Gay parenting

[SirRumpole]

The same can be said for many heterosexual couples, who for one reason or another can not have their own biological children, and therefore turn to adoption and Other options.

also as pointed out, a lesbian having a child without a man is no different to a single woman having a baby, except she probably has more help because she has a partner.

Society does not promote that single motherhood is a good thing for children and we should be "tolerant" and "accepting" of it because it's good for children. It's not and neither is gay parenting, so I don't see why we should promote or be tolerant of that either.

 

[Value Collector]

It's not and neither is gay parenting, so I don't see why we should promote or be tolerant of that either.

That's the sticking point though, you have yet to prove its not good for children, so until it can be shown that gay parenting has meaningful down sides, then you should be atleast tolerant of it.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's the sticking point though, you have yet to prove its not good for children, so until it can be shown that gay parenting has meaningful down sides, then you should be atleast tolerant of it.

If you don't consider being deprived of a biological parent, or having to live in an environment that is not consistent with your natural instincts is not a "meaningful downside" then you have lost all sense of objectivity.

 

[Value Collector]

If you don't consider being deprived of a biological parent, or having to live in an environment that is not consistent with your natural instincts is not a "meaningful downside" then you have lost all sense of objectivity.

In the case of biological parents, it should be treated the same as all other cases where the biological parent isn't present, eg the straight couple that requires a sperm or egg doner.

As far as "natural instincts", I think a straight child will turn out straight regardless, and society is so geared to straight people that they wouldn't have a problem.



------

As discussed a while back, the problem of biological parents is pretty close to being solved, the science of making an embryo from two eggs or two sperm is pretty well advanced. in future years a lesbian couple could have their own biological children, and with the help of a willing female two gay men could father biological children.

 

[SirRumpole]

As far as "natural instincts", I think a straight child will turn out straight regardless, and society is so geared to straight people that they wouldn't have a problem.

That's your opinion, which you don't have a right to impose on others. I think it would result in confusion and gender identity problems which would not be present with heterosexual biological parents.

As discussed a while back, the problem of biological parents is pretty close to being solved, the science of making an embryo from two eggs or two sperm is pretty well advanced. in future years a lesbian couple could have their own biological children, and with the help of a willing female two gay men could father biological children.

Yes and we can graft an ear onto an arm but what good is it ? Frankenstein science to solve a non existent problem, except in the minds of a few.

 

[Value Collector]

That's your opinion, which you don't have a right to impose on others.


.

Aren't you the one trying to impose your opinion / unproven hypothesis onto society?

You have devised this theory in your head, which isn't even a theory its a hypothesis, you have completely skipped the step of proving it, and you want to deny people rights based on it.

I think it would result in confusion and gender identity problems which would not be present with heterosexual biological parents.

Ok, so you "think" that, can you prove that? until you can, we can't take peoples rights away based on a hypothesis.

Yes and we can graft an ear onto an arm but what good is it ? Frankenstein science to solve a non existent problem, except in the minds of a few

It solves the problem of non biological parents, if that's a non existent problem, why did you bring it up as a problem.

You said a major problem with gay parents is that the child would end up not being the biologically related to one of the parents this technology would prevent that #happy days, lol

 

[SirRumpole]

You have devised this theory in your head, which isn't even a theory its a hypothesis, you have completely skipped the step of proving it, and you want to deny people rights based on it.

I'm going on the testimonials of people who have been through the experience.

You ignore that evidence and say "there is no harm" . Can you prove that ? Why should we take your word for it when subjects of the "experiment" disagree ?

If there is any possibility of harm to children, the "experiment" should not continue.

You seem to think that only adults have "rights". I happen to think that children have rights too which is to be raised by their biological parents in an environment that is in accordance with their natural instincts and does not conflict with them.

Rights cannot be conferred on people who are not biologically equipped to carry out those rights.

You said a major problem with gay parents is that the child would end up not being the biologically related to one of the parents this technology would prevent that #happy days, lol

There is no problem that gays cannot have children. Evolution has decided that it's not a good idea for this to happen. It's the luck of the draw, get over it.

 

[luutzu]

Geez, Gays have got propaganda everywhere.

Is anyone else getting ads for "Gay Ski Week" in NZ at the bottom of this thread ?

It's an ad for Natural Gas for me.

 

[luutzu]

I'm going on the testimonials of people who have been through the experience.

You ignore that evidence and say "there is no harm" . Can you prove that ? Why should we take your word for it when subjects of the "experiment" disagree ?

If there is any possibility of harm to children, the "experiment" should not continue.

You seem to think that only adults have "rights". I happen to think that children have rights too which is to be raised by their biological parents in an environment that is in accordance with their natural instincts and does not conflict with them.

Rights cannot be conferred on people who are not biologically equipped to carry out those rights.



There is no problem that gays cannot have children. Evolution has decided that it's not a good idea for this to happen. It's the luck of the draw, get over it.

Anecdotal evidence is fine, but it doesn't prove gay parent is bad for children, does it?

So there's a percentage of children raised in gay marriages/family... and those children weren't happy with the situation etc. Can we conclude that the cause for their unhappiness and ill-treatment etc. were due to "gayness" , gay parenting?

Don't think we can.

We can only if, say, 95% of all kids from gay parents suffer mental and physical harm... at that rate we could possibly conclude that it is highly likely that gay parents is the cause of harm. But to point to a few cases, as bad as any one case is... we can't point to that and conclude that gay parenting is bad and harmful.


If we apply the same rule that's being apply to gay parenting/marriage and children... we'd definitely should ban hetero parenting too... There's a bunch of ill-adjusted, unhappy kids from straight couples as well. If that's going too far, we sure can find other sub-class within straight parents... too rich, too poor, too black, too white.

---

Anyway, as I probably have said before... the best thing about gays having children is they actually want to have children. They've gone the extra few miles to have children... and so the kids they raised are wanted and loved. That's a better start to life than most other instances.

The kids might grow up and hate that their parents are "different", that they're not like everybody else at school etc.... but that's life, ya ungrateful lil...

 

[SirRumpole]

Anyway, as I probably have said before... the best thing about gays having children is they actually want to have children. They've gone the extra few miles to have children... and so the kids they raised are wanted and loved. That's a better start to life than most other instances.

I don't think you can automatically conclude that the only reason gays have children is because they want them.

There would be a big pressure on them to try and reduce their own perception that they are socially isolated by attempting to imitate the heterosexual community by having children and thereby attempting to prove that they are "the same" as everyone else. Also they try and manipulate the kids as a vanguard for their own lifestyle, by getting them to appear on TV or in doco's saying how great their life is. This is while the kids are still dependent on their parents so how good is that "evidence".

 

[Value Collector]

I'm going on the testimonials of people who have been through the experience.

You ignore that evidence and say "there is no harm" . Can you prove that ? Why should we take your word for it when subjects of the "experiment" disagree ?

If there is any possibility of harm to children, the "experiment" should not continue.

You seem to think that only adults have "rights". I happen to think that children have rights too which is to be raised by their biological parents in an environment that is in accordance with their natural instincts and does not conflict with them.

Rights cannot be conferred on people who are not biologically equipped to carry out those rights.



There is no problem that gays cannot have children. Evolution has decided that it's not a good idea for this to happen. It's the luck of the draw, get over it.

As previously discussed you can't just cherry pick a few negative testimonials say that prove your hypothesis, also as I have said, I don't ignore the negative testimonials you have quoted, I just see them for what they are, 1 data point among many, we would need a broad based study to reveal the truth.

Gay parenting isn't an experiment, it's just a part of life, gays have kids, and will continue to have kids, if you want that banned, then prove its harmful simple as that.

Raised according to their "natural instincts", so if a test at birth could determine sexuality, would you be fine with gay children being removed from straight parents and adopted out to gay parents

 

[SirRumpole]

As previously discussed you can't just cherry pick a few negative testimonials say that prove your hypothesis, also as I have said, I don't ignore the negative testimonials you have quoted, I just see them for what they are, 1 data point among many, we would need a broad based study to reveal the truth.

So you agree that there is no "truth" at the moment and all those purported studies trotted out by the gay lobby are bunkum ?

Gay parenting isn't an experiment, it's just a part of life, gays have kids, and will continue to have kids, if you want that banned, then prove its harmful simple as that.

First do no harm, should be the way to proceed. The burden of proof should be on those saying there is no harm because if there is, they are the ones at fault.

Raised according to their "natural instincts", so if a test at birth could determine sexuality, would you be fine with gay children being removed from straight parents and adopted out to gay parents

I don't believe children should be removed from their natural parents, biological links are better than no links.

 

[luutzu]

I don't think you can automatically conclude that the only reason gays have children is because they want them.

There would be a big pressure on them to try and reduce their own perception that they are socially isolated by attempting to imitate the heterosexual community by having children and thereby attempting to prove that they are "the same" as everyone else. Also they try and manipulate the kids as a vanguard for their own lifestyle, by getting them to appear on TV or in doco's saying how great their life is. This is while the kids are still dependent on their parents so how good is that "evidence".

I don't know... don't think social pressure or wanting to get along and be "normal" would be enough of a motivation to have kids. If a person want kids like they want the latest accessories, well they got a problem to start with and it have nothing to do with them being gay.

If we take an evolutionary, biological instinct to procreate and pass on the gene... that there will be some percent of the population who's genetically gay so they don't breed and help raise others young... or they're gay but still want to pass on their gene like the straights... then you would be in favour of gays being able to marry and gay couple being able to have children of their own too.

Why? It could be argue that homosexuals, due either to societal/religious pressures or due to genetic instincts or both would get married to the opposite sex to start a family - have children... But they're gay... and eventually that will be apparent or they will be "found out" and marriage will end. Results in broken home, broken marriages and the kids will have only one parent as a result.

But if you remove societal pressure and prejudice against gays; if you allow them to start a normal gay marriage/family with children... you would reduce that chance of gay people getting marry and then divorce (small number that it is, but it does add to the positives and save a few kids too); remove stigmas against gay children at school etc.

anyway, social engineering aside... homosexuals are citizens and are human... and as long as they are they ought to be treated as equal before the law.

Since we cannot ensure that straight parents or straight parenting turn out perfectly happy children, why must that golden standard apply to homosexual parents? If they sexually or physically abuse their children, sure... but to suggest that their lifestyle might be a bad influence on the kids, or their frequent partying or whatever mean the kids can't study properly... we don't apply that same standard to other parents so why apply that to gays?

 

[Tisme]

Only 1% of any given population is going to be gay,

Not true. In Africa the percentages are much different. Whereas AIDS in the West is 90% in homosexual men, druggies and blood recipients, in Africa the split is 50/50 males females. The Africans never had the plagues that Europe and Asia did, so they are very prone to AIDS.

Of the homosexual community in the west, black are twice as likely to be so than whites, followed by Asians, then Latino.

In South Africa 7% practice homosexual behaviour. Elsewhere it's well documented by Darkest Africa Portuguese priests, Dutch attaches, French, etc that Africans were well into the practice for various reasons: in between wifery, lucky charm wealth creation through penile intercourse, staying chaste before marriage, boy hood tradition before becoming men,

 

[Value Collector]

Not true. In Africa the percentages are much different. Whereas AIDS in the West is 90% in homosexual men, druggies and blood recipients, in Africa the split is 50/50 males females. The Africans never had the plagues that Europe and Asia did, so they are very prone to AIDS.

Of the homosexual community in the west, black are twice as likely to be so than whites, followed by Asians, then Latino.

In South Africa 7% practice homosexual behaviour. Elsewhere it's well documented by Darkest Africa Portuguese priests, Dutch attaches, French, etc that Africans were well into the practice for various reasons: in between wifery, lucky charm wealth creation through penile intercourse, staying chaste before marriage, boy hood tradition before becoming men,

Your numbers still don't add up, even if say Africans are 5 times more likely to be gay (unlikely, but I will humour you) and 100% have HIV (unlikely but let the humouring continue) and 100% of them have wives (again unlikely) and 100% of them pass HIV wives then you would only be looking at 10% of the population.

The fact is HIV/AIDS is being spread by the hetero sexuals to a larger extent simply because there is far more hetero sexuals involved in risky behaviour, eg unprotected prostitution,

When I was in the army, I served in an area with Kenyan soldiers, we were specifically warned that the local hookers have a high HIV rate due to the Kenyan army being posted there, and the Kenyan army had a high rate of HIV due to their habits to indulge in the hookers.

 

[Value Collector]

So you agree that there is no "truth" at the moment and all those purported studies trotted out by the gay lobby are bunkum ?





First do no harm, should be the way to proceed. The burden of proof should be on those saying there is no harm because if there is, they are the ones at fault.




I don't believe children should be removed from their natural parents, biological links are better than no links.

I am not aware of any studies that have been done on a broad enough base with scientific based principles, but I would treat the positive testimonials as data points.

No first you just let people that want to care for children to have children, that's what humans do, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming there is harm.

So if the children are biological children of gays you are fine with gay parenting?

 

[SirRumpole]

No first you just let people that want to care for children to have children, that's what humans do, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming there is harm.

We'll have to disagree on that.

If I'm wrong there is no damage done, if you are wrong and there is harm done you had better be prepared to take some responsibility.

So if the children are biological children of gays you are fine with gay parenting?

No, children need male and female role models because they will be living in a heterosexual world not a homosexual one, and one of the roles of parenting is to prepare the kids for the lives they will be leading, not that their parents lead.

 

[Value Collector]

We'll have to disagree on that.

If I'm wrong there is no damage done, if you are wrong and there is harm done you had better be prepared to take some responsibility.



.

There is damage done if you are wrong, gay parents who otherwise would have been great parents lose the ability to have that life experiance,

No, children need male and female role models because they will be living in a heterosexual world not a homosexual one, and one of the roles of parenting is to prepare the kids for the lives they will be leading, not that their parents lead

This is not a "heterosexual world" it's a world where gender and sexual diversity exist.

But again you would have to demonstrate that on average children of single sex parentage (either gay or straight) suffer in some way, we can't just take your hypothesis as fact.

 

[Tisme]

Your numbers still don't add up, even if say Africans are 5 times more likely to be gay (unlikely, but I will humour you) and 100% have HIV (unlikely but let the humouring continue) and 100% of them have wives (again unlikely) and 100% of them pass HIV wives then you would only be looking at 10% of the population.

The fact is HIV/AIDS is being spread by the hetero sexuals to a larger extent simply because there is far more hetero sexuals involved in risky behaviour, eg unprotected prostitution,

When I was in the army, I served in an area with Kenyan soldiers, we were specifically warned that the local hookers have a high HIV rate due to the Kenyan army being posted there, and the Kenyan army had a high rate of HIV due to their habits to indulge in the hookers.

Check you numbers then come back and argue the toss. You have your blinkers on.

 

[SirRumpole]

This is not a "heterosexual world" it's a world where gender and sexual diversity exist.

99% of the population will be heterosexual. That's not sufficient gender diversity to believe that heterosexuals would benefit by being raised by 1% of the population.

But again you would have to demonstrate that on average children of single sex parentage (either gay or straight) suffer in some way, we can't just take your hypothesis as fact.

I've said before, you will be doing damage to children if you are wrong, so you prove your case first that there is no harm before you inflict your PC theories on others.,