truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Well its a point that has been raised and shouted down, but I feel that society isn't ready for daddy/daddy families and it will have an impact on the child for sure.
Posters have said that children get bullied for loads of things and if they were mixed race or mixed religion they could be bullied too, so does that make it ok? Sure the black kid will be bullied and the muslim kid will be bullied so the kid with the 2 dads will fit right in.
TBH I don't have any great moral objection to it, yes it does make me uncomfortable and yes I do accept that good parents are hard to find and 2 dads might be great, it just doesn't seem like the right fit.
I don't think gay couples were ever meant to be parents for obvious reasons.
The nature element to my argument doesn't get much (any) backing here, but most things in nature have a purpose and we have evolved to our current state and that for me spells out the best case scenario is man/woman +child.
You've used this particular example a couple of times now - would you for instance feel any better about mammy/mammy families?
That is why I expressed it as a personal opinion (the 'I feel' bit).I am a member of society. You dont speak for me when you say that 'society' isnt ready - only for yourself.
I take that fully into consideration, but you may also have problems with parents of other children and their reaction and possible restriction of interaction with that family. I don't accept that just because you or I would not create any problems for a gay couple and child it would not be the case for everyone. I don't think it is a simple live and let live situation, it should be examined in detail.But you cant stop a child from being bullied even if he has the perfect home set up, is of the same race/religion as other children in the school. Fear of bullying is just not a good enough reason.
Which is widely known and understood i presume as is the fact that gay couples can never concieve a child together even if both are fertile and this to me does have some impact on my viewpoint.In many heterosexual couples one or other are sterile or cannot reproduce for any number of reasons.
Nature has allowed us to develop to invent and further our medical advances, if we can 'evolve the state where mean can give birth then I'll change my mind.We may have evolved to our current state, but it is society and not nature that puts the restrictions on gay couples adopting. If we only did what nature intended we would not have contraception, adoption for sterile couples, fertility treatment and any number of other medical or scientific advances.
I take that fully into consideration, but you may also have problems with parents of other children and their reaction and possible restriction of interaction with that family. I don't accept that just because you or I would not create any problems for a gay couple and child it would not be the case for everyone. I don't think it is a simple live and let live situation, it should be examined in detail.
Which is widely known and understood i presume as is the fact that gay couples can never concieve a child together even if both are fertile and this to me does have some impact on my viewpoint.
Nature has allowed us to develop to invent and further our medical advances, if we can 'evolve the state where mean can give birth then I'll change my mind.
Again, parents restrict interaction with other families for a number of reasons, race, religion, narrow mindedness etc.... So I dont see how the gay parents family unit would suffer any worse than any other non mainstream family that people may feel are 'different' and therefore 'wrong types'.
But non fertile heterosexual couples are in the same boat as homosexual couples.
Lets pretend for a minute that the adoptive parents live out in the boondocks and plan to homeschool the child and the only social interactions with other kids are with family - thereby removing the issue of bullying or restrictive social interactions) - in that situation would it be a problem for a child to be raised by gay parents?
So the argument here is they won't be alone in their suffering? Those other scenarios would also have children born into that life rather than chosen.Again, parents restrict interaction with other families for a number of reasons, race, religion, narrow mindedness etc.... So I dont see how the gay parents family unit would suffer any worse than any other non mainstream family that people may feel are 'different' and therefore 'wrong types'.
Yes they are but that is down to chance i.e if I get with a fertile woman and am infertile myself then we cannot conceive, if she hooked up with my fertile friend instead she could have kids. There is a 0% chance for a gay couple even if they change partner if they are of the same sex the same outcome will apply.But non fertile heterosexual couples are in the same boat as homosexual couples.
they can with the help of the opposite sex.Well women can give birth so does that make mammy/mammy more acceptable?
I'm wondering if there is a lot of fear of the unknown coming through here. Can those who would be opposed to gay parents parenting mention if they know any mature, settled gay couples among their circle of family and friends?
or even mature, settled, straight couples with no problems ?
This thread is now at the 1% point...when people start focusing on the 1% of things that 'could' possibly make things worse for a kid in a gay marriage. Sheesh.
If they did, then no-one would be adopted....unless you know some 'perfect' couples out there would be infallible as parents ?Maybe we shouldn't look at all of the possibilities and probabilities, I sure hope an adoption agency would before they find a home for a child.
To my mind every child needs both a father figure and a mother figure in their lives
Not quite they are just unlucky not to be able to reproduce whereas a homosexual couple could reproduce if they got to gether with a member of the opposite sex.
Then to me they would be bad parents whatever their sexual orientation.
So the argument here is they won't be alone in their suffering? Those other scenarios would also have children born into that life rather than chosen.
Yes they are but that is down to chance i.e if I get with a fertile woman and am infertile myself then we cannot conceive, if she hooked up with my fertile friend instead she could have kids. There is a 0% chance for a gay couple even if they change partner if they are of the same sex the same outcome will apply.
they can with the help of the opposite sex.
I'm sure that if SLF wanted to make that point he would have. He didn't, so why tilt it?So all single mothers are bad parents?
Why? In many remote areas of the world children are home schooled and dont have the kind of social interactions that city children have - I dont see why this constitutes bad parenting?
I'm wondering if there is a lot of fear of the unknown coming through here. Can those who would be opposed to gay parents parenting mention if they know any mature, settled gay couples among their circle of family and friends?
or even mature, settled, straight couples with no problems ?
This thread is now at the 1% point...when people start focusing on the 1% of things that 'could' possibly make things worse for a kid in a gay marriage. Sheesh.
So all single mothers are bad parents?
I agree its a nice ideal, but not practical in many cases - regardless of the sexuality of the parents.?
This line of reasoning is absurd. Of course 1 member of an infertile couple could reproduce with someone else, as could 1 member of a homosexual couple - but the comparison being drawn is between that of an infertile couple and that of a homosexual couple.?
Why? In many remote areas of the world children are home schooled and dont have the kind of social interactions that city children have - I dont see why this constitutes bad parenting?
I'm sure that if SLF wanted to make that point he would have. He didn't, so why tilt it?
Hey, we're talking the world we know about, not Outer Mongolia/Pradesh.
Thanks you've made my night you have contradicted yourself.
The sexuality of the parents is set in stone 1 man + 1 woman.
*edit* To further my point I never said single mothers are bad parents, that's just a plain silly argument
What I do think is that a child needs the influence of a good man and a good woman, bit like a cup of tea normally has milk they go together very well.
Maybe all the homophobes have the same gay friends (who are ass holes and would make crap parents)?Slightly OT, but I have to say I'm always a bit skeptical when straight people say "Oh I have loads of gay friends" or "many/most of my friends are gay"
Really. Loads?
You probably don't even have loads of friends never mind gay ones.
If all the straight people, trying to defend accusations of homophobia really had the loads of gay friends that they claim to have, I'm telling you, it would make this country about 40% gay as far as I can see
(I'm not directing this at anyone here BTW, it's a general comment)
Maybe all the homophobes have the same gay friends (who are ass holes and would make crap parents)?
I dont see the contradiction, perhaps you misunderstood my post?
If a child needs the influence of a good man and a good woman then where does that leave single parents?
I agree that in an ideal world all children would have 2 natural parents, one male and one female, but we dont live in an ideal world and given that premise, if a child has already lost out on the ideal - by being in a position of having NO parents and going up for adoption then I dont see why gay parents couldnt make just as good a go of it as non gay parents.
Better than leaving a child to not be adopted at all? Yes - IMO.
Better than an adoption by a straight couple? No, I dont think so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?