Homosexuals and marriage.

That reminded me of two friends, well aquaintances.

One is the only male teacher in an upmarket conservartive jewish gilrs school, the other just starting out in a childcare business with his boyfriend, getting inundated with enquiries.

Not exactly becuase they are gay, butboth are certain 'types'.

Some gay guys get entrusted where guys, even most other women wont, despite what the broad or political, public consensus supposedly is.

So hearing especially the girls talk about gay guys not adopting children when at the same time same female might be fighting tooth and nail to get her kid in the a childcare'center run by some of them is a little wtf?

The argument isnt about what it may seem from the view of the casual observer

 

I'd feel truly sorry for any child who couldn't have both a mother AND father figure growing up. Infact, if I was a young kid faced with 2 homosexual adoptive parents, I think I'd have run away.

Thats not aimed at homosexuals (I have some bi-lesbian friends who are absolutely wonderful people). Its aimed at the outlook for a child in that position. What sort of society is so quick to deny a child a mother and a father figure?

 

The society in which we live today, of course. Plenty of children grow up in single parent households, and they grow up to be healthy, happy, productive citizens of society. The family unit has changed. We are no longer living in the fifties where it is deemed absolutely necessary for a child to have both a mother and a father. Besides, other family members and/or friends can pitch in to help. The saying it takes a village to raise a child is quite meaningful in its accuracy. The only problem I see with society is people preventing children stuck in the foster care system from being able to experience the love of family and community due to something as mundane as sexual orientation.

 

its not the sexuality of parents that define good parents.its how good they are at being parents.so yes of course gay people should be allowed to marry if they so choose.hope its legal here someday too.

 

in order to deny gay couples the right to adopt children, you first have to prove that having two parental figures of the same gender is potentially harmful to the child in some way.you have to demonstrate either potential risk or practical merits of the traditional nuclear family (besides just sentimentality) so great as to justify the continued denial of a legal right to citizens.

people who would not be on your side in this would include: the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

here are some links.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full
http://www.choicesconsulting.com/assets/pro_writing/gay-and-lesbian-parents-review.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/p09b.pdf
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&
http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/Stacey_Biblarz.pdf

i find it interesting that, although the "kids with gay parents will turn out gay!" hysteria turned out to be bullshit (shocker) kids raised by same sex couples, although turning out heterosexual, were often less inclined to care about traditional gender roles as children.

i'd say that was an advantage.(but then i am an insufferable leftie)

studies also identified a tendency towards more emotional openness between adult carer and child, as well as better school performance and more equal division of household chores for children raised by lesbian couples.

but of course, these advantages are irrelevant. until it can be demonstrated that these arrangements are harmful to the child in question, this will remain simply a question of rights and equality.

 

Well on just 1 of your points, a lot of young African Americans and black British citizens say that their lives got very fucked up because they didn't have a father figure growing up.

I think the claim refusal to allow gay adoptions is being the cause of kids stuck in care is very inaccurate too. I have a relative who refused to approve adoptions by smokers, yet says that gay adoption is ok. That is a stance that utterly astounds and saddens me. By the same reasoning, my smoking parents
would have been considered "wholly unsuitable parents".

You might call sexual orientation mundane. Personally I think it is pivotal to the concept of bringing up kids.

I feel this whole pro gay marriage stance is about people demanding to have others validate(or approve) their choices. The reality is that some/many people wont approve or validate your choices, and its not for the State to demand it.

Ultimately, there is simply no need for the State to approve gay adoption.
Not is there any public policy benefit in it.

 

Homosexuals are not seeking validation, because we and most sane heterosexual people realize and understand that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, same sex marriage, or same sex couples wanting to adopt children. Secondly, sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than having blue eyes is a choice. You want unnatural, wearing contacts to change one's eye color is unnatural. It is also unnatural to go through with sexual conversion therapy that has been deemed absolutely and quite conclusively worthless due to it not working and harmful to an individual's psyche.

 

IT is true that in the context of heterosexual families, the lack of a father is correlative with higher levels of delinquency, drug abuse etc.

But as New York University sociologist Judith Stacey pointed out in her 2010 study on gender and parenting, conflating single motherhood with lesbian motherhood is inaccurate. As the American Psychological Association has similarly stated, Stacey's meta analysis of 33 studies found that parental gender had little bearing on kids' well-being. The most influential variables were resources and childcare commitment, and those hold even greater sway than the number of parents in a home (source included in last post)

In other words, it is not the lack of a male figure (or female) which fucks people up, but rather the lack of a commitment to the child's wellbeing, support and money. gay couples can provide that just as readily as straight ones. In fact, even the NUMBER of parents is less important than childcare commitment.

 

The stats back up what Im saying. As do the people who were actual victims of having no father figure. Ive known some.

Sounds like Judith Stacey has her own agenda here- why is she ignoring the above 2 sources. And saying "I know better than the people who grew up without a father". I think its very arrogant and bizarre of her. Quite unprofessional too. And in many circumstances would be very insulting to the actual parents of the kids.

I dont see why you choose to defend gay adoption in face of the above.
Well being isnt just about Elton John lavishing money on a child. Its about identity, understanding of the world and nature. And not being bullied from a very young age to accept and approve things that they might never want to accept or approve of. These are the things that fuck kids up, as much or even more than a mother who cant stay off the booze.

Its strange no one wants to address the dioxins issue..

PS one of my parents was a 1 parent family, on account of a death. So I think I know about about the topic... Ofcourse that 1 parent had only 1 gender..!

 

1)Its abundantly clear you DO want validation and approval - in State tax breaks in England, the chance to adopt, refusal to look at the science of dioxins etc etc. You cant accept someone having an alternate viewpoint, and assume they are just evil "bigots".

2)Sexuality IS a choice. ALL sexuality. Will you defend incest, and all the other variations on sexuality because someone claims they were born like it?
The ancient Greeks literally worshipped homosexuality, but they didnt want gay marriage. Does that mean anything to you?

You avoid the question of "where do we draw the line".
Should lifestyle sadomasochist "ageplay " polygamists adopt or get "married".
I think not, infact Im sure they shouldnt. Maybe they'll yell "bigotry" and demand it too.

3)You categorically refuse to consider the dioxin argument and claim "conversion therapy is irrefutably(rubbish"

Im not even going to discuss conversion treatment. Its not relevant IMO, as we are talking about the public policies of marriage and adoption.

But the fact remains, suppose a blood test said something could be done about your dioxin levels and alter their effects, would you take the treatment...?

I suspect not, because your sole objective is to validate what you have *chosen*

I dont mean this in a malicious way. I am only talking about the public policy of marriage and adoption.

 

Of course it is. Read your own words (I placed in bold). You contradicted yourself big time.

QP

P.S. Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best are ancient history. Nobody's family (straight or gay) is ideal.

 

There you go, being fallacious again. Slippery Slope.

 

Not remotely fallacious. Go on, where do u draw the line? Dont know?
Dont want to say? Fear it fucks up your argument? Dont yell "bigot", if u know others will throw it back at you!

So, I'll ask again? Where would YOU draw the line?

Let me explain it fully then, altho Im sure you know what I mean. I WOULD have run away if I was adopted by 2 people of the same gender-fact! Its not meant as an INSULT to gay people, tho doubtless some would claim it is, and try and harrass people into accepting their point of view.

On your PS, the sexual permissiveness of ancient Rome and Greece is *ancient* history too. Its not about ideal families, its about giving kids the start that parents, society and themselves would choose, away from the yells of the baying radicalist PC mobs who seek to attack anyone who disagrees as a "bigot".

Kids deserve a male and female parent. Who has the right to deny it them?
Nobody.

PS maybe you'll want to read some of the dioxin studies.

 

I tend to draw the line at not answering illogical questions. However, if you want an answer, here it is: gay marriage and adoption will not lead to the outrageous outcomes to which you think they will. Morally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with consenting same-sex adults marrying or adopting children, because their marriage and families do not negatively affect you or society in any way. It is ludicrous to believe that same sex marriage can even be placed on the same platform as a man marrying his goat. As far as incest is concerned, I personally have no problem with it as long as it takes place between two people who consent either as both minors or both as adults.

 

I think gay marriage should be mandatory to curb overpopulation. If you're straight and want to not have sex with your partner in the privacy of your home, that's up to you, but in public, you've gotta be gay as an arrow.

 

Your words are reactionary as hell, so what kind of response are you expecting? In fact, you come across as a second-rate Archie Bunker (at best). This thread would be hilarious if you intended it to be satire. But I doubt that's the case. Very sad.

QP

 

Why not just ask the kids if they want to try it out and after 3 months ask THEM if there are any problems?
After all-they're who this is about,not the adults.

 

My sister is gay and it just so happens her wife is also. She has been blessed with twins using a donor who she knows and chose. She and her wife are both professionals who contribute to society and raise a family.

Her twins are as well adjusted as any other teen and manage just fine. Amazingly enough they love their parents and life runs rather well.

The requirements is that a child has needs to be met by people who wish to raise children and love them. The rest tends to sort itself out.

 

judith stacy is a professor of Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology. in her study, she offers an objective analysis of the statistics available on parenting and demonstrably proves no necessary causal link between having no male parental figure, or the gender of an absentee parent, and crime etc, using facts alone.

if you wish to accuse her of being unprofessional or allowing "arrogance" to cloud her professorial judgement, then can you demonstrate where her study is flawed? (i provided a link to it)

yes, people who grow up without a father, and had an unhappy home life are statistically more likely to be unhappy later in life/turn to crime etc. They might well blame this on their absent parental figure. Stacey merely proves that this has nothing to do with the gender of the parental figure and a lot more to do with socio-economic circumstance and commitment to child-raising.

It is the practice of science to disregard subjective interpretations of events in favour of statistical evidence.