Should Gays Raise Kids?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Probably 90% of the troublemakers I’ve had over the years have been children of single moms. I can’t even begin to imagine the effects of having two ‘dads’ would have on a kid.

My guess is that the 6 year old kid knows how unnatural his situation is (instinctively anyway) and is lashing out at the world that dealt him into that mess.

Every child deserves and should have a mom and a dad who love them — not some crazed gays wanting to make a statement or with some ‘agenda’.[/quote]

Would the kid be better on the street or in “the system”?

We currently have a lot more orphans than we have willing parents, so it seems illogical to prohibit adoption when the only problem with the parents is their sexual preference.

I think being raised in a stable, loving home by two dads or two moms would be a lot more beneficial to the child than being shifted around, essentially living nowhere.

42

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Im curious

yea i bet you are.

are you trying to argue its perfectly normal to be gay? you dont need a PhD in biology to understand that it is living organisms strongest drive to reproduce. [/quote]

Is this fact, or your opinion?

If it is fact, substantiate it. If it isn’t, stop trying to pass it off as such.

I doubt you will be able to substantiate it, though, because it simply isn’t true. Think this through: altruistic behavior does not (by definition) increase the altruistic individual’s reproductive success, but increases the population’s chances for survival. Therefore, there may be a macro-level evolutionary advantage for a species to have certain members not concerned about their own reproductive success. There’s actually quite a developed literature on this topic. You may want to familiarize yourself with it, instead of taking huge logical leaps and passing them off as fact.

[quote]
a gay person can not reproduce, not out of incapability, not out of saying, nah i dont want kids, out of being attracted to the same sex. there is clearly something wrong with homosexuals.[/quote]

Do you mean human homosexuals, or homosexuals of other species as well (since it has been documented in many, many species)? If you mean homosexuals of all species, see above. If you mean humans in particular, why do you care? How does another person’s sexual preference affect you (or society in general)? Are you afraid that if homosexuality is no longer persecuted, that everyone will start having gay sex, and our species will be wiped out? This might come as a surprise to you, but most people don’t need an external motivator to enjoy heterosexual sex.

And you feel that sex with no possibility of reproduction is “wrong”; how about anal sex with a woman? How about oral sex? What about the use of contraceptives? What about “pulling out”, or the rhythm method? All of these are sex with no possibility of procreation. By your argument, anyone that enjoys any of these forms of sex “clearly has something wrong” with them, and should not be allowed to raise children.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Probably 90% of the troublemakers I’ve had over the years have been children of single moms. I can’t even begin to imagine the effects of having two ‘dads’ would have on a kid.

My guess is that the 6 year old kid knows how unnatural his situation is (instinctively anyway) and is lashing out at the world that dealt him into that mess.

Every child deserves and should have a mom and a dad who love them — not some crazed gays wanting to make a statement or with some ‘agenda’.[/quote]

How about, instead of imagining the effect it might have, you look at the peer-reviewed studies assessing it?

How do you think you as a teacher would affect a child’s adjustment with your judgment that there is something wrong and unnatural about his fathers?

44

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Your using Lixy logic, stay focused, when one group does something wrong you can’t use “well so-and-so does it too” as a defense.[/quote]

tgunslinger articulated what i meant to say better.
adoption agencies take children from homes that are like the situations i listed. by denying gay parents the right to adopt, the outcome is an increase in the amount of kids in foster care. less kids get homes, less children get removed from bad situations. therefore, you believe it is a better outcome that children stay in these situations than children having two loving parents.

that is what occurs when gay parents are denied the right to adopt.

45

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Im curious

yea i bet you are.

are you trying to argue its perfectly normal to be gay? you dont need a PhD in biology to understand that it is living organisms strongest drive to reproduce.

Is this fact, or your opinion?

If it is fact, substantiate it. If it isn’t, stop trying to pass it off as such.

I doubt you will be able to substantiate it, though, because it simply isn’t true. Think this through: altruistic behavior does not (by definition) increase the altruistic individual’s reproductive success, but increases the population’s chances for survival. Therefore, there may be a macro-level evolutionary advantage for a species to have certain members not concerned about their own reproductive success. There’s actually quite a developed literature on this topic. You may want to familiarize yourself with it, instead of taking huge logical leaps and passing them off as fact.

a gay person can not reproduce, not out of incapability, not out of saying, nah i dont want kids, out of being attracted to the same sex. there is clearly something wrong with homosexuals.

Do you mean human homosexuals, or homosexuals of other species as well (since it has been documented in many, many species)? If you mean homosexuals of all species, see above. If you mean humans in particular, why do you care? How does another person’s sexual preference affect you (or society in general)? Are you afraid that if homosexuality is no longer persecuted, that everyone will start having gay sex, and our species will be wiped out? This might come as a surprise to you, but most people don’t need an external motivator to enjoy heterosexual sex.

And you feel that sex with no possibility of reproduction is “wrong”; how about anal sex with a woman? How about oral sex? What about the use of contraceptives? What about “pulling out”, or the rhythm method? All of these are sex with no possibility of procreation. By your argument, anyone that enjoys any of these forms of sex “clearly has something wrong” with them, and should not be allowed to raise children.[/quote]

sex for pleasure isnt wrong. sex with your gender is wrong. is it wrong for the sake of intentionally not having a child? no. is it wrong for the fact that a man and another man serve no purpose to be fucking each other because man and man are not sexually compatible and men shouldnt be attracted to other men in the first place? yes.

i suppose by your logic its not only okay to have sex with members of the same sex its also alright to have sex with animals…even of the same sex? cause i mean an assholes just an asshole right? doesnt matter if it belongs to a woman, a man, a goat?

there are certain desires and actions which are not condoned. youre isolating the action itself and negating whatever reason it be for the action. is having sex without intent to procreat wrong? yes on a level that im not willing to defend because i practice it and dont see harm enough in it. is it wrong for a man and a man to have sex? yes.

i dont personally care if they do or not but it should be universally understood that it serves no purpose and could never serve a purpose for two members of the same sex to be together. i dont care if other animals do it, other animals are fucked up too. pigs eat their own shit…wow so i guess that means you can do it too!

46

", a goat? "

What. The. Fuck.

Hunterthompson and Tguns, I see your points and agree that given a choice between foster care and double dads I would rather have the latter.

47

Show of hands. Who would rather live on the streets than be raised by a couple of queers?

48

HAHA, fuck I never thought i would laugh with you instead of at you.

49

When I was a kid two lesbian women, who were unmarried (t’was not legal at the time) one of them indepedently adopted a kid. They both raised her.

Girl was like this kid, ended up killing herself at about 17.

I don’t know what the deal was, she had mental deficiencies too.

I’m not saying this is the only outcome of this union.

But I’ve personally seen it happen.

50

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In the abstract, it may not be the ideal - but there are a lot of worse situations in reality.

Let me post this hypo:

If a 13-year-old were pregnant, and no one wanted to adopt the baby except a middle-class gay couple, what would you want to do?

The obvious choices: 1) abortion; 2) raised by a teen mother in poverty; 3) foster child; or 4) adopted by the gay couple.

51

[quote]Sikkario wrote:
When I was a kid two lesbian women, who were unmarried (t’was not legal at the time) one of them indepedently adopted a kid. They both raised her.

Girl was like this kid, ended up killing herself at about 17.

I don’t know what the deal was, she had mental deficiencies too.

I’m not saying this is the only outcome of this union.

But I’ve personally seen it happen.[/quote]

while i don’t want to make light of a scenario that could occur, I really don’t believe your statements.
after posting about a 160 lb kid with 19" arms that could curl 180 (the McDonald’s and Curls thread) you really don’t have much credibility.

52

Ya, I must be lying.

53

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In the abstract, it may not be the ideal - but there are a lot of worse situations in reality.

Let me post this hypo:

If a 13-year-old were pregnant, and no one wanted to adopt the baby except a middle-class gay couple, what would you want to do?

The obvious choices: 1) abortion; 2) raised by a teen mother in poverty; 3) foster child; or 4) adopted by the gay couple.
[/quote]

Or, take another example. A real life one, an old school mate of my wife’s. Become foster parents (This is the US. No adoptions allowed) to black HIV-infected children. This gay couple did this and knew that some would die within a few years. As medicine improved some of those children are now in high school or university. Nobody else would take them. Prospective adoptive parents prefer golden haired little angels with a life expectancy beyond three years…

Do I think gays should be able to adopt, subject to similar screenings as straight couples? Hell yes.

54

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Im curious

yea i bet you are.

are you trying to argue its perfectly normal to be gay? you dont need a PhD in biology to understand that it is living organisms strongest drive to reproduce.

Is this fact, or your opinion?

If it is fact, substantiate it. If it isn’t, stop trying to pass it off as such.

I doubt you will be able to substantiate it, though, because it simply isn’t true. Think this through: altruistic behavior does not (by definition) increase the altruistic individual’s reproductive success, but increases the population’s chances for survival. Therefore, there may be a macro-level evolutionary advantage for a species to have certain members not concerned about their own reproductive success. There’s actually quite a developed literature on this topic. You may want to familiarize yourself with it, instead of taking huge logical leaps and passing them off as fact.

a gay person can not reproduce, not out of incapability, not out of saying, nah i dont want kids, out of being attracted to the same sex. there is clearly something wrong with homosexuals.

Do you mean human homosexuals, or homosexuals of other species as well (since it has been documented in many, many species)? If you mean homosexuals of all species, see above. If you mean humans in particular, why do you care? How does another person’s sexual preference affect you (or society in general)? Are you afraid that if homosexuality is no longer persecuted, that everyone will start having gay sex, and our species will be wiped out? This might come as a surprise to you, but most people don’t need an external motivator to enjoy heterosexual sex.

And you feel that sex with no possibility of reproduction is “wrong”; how about anal sex with a woman? How about oral sex? What about the use of contraceptives? What about “pulling out”, or the rhythm method? All of these are sex with no possibility of procreation. By your argument, anyone that enjoys any of these forms of sex “clearly has something wrong” with them, and should not be allowed to raise children.[/quote]

No such thing as “group selection”.

Therefore no “evolution on a macro level”.

55

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Im curious

yea i bet you are.

are you trying to argue its perfectly normal to be gay? you dont need a PhD in biology to understand that it is living organisms strongest drive to reproduce.

Is this fact, or your opinion?

If it is fact, substantiate it. If it isn’t, stop trying to pass it off as such.

I doubt you will be able to substantiate it, though, because it simply isn’t true. Think this through: altruistic behavior does not (by definition) increase the altruistic individual’s reproductive success, but increases the population’s chances for survival. Therefore, there may be a macro-level evolutionary advantage for a species to have certain members not concerned about their own reproductive success. There’s actually quite a developed literature on this topic. You may want to familiarize yourself with it, instead of taking huge logical leaps and passing them off as fact.

a gay person can not reproduce, not out of incapability, not out of saying, nah i dont want kids, out of being attracted to the same sex. there is clearly something wrong with homosexuals.

Do you mean human homosexuals, or homosexuals of other species as well (since it has been documented in many, many species)? If you mean homosexuals of all species, see above. If you mean humans in particular, why do you care? How does another person’s sexual preference affect you (or society in general)? Are you afraid that if homosexuality is no longer persecuted, that everyone will start having gay sex, and our species will be wiped out? This might come as a surprise to you, but most people don’t need an external motivator to enjoy heterosexual sex.

And you feel that sex with no possibility of reproduction is “wrong”; how about anal sex with a woman? How about oral sex? What about the use of contraceptives? What about “pulling out”, or the rhythm method? All of these are sex with no possibility of procreation. By your argument, anyone that enjoys any of these forms of sex “clearly has something wrong” with them, and should not be allowed to raise children.

sex for pleasure isnt wrong. sex with your gender is wrong. is it wrong for the sake of intentionally not having a child? no. is it wrong for the fact that a man and another man serve no purpose to be fucking each other because man and man are not sexually compatible and men shouldnt be attracted to other men in the first place? yes.

i suppose by your logic its not only okay to have sex with members of the same sex its also alright to have sex with animals…even of the same sex? cause i mean an assholes just an asshole right? doesnt matter if it belongs to a woman, a man, a goat?

there are certain desires and actions which are not condoned. youre isolating the action itself and negating whatever reason it be for the action. is having sex without intent to procreat wrong? yes on a level that im not willing to defend because i practice it and dont see harm enough in it. is it wrong for a man and a man to have sex? yes.

i dont personally care if they do or not but it should be universally understood that it serves no purpose and could never serve a purpose for two members of the same sex to be together. i dont care if other animals do it, other animals are fucked up too. pigs eat their own shit…wow so i guess that means you can do it too![/quote]

So by your own reasoning, in an already overpopulated world homosexuality is good?

What if homosexuality was natures way of population control?

Would it then serve a purpose?

Plus, when it comes to possible genetic reasons you are so horribly uninformed, it is not even funny.

Just for fun:

Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.

The same is true for a myriad of other species that procreate in ways that you do not approve of.

The very fact that there are still homosexuals around proves that their existence is natural and serves a purpose.

Since nature just is and makes quite a lot of them, the burden of proof for their unnaturalness is on you.

Which won´t stop nature from building even more.

56

[quote]orion wrote:
Bees. All but one female do NOT procreate. Well I guess that just ain´t natural right? But, duh, it is.[/quote]

I can’t wait to see what he has to say about snails, clams and whiptail lizards.

57

[quote]dk44 wrote:
This is what I hate the most. If your a homo quit trying to make sure everyone in the fucking world knows it. I don’t go around saying shit like “I’m straight, deal with it.”

I have a feeling that your right, some gay couples are gonna start getting kids for novelty. It will turn into the “hip” thing to do in the Gay and Lesbo community. Kinda like how in the past few years small dog breeds have turned into a fashion statement thanks to Paris Hilton. [/quote]

I agree. Gays want to be treated like equals, yet they cant stop shoving the fact that they are gay down everyone’s throat… wait, I didn’t mean it like that…

My point is, if you don’t want people to treat you differently, then quit screaming out loud about how different you are. “I’M GAY, YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THAT!” Like, I give a shit. Don’t force your opinion on me, and we can leave it there.

58

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Probably 90% of the troublemakers I’ve had over the years have been children of single moms. I can’t even begin to imagine the effects of having two ‘dads’ would have on a kid.

My guess is that the 6 year old kid knows how unnatural his situation is (instinctively anyway) and is lashing out at the world that dealt him into that mess.

Every child deserves and should have a mom and a dad who love them — not some crazed gays wanting to make a statement or with some ‘agenda’.

Would the kid be better on the street or in “the system”?

We currently have a lot more orphans than we have willing parents, so it seems illogical to prohibit adoption when the only problem with the parents is their sexual preference.

I think being raised in a stable, loving home by two dads or two moms would be a lot more beneficial to the child than being shifted around, essentially living nowhere.[/quote]

I was orphaned as a child and I can honestly say that living in an orphanage is preferable to any other situation except with a mom and a dad. Of course, my mother died when I was quite young so my knowledge of that is very limited.

In an orphanage, everyone around you is like you. They can’t tease about being an orphan. Can you imagine the torment some kid gets when the others find out he/she has 2 dads or 2 moms? I also theorize that children of single moms are teased and bullied because the other kids know that there’s no one at home to protect them. A frazzled single mom is less likely to be able to protect her children. Thus, children of single moms grow up resentful and angry (they also may seriously miss their dads).

Let’s face it: most kids in school are little monsters, little swine. Ride on a school bus to see just how the kids are. After a few minutes, you’d want to crack half of them with a ruler, HARD.

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Probably 90% of the troublemakers I’ve had over the years have been children of single moms. I can’t even begin to imagine the effects of having two ‘dads’ would have on a kid.

My guess is that the 6 year old kid knows how unnatural his situation is (instinctively anyway) and is lashing out at the world that dealt him into that mess.

Every child deserves and should have a mom and a dad who love them — not some crazed gays wanting to make a statement or with some ‘agenda’.

Would the kid be better on the street or in “the system”?

We currently have a lot more orphans than we have willing parents, so it seems illogical to prohibit adoption when the only problem with the parents is their sexual preference.

I think being raised in a stable, loving home by two dads or two moms would be a lot more beneficial to the child than being shifted around, essentially living nowhere.

I was orphaned as a child and I can honestly say that living in an orphanage is preferable to any other situation except with a mom and a dad. Of course, my mother died when I was quite young so my knowledge of that is very limited.

In an orphanage, everyone around you is like you. They can’t tease about being an orphan. Can you imagine the torment some kid gets when the others find out he/she has 2 dads or 2 moms? I also theorize that children of single moms are teased and bullied because the other kids know that there’s no one at home to protect them. A frazzled single mom is less likely to be able to protect her children. Thus, children of single moms grow up resentful and angry (they also may seriously miss their dads).

Let’s face it: most kids in school are little monsters, little swine. Ride on a school bus to see just how the kids are. After a few minutes, you’d want to crack half of them with a ruler, HARD.

[/quote]

So the reason homosexuals shouldn’t raise children…

is because the children of homophobes are going to cause adjustment problems for the kids…

but you think the answer is barring homosexuals from raising children, and NOT dealing with the homophobes and their kids?

Also, have you considered that not every neighbourhood is ass-backwards? In some places, people actually don’t hate gays (it’s true!)

60

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
So the reason homosexuals shouldn’t raise children…

is because the children of homophobes are going to cause adjustment problems for the kids…

but you think the answer is barring homosexuals from raising children, and NOT dealing with the homophobes and their kids?

Also, have you considered that not every neighbourhood is ass-backwards? In some places, people actually don’t hate gays (it’s true!)[/quote]

I don’t think being the child of a homophobe has anything to do with it.

When was the last time you were around kids? They are experts at finding the slightest deviation from the norm, and making fun of it.

Having two moms, or two dads is fodder. Just like having a funny last name, being fat, stuttering, or any plethora of things will cause kids to tease relentlessly.