Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Jun 29, 2009.
intr.v. twad·dled, twad·dling, twad·dles
To talk foolishly; prate.
Foolish, trivial, or idle talk or chatter.
[Probably variant of dialectal twattle, perhaps alteration of tattle.]
I understand the argument that deranged families can be hetero and homo and that a child living in a a caring homo family is better off than in a hetero abusive family. However, i still believe that a child ideally should be raised in a family with a continuous male (father) and female (mother) inputs to form an "ideal" personality and emotional stability giving the "available" environment.
and i can see the potential that gay couple may try to ignore or deny the necessity of that as it is incompatible with with the family unit they formed. I certainly have seen interviews with children of gay couples where they admit facing a degree of confusion and hurt.
The argument that a gay couple can use a relative to provide this input, is better than nothing, but definitely not as a good as what a hetero relationship provides.
But at the same time, it is those traditional " man-women" relationships that produce all the homosexual babies...
I have never heard of any homosexual couple naturally produce a homosexual child...
I am a afraid this not true. They both produce homosexual children. I have seen it
What evidence is there to suggest that [biological] male and female parents are needed to form such an ideal environment for the child/ren?
Again, why is it a necessity?
Are you trying to intimate that children of straight couples never experience emotional issues about their parents?
Again - why are heterosexual parents better than homosexual parents? Where is the evidence of this discrepancy?
I am very interested, from a molecular biology standpoint, of how two females or two males naturally produce a child, which is what freeny was referring to. I know experiments have been successful in creating biological progeny of two biologically female mice; however, as far as I am aware, such technology is not available for humans.
If you have seen it, please elaborate.
Yes, if I ever have kids, me and my partner will turn them into AIDS carrying homo monkeys that are raised to destroy the Earth because we ourselves are heathens that don't know where we really are supposed to put our sex organs, so how are we supposed to know how to raise kids
Seriously people need to get off of this, gays and lesbians are incompetent idiots BS.
EDIT: Oh, I forgot. Our child(ren)'s biological mother will be a crackwhore that we found on the street. Because we want to make sure that the kids are stupid enough, so we can turn them into previously mentioned AIDS carrying Homo monkeys. There, now Rush should be happy.
I don't think that the article is saying that gays can't raise children. It's saying that children rely on a man and a woman figure, not two of the same.
Even so, gays raising children would be no different than a single mom or dad raising children.
No, the article never said that gay couples can't raise children. The article did however include quotes from people who don't think that gay couples can raise children. By saying that children need a female and a male parent, those people are saying that gay couples are incapable of raising children properly, and that children raised by gay couples MUST have some sort of defect.
You didn't think they should be able to have children a few months ago?
I'm curious to know what my defect is.
Have you not been keeping up with current events?
EDIT: @ Eanair, you MUST have some kind of defect. Wait, you must be gay, because you're parents were gay, but you're still in the closet, because you don't want to prove Rush right. Right? :jk:
Let us hope some of your other insensitive opinions change just as quickly.
I think I've demonstrated that over the past several months, if you bother to look at all of my other posts since I came out.
Seriously, what is it with you people. Do you have every post that I have ever made bookmarked?
Its just funny to see a hypocrite suddenly have sympathy once it actually effects them personally.
Sounds like a certain party i know....
before i say anything, i have to stress that i am sorry if i offended anybody with my answer. When i posted my opinion, i was not intending to argue back and forth about available evidence, as at the end of the day from personal experience arguing this case many times before (one of my university projects was about the ethicality of homosexuality, I work in the health service field), no body will change his/her opinion as evidence can be manipulated to either way. So my post was pure expression of my impression of what i read so far about this issue.
As for the point about the necessity of male and female continuous input to create an "ideal" personality, this has been documented by many studies (though, as i can't recall specific studies now, its up to you not to believe that).
As for seeing interviews where children in homo families could experience confusion and hurt. I didn't mean that children in hetero families don't experience confusion and hurt, but i meant that a homo environment will add this extra stress (particularly at the start) to children beside other potential issues they might face.
As for the homosexual reproduction. I might have been a bit insensitive and was just joking, hence the wink. Though if we take it seriously, then reproduction is possible in two ways: 1) a person reproducing before realizing he/she is gay. 2) insemination from one gay partner, insemination into a gay partner, ....etc.
My very best wishes to you
Don't forget the molestation! You can't expect to turn your crack baby queer without a proper daily regimen of sexual abuse. Teaching him or her to worship Satan is a nice plus, but you wouldn't want to go over the top with this.
I know there are such studies, but I find them suspect. Define for me, please, what constitutes an "ideal" personality without reference to the cultural norms to which children of heterosexual two-parent marriages are hypothetically exposed, or a hand-waving appeal to what is "natural."
Is simply having two parents of opposite gender sufficient, or are there specific behaviors in which the parents must engage in order to produce such an "ideal" personality? Is it experimentally demonstrated which of those behaviors a same-sex couple is for some reason psychologically incapable of performing? By what theory? Must we resort to John Gray's seminal work in extraterrestrial gender identification theory?
Suppose someone should happen to suspect that experiments showing that heterosexual couples produce "ideal" personalities and homosexual couples do not are actually ad hoc exercises in begging the question by defining "ideal" as "raised with the belief that having homosexual parents is abnormal" and conversely presupposing that recognizing no problem with one's homosexual parents signifies something like gender role confusion and thus is not "ideal." What would these studies do to allay such suspicions, or are they simply preaching to the choir?
I'm not religious, but I am conscious of the fact that whoever or whatever placed us here made it possible for reproduction only to occur between two people of different genders.
Placing a child into a situation which differs from this is not only harmful to the child (whether it be because of peer pressure, lack of gender influence or a sense of not being equal to others who are born into "normal" families) but it goes against the nature which makes us human.
I don't understand how any homosexual person could think it is fair to bring a child into this world and force them into this situation.
I can see what you are trying to say. This why, i said in one of my previous posts, that i didn't intend to argue about the available evidence, as arguing that there is a risk of bias in the sociological/scientific studies is potentially valid. Considering that these studies will define normality and "ideal behavior" depending on the social and cultural norm. Also the majority of investigators are very likely to be heterosexuals.
However, my impression during my research was that, making all variables the same, a child can potentially have better psychological and social well being if he/she lived in a heterosexual family, considering the "current" social and cultural norms.
I don't think you're being fair - he's still at school and is dependent on his family. So its not really fair to set full adult standards on him.
Besides isn't the whole point of this forum to try and change people minds - otherwise what would be the point?
Reproduction yes, but upbringing no. It's been quite common throughout human history for women to bring up children with virtually no male input. How is that different from two lesbian parents bringing up a child?
Humans have been around for roughly three million years. The "nuclear family" has been around about two hundred. This idea of one parent of each sex caring for the children until the legal age of adulthood is a modern construct, not something that makes us human.
I'm sure if the child thinks about it for a nanosecond it's much better than the alternative
Well, yes, but a child can potentially have a better outcome being raised by a robot or a team of huskies than the perfectly heteronormative human parents they might otherwise have.
Believe me, I do recognize that you are trying to distance yourself somewhat from strong claims about these lines of research, and I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you in precisely the way you seem not to want to be picked on, but it does just encourage me to wonder why, if you are so keenly aware of the shortcomings in these sorts of studies, you bring them up at all.
They do seem to come to some conclusion that reinforces some people's vague apprehension that straight parents are "better;" however, to observe that "better" is not adequately defined, to say nothing of avoiding the specific details of how one parental demographic might support that outcome while another inhibits it is not simply to offer a responsible caveat about overinterpretation of the results. It is to undermine the entire endeavor. The devil resides in precisely the details that have been glossed over, making it difficult if not impossible to come to any conclusions about what the studies might actually mean.
Excuse me? Do you realize that we have members on this very forum that were raised by same sex parents? They'll tell you they turned out just fine.
And the only people telling these kids they aren't normal are people like you. That's not the fault of homosexuals.
Impressions count for nothing in research. Besides, anything which relies on "norms" for its "potential" benefit is deeply suspect and its justification is probably circular.