Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gay parenting

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
No-one mentioned "superiority", it's a fact that 98% of the population is non aboriginal, as is the white child. He has not been raised with the skills needed to get on in the real world that he is most likely to be living in.
Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping a gay couple raising a child with all the skills they need to get on in the real world, what is an example of a skill you are worried they will miss out on?

If the aboriginal family spoke English, lived in the suburbs, had a middle class life style etc, would you still be worried about them raising children?

Are you still saying that a "white mans" family would be better?
 
Value Collector said:
There is nothing stopping a gay couple raising a child with all the skills they need to get on in the real world, what is an example of a skill you are worried they will miss out on?
Click to expand...

There are things a father gives to a child and things a mother gives to a child, and you said yourself that these are not without value. It's pretty obvious that with gay parents a child will miss out on one or the other. Therefore a gay parent household is sub optimal compared to an equivalent heterosexual household.

If the aboriginal family spoke English, lived in the suburbs, had a middle class life style etc, would you still be worried about them raising children?
Click to expand...

Their own children ? Obviously not.

Are you still saying that a "white mans" family would be better?
Click to expand...

Yes, in terms of the "real world" where education, language and work skills are important.
 
SirRumpole said:
It's not a matter of what is TRUE for gay parenting, it's what is FALSE. No father or mother role model, a home environment that will be different to what they will experience when they grow up.

Another example. A white child falls of the back of a ute in the outback, is found and bought up by aboriginals who only speak their own language and don't teach the child anything about the white mans world. How prepared is that child to live with the 98% of the population who are not aboriginal ?
Click to expand...

Are you saying you copied 100% the way your parents raised you when raising your own children? I'm assuming the home environment you have is different to the one you grew up with.

So you believe that children brought up by same sex parents will not have any exposure to the heterosexual world?

Unless you're claiming that same sex couples will only allow their children to meet other same sex parents, will somehow have schools staffed with gay teachers, live in gay towns your Aboriginal raising a white child analogy is not really appropriate.
 
sydboy007 said:
Unless you're claiming that same sex couples will only allow their children to meet other same sex parents, will somehow have schools staffed with gay teachers, live in gay towns your Aboriginal raising a white child analogy is not really appropriate.
Click to expand...

So some kids have to make do with substitute role models, ie teachers etc ?

Would they love the kids as much as parents do ?
 
SirRumpole said:
So some kids have to make do with substitute role models, ie teachers etc ?

Would they love the kids as much as parents do ?
Click to expand...

Children have role models from all parts of their lives.

They might have a role model from Church, or a sporting hero, or neighbour, extended family member.
 
Tisme said:
Estrogen + Testosterone
Click to expand...

Mummy + Daddy

whatdoyoucallit ... it is a vagina or a penis :eek:

oestrogen
ˈiːstrədʒ(ə)n,ˈɛstrə-
noun: estrogen
any of a group of steroid hormones which promote the development and maintenance of female characteristics of the body.

testosterone
tɛˈstɒstərəʊn
noun
a steroid hormone that stimulates development of male secondary sexual characteristics, produced mainly in the testes, but also in the ovaries and adrenal cortex.

Celebrate the difference !
 
It seems they haven't learnt a thing from history, Rumpole.

All that talk about 'a mother having a strong bond with her children etc' that Julia Gillard gave about the sorry speech, was all just words.

Many people like to believe the gay rights mantra that children “don’t need both a mum and a dad” so they can feel better about themselves or their associates who have neglected children.

Syd, I don't agree, but then as I have said, I am standing up for traditional Marriage and family.

Homosexuals still can't adopt in all states, from what I know.

It seems you haven't helped people find their natural parents, and what they go through.
 
Tink said:
It seems they haven't learnt a thing from history, Rumpole.

All that talk about 'a mother having a strong bond with her children etc' that Julia Gillard gave about the sorry speech, was all just words.

Many people like to believe the gay rights mantra that children “don’t need both a mum and a dad” so they can feel better about themselves or their associates who have neglected children.

Syd, I don't agree, but then as I have said, I am standing up for traditional Marriage and family.

Homosexuals still can't adopt in all states, from what I know.

It seems you haven't helped people find their natural parents, and what they go through.
Click to expand...

Tink, your version of traditional marriage is actually a very recent phenomenon.

Marriage has changed over the millennia, and will likely change over the coming millennia if we don't wipe ourselves out.

You ignore the FACT that some of the earliest recorded marriages were for same sex couples. Only the intolerance of religion has caused this issue to have any controversy.

I see my friends in same sex partnerships with their children that seem happy and well adjusted. I'd bet you'd not be able to pick the kids out at school. They're loved and well cared for, certainly having a better life than some of the children of parents around me that get shouted at with abuse that scares me.

Why do same sex parents have to be perfect, but any heterosexual can have any many children as they want? Over 50000 confirmed reports of child abuse in Australian in 2013, but you seem to be more worried about same sex marriage than this sad fact.
 
Thousands of years, throughout the Western World, is not a recent phenomenon, Syd.

So you keep saying, about this same sex marriage that was happening at that time, how about you enlighten us what else was happening around that time in history.
You blame religion, but it was the Christian influence, that has made where we live, how it is.

If you are talking about step parents and all the others that I have pointed out, where parents should be caring for their own children, rather than leaving it to state care/govt to raise and protect them.
You say homosexuals have been raising children also, so you could put them in the same category with abuse since it all seems to run on the same stats.

As Katy Faust pointed out, that you didn't think much of, if children are in need of repair, by all means, anything would help these children.

As I have said, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals here in Australia.
There is no need to change marriage.
 
Tink said:
Thousands of years, throughout the Western World, is not a recent phenomenon, Syd.

.
Click to expand...

Tink, I think the argument is that marriage were supposedly a strategic alliance in past millenia (increasing tribal glue, military, labour, political, economic, keeping the kiddy factory chased while fighting enemies, etc), whereas "love and marriage" is a new concept (five or six generations old in the west).

I don't know how true that is, but given Juliet topped herself way before a few generations back it is quite plausible and therefore homosexuals can't use the argument that love is the historical glue of marriages.

Certainly the old testament yarns are at least older than Christ and it's fairly clear what civilised society considered acceptable back then: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". there's always the other chestnut : "A son is a son till he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter the rest of her life"........ It could be argued that the Greek toga parties that the homosexuals like parade as historically rooting marriage as their invention (no genetic linkage mind you) didn't survive society for a very good reason.

My argument is that the govt shouldn't give a toss about sexual attraction (and I consider sex can only be via baby making plugs and sockets) and base the union on:

keeping track of incest;
keeping track of family wealth and equitable distribution at death;
keeping track of whereabouts;
creating a family environment that promotes welfare of children, without biased kinship;
health and welfare of the community;
making man and woman responsible to each other and their children;
establishing a monogamous expectation;
stewardship by state in providing a sense of belonging and wantedness for offspring and documented geneological line of descent.

Of course there are those who subscribe to the Blue Mink "Melting Pot" mantra ... I wonder how that idea worked out.....::rolleyes: I'd hate to be the bugger that got the works from a gay man in that great big "lovin machine" :D
 
Tisme said:
Tink, I think the argument is that marriage were supposedly a strategic alliance in past millenia (increasing tribal glue, military, labour, political, economic, keeping the kiddy factory chased while fighting enemies, etc), whereas "love and marriage" is a new concept (five or six generations old in the west).

I don't know how true that is, but given Juliet topped herself way before a few generations back it is quite plausible and therefore homosexuals can't use the argument that love is the historical glue of marriages.

Certainly the old testament yarns are at least older than Christ and it's fairly clear what civilised society considered acceptable back then: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". there's always the other chestnut : "A son is a son till he takes a wife, a daughter's a daughter the rest of her life"........ It could be argued that the Greek toga parties that the homosexuals like parade as historically rooting marriage as their invention (no genetic linkage mind you) didn't survive society for a very good reason.

My argument is that the govt shouldn't give a toss about sexual attraction (and I consider sex can only be via baby making plugs and sockets) and base the union on:

keeping track of incest;
keeping track of family wealth and equitable distribution at death;
keeping track of whereabouts;
creating a family environment that promotes welfare of children, without biased kinship;
health and welfare of the community;
making man and woman responsible to each other and their children;
establishing a monogamous expectation;
stewardship by state in providing a sense of belonging and wantedness for offspring and documented geneological line of descent.

Of course there are those who subscribe to the Blue Mink "Melting Pot" mantra ... I wonder how that idea worked out.....::rolleyes: I'd hate to be the bugger that got the works from a gay man in that great big "lovin machine" :D
Click to expand...

And the bible was happy with kings having multiple wives and hundreds of concubines, which was just a nice way to say sex slaves. Maybe the mormons are right and polygamy is the will of god? Even in the days of Jesus polygamy was acceptable.

So the idea of the one man one woman loving marriage is relatively recent since you want to brig biblical times into the discussion.

Marriage is a human concept. It's not a natural phenomenon. There were probably other terms used in the past to describe a close physical sexual emotional relationship between 2 or more people.

Stand aside from the religious intolerance, let go of the ick factor, and explain what is unique about same sex parenting.
 
SirRumpole said:
Oh really ?

Please explain.
Click to expand...

I am done with discussing this with you, I have realised that your opinions are based on deep seated perhaps even subconscious stereotyping and you are happy to discriminate based on opinion rather than fact.

Tink said:
.

As Katy Faust pointed out.
Click to expand...

If Katy Faust was pro gay marriage, and an advocate for same sex families, would you still be quoting her?

would hearing her opinion have changed your mind?

All you are doing is cherry picking one persons opinion that happens to agree with your pre existing ideas.

You make no attempt to actually seek out the truth, you seek out opinions that go along with yours, and each time you find one, you delude yourself into thinking it is confirmation that you are right, but you fail to take any information that goes against your position as evidence you may be wrong.

Confirmation Bias at its best ladies and gentlemen.
 
Value Collector said:
I am done with discussing this with you, I have realised that your opinions are based on deep seated perhaps even subconscious stereotyping and you are happy to discriminate based on opinion rather than fact.
.
Click to expand...

Biggest copout ever.

Make veiled suggestions or accusations and then run away.

Gutless wonder.
 
SirRumpole said:
Biggest copout ever.

Make veiled suggestions or accusations and then run away.

Gutless wonder.
Click to expand...

It's not a cop out, over the past few days I have realised that your staunch anti gay views, are not related so much to the actual factors you say you are against, but an underlying discrimination, this leads you to seek shelter in confirmation bias and leads me to lose interest in further discussion.

At first I thought you were capable of working through the facts rationally in a dispassionate way, but I have since realised that you are not, so there is no real point discussing it.

I will give it to you that you are not as bad as Tink and Tisme, there case is outright bigotry.
 
Value Collector said:
It's not a cop out, over the past few days I have realised that your staunch anti gay views, are not related so much to the actual factors you say you are against, but an underlying discrimination, this leads you to seek shelter in confirmation bias and leads me to lose interest in further discussion.

At first I thought you were capable of working through the facts rationally in a dispassionate way, but I have since realised that you are not, so there is no real point discussing it.

I will give it to you that you are not as bad as Tink and Tisme, there case is outright bigotry.
Click to expand...

Well, all I can do is present facts as I see them.

If you believe you have psychiatric abilities at a distance, that is your delusion.

And if you think you can make comments like "underlying discrimination" without presenting evidence of that, and retaining any credibility in this discussion, then that is another delusion you have.

So yes, it's pointless discussing something with a person who is prepared to make accusations without substantiation and runs away when challenged.

However for the record I don't have "staunch anti gay views".

One of the best posters on this forum is gay and I value his opinions more than most.

I just believe that as parents they provide a sub optimal environment for the raising of children.

Of course there are other sub optimal environments, some worse than gay parents, but I feel no obligation to endorse those situations either.
 
Top