distinction/choice for someone else? if two people meet all the criteria for assisted reproduction or adoption, sexual orientation alone should NOT be a reason...why gets to make these calls and why? if our society deems it 'ok' for one couple, i just cannot fathom why it's ok to deny another simply based on orientation and nothing else. if someone wants to have a child and wants assistance, a practice completely approved by our culture...or if they want to adopt one of the many unwanted children out there...i just fail to see why one's sexuality makes one bit of difference. many a child grows up in a non-traditional family unit. if one can provide a loving and supportive home environment...that really should be it.

btw - so would you be ok with it if a lesbian or a gay male decided to go and have 'natural' sex with someone willing to do so...just so they may have a child? i mean, there ARE plenty of unwed mothers out there already...no rules telling a woman who is unmarried that she can't go and get herself pregnant...so if a homosexual were willing to engage in heterosexual sex once, or how many times it would take them, simply to have a child...is it ok then? b/c if all you are taking issue with is the method of HOW they become parents - which i still don't get in any case since i'ts ok for infertile hetero couples - but here they'd be doing so 'naturally'? then ok? hmmmmm...food for thought...and not outrageous either. also there ARE homosexuals who fathered/mothered children...then 'came out' with their homosexual lifestyle and raise(d) their 'natural' children....so......

Evacuation Rules · June 2006

It's Only Right And Natural

rightondude · June 2006

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahnimus
I am going to adopt a child. As an experiment I am going to send the child on long journey's alone to see how he developes. I won't influence his opinions of the world or soceity. By the age of 5 I will send him out into the world to discover himself. Hopefully by the time he is an adult he will have whitnessed the best and the worst of the world.

Reply With Quote

Collin wrote:

Don't mention that on the adoption form.

Oh man....hilarious one liner (ouch my sides are hurting!)

Ahnimus · June 2006

Collin wrote:

Don't mention that on the adoption form.

Why not? It's like an experiment!

I think he will grow up to be really smart and knowledgable. He'll learn more walking the street, than you'rs will in school.

angelica · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Oh man....hilarious one liner (ouch my sides are hurting!)

I agree completely!

rightondude · June 2006

Hey wait!...did this thread just evolve into *how* we should bring up children now?...uhoh!!

harmless_little_f*** · June 2006

decides2dream wrote:

is it really necessary to differentiate it? who cares honestly? and who's 'right' is it to make this distinction/choice for someone else? if two people meet all the criteria for assisted reproduction or adoption, sexual orientation alone should NOT be a reason...why gets to make these calls and why? if our society deems it 'ok' for one couple, i just cannot fathom why it's ok to deny another simply based on orientation and nothing else. if someone wants to have a child and wants assistance, a practice completely approved by our culture...or if they want to adopt one of the many unwanted children out there...i just fail to see why one's sexuality makes one bit of difference. many a child grows up in a non-traditional family unit. if one can provide a loving and supportive home environment...that really should be it.

btw - so would you be ok with it if a lesbian or a gay male decided to go and have 'natural' sex with someone willing to do so...just so they may have a child? i mean, there ARE plenty of unwed mothers out there already...no rules telling a woman who is unmarried that she can't go and get herself pregnant...so if a homosexual were willing to engage in heterosexual sex once, or how many times it would take them, simply to have a child...is it ok then? b/c if all you are taking issue with is the method of HOW they become parents - which i still don't get in any case since i'ts ok for infertile hetero couples - but here they'd be doing so 'naturally'? then ok? hmmmmm...food for thought...and not outrageous either. also there ARE homosexuals who fathered/mothered children...then 'came out' with their homosexual lifestyle and raise(d) their 'natural' children....so......

Of course homosexual couples should be differentiated from infertile couples. If only because one has been dealt a bad deal from nature; one admits to being 'disabled', and the other is (rightfully) offended by the suggestion. And this differentiates them straight off the bat. This is nothing, I repeat, nothing - nothing nothing nothing - to do with sexual orientation. People can have sex with whoever they want as far as I'm concerned. It's to do with the health service's money being spent where it should be spent. The medical profession exists for those who need it. Intervention exists to correct the problems of abnormalities in nature's design.

If homosexuals want to argue that their orientation is NOT an abnormality in nature's correct design, fine. But let them adopt a child. Otherwise they are being hypocritical. Seeking medical intervention 'because they can' is wrong. I can get a face which looks like David Duchovny if I want these days; but I won't, because I don't need reconstructive surgery. I am not a burn victim, and - if I may say so myself - I am bloody good looking.

I just really think that homosexual couples gaining access to medical intervention which was designed for infertile couples - those who recognise that something has gone wrong with their biology, that they are 'disabled' in some way - is akin to a rich person deciding he/she's hungry, and so walking into a homeless people's soup kitchen and helping himself.

decides2dream · June 2006

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Of course homosexual couples should be differentiated from infertile couples. If only because one has been dealt a bad deal from nature; one is 'disabled', and that differentiates them straight off the bat. The medical profession exists for them. Intervention exists to correct the problems of abnormalities in nature's design.

If homosexuals want to argue that their orientation is NOT an abnormality in nature, fine. But let them adopt a child.

I just really think that homosexual couples gaining access to medical intervention which was designed for infertile couples - those who recognise that something has gone wrong with their biology, that they are 'disabled' in some way - is akin to a rich person deciding he/she's hungry, and so walking into a homeless people's soup kitchen and helping himself.

obviously, i see it in an entirely different light...and personally, i do NOT see your analogy at all - to me that just is to signify 'greediness'?..and if that's the case, i still fail to see the greediness in a homosexual couple wanting for a biological child to be any more greedy than a heterosexual one desiring the same. if the means exists for assisted reproduction, and it has been deemed acceptable by our culture..i think homosexuals have every right to utilize it as any other couple. b/c personally, who's to say that infertile couples 'deserve' to be 'fixed' then? obviously, nature has already decided they shouldn't have children, so why shouldn't they also have to adopt? hmmmm...perhaps b/c science has developed the means to assist those who need assistance - and we as a culture have encouraged this, and to me, that includes homosexuals. you can reword it however you like...and i will always disagree. you say it's not based on their homosexuality...and yet the only thing that differentiates them is their homosexuality...and i do not think it is yours, or anyone else's 'right' to tell ANY couple, hetero or homo, what they can or can not do for a family. 'let' them adopt? how kind. i say, let all couples choose from the viable alternatives out there.

and...you never even addressed the end of my post. would that be ok? engage in hetero sex to produce a child, then continue on with their homosexual lifestyler? b/c it seesm many take issue with 'how' the homosexual couple has a child..why, i do not know. no matter hoow you say it...sexual orientation should not interfere with assisted reproduction or adoption...and both choices should be available for any couple qualified.

btw - where $ should be spent? almost ALL costs for such are out of pocket..or if not, covered buy insurance paid for by one's employer and the employee...so where is funding not going where deserved? i don't think most infertile couiples consider themselves 'dsabled'...some may be, but i don't know many who think they are. and i also don't think all infertile heterosexuals feel and think as you do...it's kinda like people saying a one who is a parent probably isn't for abortion. it doesn't jive. one may actually be infertile AND agree that homosexuals are just as deserving of such services...just like one may have an abortion and/or support the rights of choice...and still go on and have a family. it's not all either/or...not for everyone anyway.

harmless_little_f*** · June 2006

decides2dream wrote:

obviously, i see it in an entirely different light...and personally, i do NOT see your analogy at all - to me that just is to signify 'greediness'?..and if that's the case, i still fail to see the greediness in a homosexual couple wanting for a biological child to be any more greedy than a heterosexual one desiring the same. if the means exists for assisted reproduction, and it has been deemed acceptable by our culture..i think homosexuals have every right to utilize it as any other couple. b/c personally, who's to say that infertile couples 'deserve' to be 'fixed' then? obviously, nature has already decided they shouldn't have children, so why shouldn't they also have to adopt? hmmmm...perhaps b/c science has developed the means to assist those who need assistance - and we as a culture have encouraged this, and to me, that includes homosexuals. you can reword it however you like...and i will always disagree. you say it's not based on their homosexuality...and yet the only thing that differentiates them is their homosexuality...and i do not think it is yours, or anyone else's 'right' to tell ANY couple, hetero or homo, what they can or can not do for a family. 'let' them adopt? how kind. i say, let all couples choose from the viable alternatives out there.

and...you never even addressed the end of my post. would that be ok? engage in hetero sex to produce a child, then continue on with their homosexual lifestyler? b/c it seesm many take issue with 'how' the homosexual couple has a child..why, i do not know. no matter hoow you say it...sexual orientation should not interfere with assisted reproduction or adoption...and both choices should be available for any couple qualified.

You're right; you know exactly what I mean, I know exactly what you mean, and we're still not going to agree.

Incidentally, no, I don't believe in homosexuals having 'natural sex' with a woman just for a baby, no. That would involve infidelity against his/her partner of whatever sex, and monogamy is a cool thing. Homosexual or heterosexual, monogamy all the way.

decides2dream · June 2006

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

You're right; you know exactly what I mean, I know exactly what you mean, and we're still not going to agree.

Incidentally, no, I don't believe in homosexuals having 'natural sex' with a woman just for a baby, no. That would involve infidelity against his/her partner of whatever sex, and monogamy is a cool thing. Homosexual or heterosexual, monogamy all the way.

yes, indeed. we will not agree on the issue.

as to the scenario...obviously it would be agreed upon infidelity, an extreme choice if one so desperately wants to at least have the chance for a biological child, and all the world is conspiring agains them to limit their rights to choices afforded others.

so yes, i politely agree to disagree with you..as i had earlier and had not further addressed any of your posts, only that of others.

no matter what, best of luck to you and your wife.

harmless_little_f*** · June 2006

decides2dream wrote:

yes, indeed. we will not agree on the issue.

as to the scenario...obviously it would be agreed upon infidelity, an extreme choice if one so desperately wants to at least have the chance for a biological child, and all the world is conspiring agains them to limit their rights to choices afforded others.

so yes, i politely agree to disagree with you..as i had earlier and had not further addressed any of your posts, only that of others.

no matter what, best of luck to you and your wife.

Thankyou very much

And yes, let's not let this difference of opinion affect anything beyond this thread. We still both like Pearl Jam, right? And incidentally, I bet Eddie Vedder's beliefs would be closer to yours than mine. So you've got that.

decides2dream · June 2006

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Thankyou very much And yes, let's not let this difference of opinion affect anything beyond this thread. We still both like Pearl Jam, right? And incidentally, I bet Eddie Vedder's beliefs would be closer to yours than mine. So you've got that.

i never take a difference of opinion personally, especially when someone is polite.

honestly, i couldn't care less what e'ds beliefs are, they have no bearing on my life whatsoever. it's just very clear that neither one of us will sway the other's thoughts on the topic...and oh well.

personally, i would just like to see whomever would truly like to have a family, biological or adoptive...have their wish come true, b/c no matter what...wanting to give a loving/supportive home to a child, desiring to be a parent, is a good thing.

angelica · June 2006

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Of course homosexual couples should be differentiated from infertile couples. If only because one has been dealt a bad deal from nature; one admits to being 'disabled', and the other is (rightfully) offended by the suggestion. And this differentiates them straight off the bat. This is nothing, I repeat, nothing - nothing nothing nothing - to do with sexual orientation. People can have sex with whoever they want as far as I'm concerned. It's to do with the health service's money being spent where it should be spent. The medical profession exists for those who need it. Intervention exists to correct the problems of abnormalities in nature's design.

I can see why your interpretation brings you to such a conclusion. I interpret it differently. I see the medical profession as looking to solve problems for people in order to make money. Granted, many times they deeply care about people, or about the science as well. Like a store owner selling a product, if there is service available, they will not turn away people. And if they begin to do so discriminately, well, that's discrimination and it's against the law.

I just really think that homosexual couples gaining access to medical intervention which was designed for infertile couples...

Neither you nor I can look into the mindset of those who came up with options for childbearing that are of interest to homosexuals. And yet it is just as possible that such individuals when foreseeing the potential of the budding technology, imagined the benefits to many types of people including gay people. Again, you have a different interpretation that makes sense coming from your point of view and yet in no way indicates objective truth any more than other possibilities.

soulsinging · June 2006

soulsinging wrote:

you know, you and i ahve asked this one several times to several different people and not one of them has been able to give an answer. theoretically if (as someone claimed) the only natural and normal and not deviant way to have sex is vaginal intercourse, then both oral and anal sex should be considered weird and deviant. id like one of these people to own up and tell whether or not they believe this to actually be the case or if they're just searching for justifications for their illogical and emotional disgust with homos.

well? ahnimus? rightondude? who else was saying gay butt sex turns their stomach becos of how unnatural it is? do you let your gf go down on your or vice versa? is it really about scientific opposition to "unnatural acts" or is it your emotional response to something you perceive as wrong and disgusting?

rightondude · June 2006

Whaa the faa are you goin on about again????

soulsinging · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Whaa the faa are you goin on about again????

who, me?

thankyougrandma · June 2006

If gay couples want to adopt some of the kids that are without any parents as we speak, they should definitly be allowed to do so. Better to have parents than having orphan kids going from families to families if not just ending up in an institution till their majority....

angelica · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Whaa the faa are you goin on about again????

Nice try at a dodge.

gay people raising children

Comments

Categories