Do you think it healthy for a child to have Gay Parents ?

ecksor

Because you keep coming up on our radar?

yellum

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
BTW: its never going to happen in this country so **** that.

Whats not ? Gay civil unions or Gay Adoption ?

Civil Unions are on there way soon enough. Oh and everyone stay on topic please.

Ronaldo7

Originally posted by ecksor
Because you keep coming up on our radar?

No i dont?

Ronaldo7

And Yellum i was talking about Gay Adoption - it wont happen in this country. No way. You just know it wont...

phreak

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
And Yellum i was talking about Gay Adoption - it wont happen in this country. No way. You just know it wont...

it may not happen soon but it WILL eventually happen.

p

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
Penguins arent the issue you clown. Its the principle. You dont see two male tigers ****ing each other, you dont see two male anythings ****ing each other...its not natural.

Actually, yes you do. There's been a number of studies that shows many animals are gay too. Dogs & Sheep as I recall specically.

Also I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel which looked into monogamy in human relationships, and there was heavy evidence to suggest that it wasn't 'natural'

yellum

Backing P up

Vader

Could you ‘cease and desist’ reposting my posts incorrectly as the italic text in my posts is where I was quoting someone, and it now looks as if I had said what they did!!!

A quote in yor post:

quote:
Incidentally monument a gay couple will never form a 'natural' family unit as they cannot 'naturally' have children.

Your comment on what you quoted:


A gay couple being able to form a 'natural' family unit and them not being able to “'naturally' have children” are two different things.
Saying they would not be able to “form a 'natural' family unit” just because they can’t “'naturally' have children”, is simply stupid - as to just imply such would also imply any couple who could not “'naturally' have children” would not be able to “form a 'natural' family unit”.



Sorry I should have used lilttle "

---

" yolks but I thought when ppl saw the word quote in a quote then they would understand what was going on. Nobody would think posters were consistantly insulting themselves in the 3rd person. But none the less sorry, I will never assume your level of intelligence again.

Ronaldo7
Unless the two penguins can produce, only then will it be normal. So **** that idea. NO!

There is a difference between normal and natural. I made that point before but heres a definition of both.

nor·mal
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

nat·u·ral
adj.
Present in or produced by nature

Monument

Heterosexuality does not “ensure the child can start his own family”, of course being heterosexual currently makes it easier. Using ‘ensure’ borders on implying guarantee("To make sure or certain")

So really the “central issue” for would be removed if the forum topic was answered with a ‘yes’ (by government etc…)?

Barring any genetic abnormalities or a serious accident heterosexual children would have all the means neccessary to reproduce i.e both the reproductive organs, the motivation and know-how (any questions being answered by their hetero parents).

Im surprised that somebody who distorts language so much would be so picky on the use of others.

For the record I don’t think a child should be encouraged to be gay or straight, no matter what sexuality.

Do you intend to keep the child in complete isolation untill it is 18 withut anycontact from other human beings? How?

Ppl are influenced both conciously and subconciously, their enviroment encourages them, I have discussing wether or not a homosexual couple provides a healthy enviroment. I have been argueing that that enviroment would encourage the children to be homosexual. Do you understand what Im saying? (not being insulting or condesending, do you need me to elabourate and repeat my earlier points?).

I’m not trying to substitute any thing – the English languish does that for me!

(PS could you stop the personal attacks? – even more so when you’re wrong!)

The English language doesn’t substitute the words natural and normal. They can is specific circumstances be used as synonyms
e.g. My arm works naturally is the same as my arm works normally.
That is because what is normal in this case is also what is natural ie biologically correct.

The reason there are synonyms is for perspicacity, that is, being precise and specific -- examples of synonyms. Perspicacious is not the same as being precise, but when talking about language it is. You cannot say you made a perspicacious measurement.

It was not a personal attack on you, I was pointing out that you were wrong (with your use/understanding of language).
To recap normal doesn't mean natural most of the time.
Normal, when we are referring to practices such as sexual orientations, refers to what is veiwed as acceptable by the majority of ppl in that society. The majority can often be wrong. Natural, which was the word being used, refers to how things are designed to work. I would say the birds and the bees but I know someone would be a smartass and point out bees dont fúck birds.

Still think my use of language is wrong?

[/QUOTE]

No, but the dictionary should answer yours.

It does, and what do you know, Im right!
But of course you knew that. You no doubt looked up a dictionary, saw that I was right and thats why you didnt quote it.
BTW: If a dictionary lists a word as a synanym that doesnt mean the two words are exactly the same.

Again please refer to ‘natural’ in the dictionary.

OMG!! --yellum Im really tempted to start shouting idiot form the top of my lungs, that usually means Im being trolled *vader recalls the debate between monument and Jak*.
*5 min pause*
No, no, Monuments not a troll or an idiot but he didnt look up the dictionary.
Here, I did it for you:
nor·mal
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

nat·u·ral
adj.
Present in or produced by nature

Yes he is conducting himself quite well…


quote:

---

Originally posted by Jak
Maybe you could do another one of your hilarious explanations on this post?

---

And what was the explanation you gave?

Be very careful there, I said…

“any perspective (or reaction) a parent would give to ‘any given situation’ would be more determent by their experience, personality, and their relationship with the child, then their gender”

So, let’s recap for you - I said that their perspective would be *more* determent by other factors… could you please avoid implying/saying I have said things I have not?

So sombody said men and women have different perspectives and you said: thats "bull shít" ppls opinions have to do with their experiences AND their gender.... as "more" implies the presence of more than one factor. So why was it bs if you acknowledge gender as a factor.

And of course heres the great thing you say "personality, and their relationship with the child", but personality is largely dependant on gender and thus so is the relationship with the child.

The phrase isnt "So, let’s recap for you" its "So, let’s recap". let’s recap for you is condecending and implies that you believe you are more intelligent that me. You didnt mean to say you feel superior to me did you?

Vader

Skanger
This thread has basically become a discussion about the morality of homosexuality, where children are being used as shields for people to express there blatant homophobia, with out fear of being branded as such.

Because anybody placing childrens rights above adults desires is a homophobe.
I havent used moral terms, Ethics and Morals are different, ethics are decided by socities and morals is a persons individual conscience. But I dont see why I bothered making that distinction cause I never said ethical either.

This is about weather or not same sex couples should be allowed kids, or put another way, is it right for parents not to have a father or a mother. Now we have all seen cases of children being raised by a single gender, A friend of mine was raised by his mother and sisters and has a very ****ed up view of women as a result. Same sex parents mean that a child will be lacking input from one gender, and no matter how many people you surround them with who love them, this does not make up for that. Sure you can say the child will have aunts and/uncles, but that's not always the case and isn't a factor in a normal adoption let alone a same sex one.

That sounds like an agruement against same-sex couples adopting, are you a self proclaimed homophobe.

If you are trying to distance yourself from ronaldo7 come right out and say it. He is an idiot and having him on my side takes away from my position.

The issus is not societys norms, morals or ethics.
The issue is the health of the child. Since homosexual ppl are just as capable and caring as hetero ppl the it is obvious that mental and not physical health is the issue.

Negative mental impact on children:
Bullying ---- Im not saying that bullying is acceptable. It is not. But children are children. They are immature and sometimes cruel and bullying cant really be eliminated.
Children miss the balanced/natural family unit. I started to make this point on page 3, Jak (i think) continued it in my absense and now you skanger are making it.
That children would be influenced/encouraged to be homosexual. Nearly everyone here agrees parents influence there children. This influence is more subconscious than conscious. Now ppl say that that isnt important, these are the same ppl who are advocating adoption. If you have a strong desire for a child would you really wish a condition on the centre of your affection that would disable them from having children of their own.
The retort Ive been getting from this question is that such an influence wouldnt be exerted, yellum asked me did I choose to be straight. Well examine the different attitudes towards sex in different areas. Take for example the promiscuousness attitudes amongst youths from certain backrounds, and the conservative attitudes of youths from different areas. In this respect it is obvious that family has a strong and direct influence on sexuality. Can you now accept that a link MAY exist between enviroment and sexuality.
I dont recall ever making a conscious choice about my promiscuousness but I have abserved that it is the same as my brother's (bar one) and my father's.

If you are in love good for you (with all sincerity) but as of yet you are not in love with the child and it is the child we are discussing.

p

Question. Do you people actually believe that people choose to be gay. Most people agree it's not a choice, yet your argument seems to come down to that as a core.

You believe people (in some way) choose to be gay, and that having gay parents will mean they too are more likely to be gay.

Apart from the fact that shows you see being gay as being bad in some way, you ignore evidence that suggests people who've been brought up with gay parents aren't more likely to be gay that others. (acording to the article posted earlier)

Atreides

I don't support Gay couples adopting, for the same reason I wouldn't support a single person adopting, and for the same reason I don't support certain women become pregnant for the soul reason of having a child without the father having any involvement. That reason is that it's selfish, and its arrogant to presume that the child won't be at a loss.

Arguments that homosexuality isn't natural is bull, who is to say what is natural, natural is survival of fittest, natural is men taking what they want when they want it, but that's not to acceptable nowadays is it?

Bullying, First you presume that its anybody else's business what the parentage of a child is, I couldn't possible tell you what the parental status of the guys I went to school was. No body has to know the parents are gay, unless the parents want to use the child to make a statement, in which case they are assholes anyway.

Argument that the child is more likely to be gay, well first you presume there is something wrong with that is there? Second you have no way of proving that one way or the other, so very convenient argument to make.

monument

“Incidentally monument a gay couple will never form a 'natural' family unit as they cannot 'naturally' have children.”

You quoted me as saying this… while it was in my post it was also in italics – meaning I didn’t say it. Never mind.

========
“The phrase isnt "So, let’s recap for you" its "So, let’s recap". let’s recap for you is condecending and implies that you believe you are more intelligent that me. You didnt mean to say you feel superior to me did you?”

No, I was recapping to hit emphasize my point

So again, could you please avoid implying/saying I have implied/said things I have not?

========
nat-u-ral

“…occurring in, or conforming to, the *ordinary* course of things…”
- Virtues / The Winston Dictionary

========
“Barring any genetic abnormalities or a serious accident heterosexual children would have all the means neccessary to reproduce i.e both the reproductive organs, the motivation and know-how (any questions being answered by their hetero parents).”

That’s fine but heterosexual children could have gay parents.

========
“Im surprised that somebody who distorts language so much would be so picky on the use of others”

I’ve corrected language which you have ‘sexed up’. (ie ensured was wrongly used)

========
“Do you intend to keep the child in complete isolation untill it is 18 withut anycontact from other human beings? How?”

I said “I don’t think a child should be encouraged”… hmm… shouldn’t be encouraged changes to complete isolation. My, o my, I’m I really the one twisting the words? (not a question)

========
“Ppl are influenced both conciously and subconciously, their enviroment encourages them, I have discussing wether or not a homosexual couple provides a healthy enviroment. I have been argueing that that enviroment would encourage the children to be homosexual. Do you understand what Im saying? (not being insulting or condesending, do you need me to elabourate and repeat my earlier points?).

Fine, I’m not going to attack that argument because it does not contradict what I said… “For the record I don’t think a child should be encouraged to be gay or straight, no matter what sexuality.”

========
“The English language doesn’t substitute the words natural and normal. They can is specific circumstances be used as synonyms”

You go on about it a lot, but my point is that your use of the word “natural”, in this case, is the use which means “normal” – as you see it to be normal

Anyway, what has been normal/natural for most families in the last (at least) 100 years – changing in the last 20 - is the mother stays at home and minds the children when the father goes to work, with the father mostly only being involved when something goes wrong.

========
Re: Negative mental impact on children:

“Bullying ---- Im not saying that bullying is acceptable. It is not. But children are children. They are immature and sometimes cruel and bullying cant really be eliminated.”


Children will be children. :rolleyes:

That’s like saying black children should not be allowed to...

A) have white parents...

or

go to a all white school...

...because they might get bullied, instead if trying to stop bullying.

But maybe you agree with the view that everyone different should be divided (what some call ‘diversity’)?

========
“Children miss the balanced/natural family unit...That children would be influenced/encouraged to be homosexual.”

This points more to a dislike of homosexual people or the idea of homosexuality, then any possible harm in general which could be caused to children who have gay parents.

========
“Arguments that homosexuality isn't natural is bull, who is to say what is natural, natural is survival of fittest, natural is men taking what they want when they want it, but that's not to acceptable nowadays is it?”

Your example was once normal, not natural in the way it look like you mean.

Also, it points to a dislike of homosexual people, or the idea of homosexuality. Such dislikes could maybe even caused by a fear of something which is different or not ‘normal’?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Vader I have said many times I believe I think homosexual couples should be given the full rights that heterosexual couples are given.
Nobody has the right to have children.[/B]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think you will find that the law in nearly every free country disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Vader
That sounds like an agruement against same-sex couples adopting, are you a self proclaimed homophobe.
If you are trying to distance yourself from ronaldo7 come right out and say it. He is an idiot and having him on my side takes away from my position.

Ok, please, I know we're not exactly chums, but for your own sake aswell as the threads, can you cut down on the personal insults to posters?

Originally posted by Vader
The issus is not societys norms, morals or ethics.
The issue is the health of the child. Since homosexual ppl are just as capable and caring as hetero ppl the it is obvious that mental and not physical health is the issue

Negative mental impact on children:
Bullying ---- Im not saying that bullying is acceptable. It is not. But children are children. They are immature and sometimes cruel and bullying cant really be eliminated..

Bullying happens for lots of reasons, single parent families, divorced families, inter-racial families, parents who are disabled, the fact that a kid is adopted in the first place.

Bullying of children as a reason to not allow gay couples adopt is no more valid than it is as a reason to ban divorce or single parents, interracial parents or parents with disabilities or even adoption itself.

Originally posted by Vader
Children miss the balanced/natural family unit. I started to make this point on page 3, Jak (i think) continued it in my absense and now you skanger are making it...

So what about single parent families? What about orphans raised by guardians? Should chldren be taken from these environments because they are not "natural/balanced" family units?

Originally posted by Vader
That children would be influenced/encouraged to be homosexual. Nearly everyone here agrees parents influence there children. This influence is more subconscious than conscious.

Can you please show me some evidence of this being the case.
Is this your opinion or has there ever been a conclusive behavioural science study published that shows this. I've certainly never heard of it and I have no small experience in social health and psychology.

Even still there are huge flaws in this arguement, psychologically most children distance themselves totally from their parents sexual activities. Studies show that the majority of a childrens sexual education and awareness is picked up in social environments.

Originally posted by Vader
Now ppl say that that isnt important, these are the same ppl who are advocating adoption. If you have a strong desire for a child would you really wish a condition on the centre of your affection that would disable them from having children of their own..

What condition? No offence, but are you seriously suggesting that homosexuality is contagious? It sounds like it... like I said agin, I'd be interested in where, besides personal opinion, you are getting this from.

Originally posted by Vader
.Take for example the promiscuousness attitudes amongst youths from certain backrounds, and the conservative attitudes of youths from different areas. In this respect it is obvious that family has a strong and direct influence on sexuality. Can you now accept that a link MAY exist between enviroment and sexuality.

In some cases yes, but like I said, generally not the home environment (I'll post refs when I get to work). I see where you are coming from with some arguements but you are talking biology and psychology without any basis.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Skanger
I don't support Gay couples adopting, for the same reason I wouldn't support a single person adopting, and for the same reason I don't support certain women become pregnant for the soul reason of having a child without the father having any involvement. That reason is that it's selfish, and its arrogant to presume that the child won't be at a loss.

This is slightly off topic, but what about children who lose a parent at a young age? Should they be taken to a foster home is the child is going to be at a loss?

If ot, why should a single parent in this matter be any more or less capable of providing love and support for a child than a single parent adopting. Is it simply a question of rights or does it really matter about the welfae of the child?

If you are really arguing that single sex environment for children is a loss for them, then it should be applied to all parents, no?

Beruthiel

Originally posted by syke
This is slightly off topic, but what about children who lose a parent at a young age? Should they be taken to a foster home is the child is going to be at a loss?

or how about the man who legs it as soon as he hears you're expecting his child?

Zulu

Originally posted by Vader
[B
Its greek it means proved as above but there was no proof with it so Zulu doesnt know what it means either.
[/b]
QUOTE]

...humm, its Latin - quad eta deminstratum (I think!) and it means "as is/was deminstrated". The proof I was refering to was the previous comment.
A poster had made a point that they unfortunatly came from a troubled hetrosexual family. A second poster had also posted that they too could confirm that family life sucked.
I (being a little sarcastic) posted QED, ie: because a person(s) come from a broken dosen't provide a reason to disregard the fact that a loving male and female of our sepcies provide a perfect environment to raise a healthy child.

Zulu

Originally posted by Skanger
This thread has basically become a discussion about the morality of homosexuality, where children are being used as shields for people to express there blatant homophobia, with out fear of being branded as such. This is about weather or not same sex couples should be allowed kids, or put another way, is it right for parents not to have a father or a mother. Now we have all seen cases of children being raised by a single gender, A friend of mine was raised by his mother and sisters and has a very ****ed up view of women as a result. Same sex parents mean that a child will be lacking input from one gender, and no matter how many people you surround them with who love them, this does not make up for that. Sure you can say the child will have aunts and/uncles, but that's not always the case and isn't a factor in a normal adoption let alone a same sex one.

Hear hear!

tendofan

Bloody browser crashed when I first replied... so here's take two:

<quote>
Now heres a great post that Im dissappointed I missed.
</quote>
Thank you.

<quote>
(i) Be careful of the bigot theory or anything along those roads. You dont seem to have read the thread as clearly as you say. See my american analogy.
</quote>

I find the analogy a little disingenuous, as I don't believe that my point carries the logical disjunction that your analogy carries. My basic premise is that each one of us has presumptions and presentiments and that very often when we scratch the surface of some of our deeply held beliefs there's something a good deal more unpleasant that we'd like behind them. While you have made the welcome statement that you think that same-sex couples should have the same benefits as heterosexual couples, stating that heterosexuality should be "encouraged" assumes that a) sexuality is more "nuture than nature" which I admit is an open question, but more importantly, it belies a belief that homosexuality is somehow inferior, since if you express a preference for an option it is because other options have failings.

This isn't the witless foaming-at-the-mouth bigotry of the "God hates fags" type, but is actually more pernicious by virtue of it's on-the-surface reasonableness.

<quote>
(ii) Bullying will never be elimenated. Simple reason: you cant expect maturity from children.
</quote>

Agreed, however, that doesn't refute my argument, since to quote the Anti-Bullying Centre in TCD:

" Any pupil, through no fault of their own may be bullied. Anything, no matter how small, that sets the victim apart from the bully or bullies may be sufficient "justification" in their eyes. Sometimes all it takes is for the child to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. "
http://www.abc.tcd.ie/school.htm

That being the case, it is fruitless to attempt to remove the "justification" for bullying, and more important to attempt to remove the factors that allow bullies to flourish.

<quote>
(iii) I put very little faith in anything that comes out of the US and anyway you havent sourced these studies.
It is my opinion that children to single mothers lose out.
<snip>

The first clause of your sentence is shocking in its generalisation. Dodgy research is everywhere, that's why there are international peer-reviewed journals for all sciences, to attempt to get some rigour in the research. Naturally in social sciences cultural differences have to be taken into account, but it is simply wrong-headed to disregard findings out-of-hand because of their provenance. As for sourcing - I'm not a social scientist, but retain an interest in popular science and pick things up from newspapers, magazines etc. I refer you to the following as a starting point.

http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/07/family_values/index.html

http://www.google.ie/search?q=social-science+%22children+of+single+parents%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

and similar searches of The Guardian Online (www.guardian.co.uk) and The Irish Times.

These will show the range and breadth of the differing view-points, and shows how the biases of the commissioning organisations comes through, on both sides of the fence. All of which is why I said that it remains an open-question, and in the absence of any cast iron argument against it, and a good deal of arguments for it, I feel that it should be allowed. If an iron-clad counter argument and a sociological consesus against it is made then I will happily change my mind.

As for possibly missing something - I'm doing this at work, so yeah.. probably. However I feel my points stand.

Tendofan.

monument

Originally posted by Zulu

Originally posted by Vader
[B
Its greek it means proved as above but there was no proof with it so Zulu doesnt know what it means either.

QUOTE]

...humm, its Latin - quad eta deminstratum (I think!) and it means "as is/was deminstrated". The proof I was refering to was the previous comment.
A poster had made a point that they unfortunatly came from a troubled hetrosexual family. A second poster had also posted that they too could confirm that family life sucked.
[/B]

Yes it’s Latin, so Vader is wrong once again...

"Quod Erat Demonstrandum (Latin: Which Was to Be Demonstrated"
"Latin. quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)."

But as far as I have found (the above) both of you were wrong with its meaning.

Even Zulu’s meaning to it is/was right; it was used wrongly as I was replying to a comment which said Beruthiel’s family experience is isolated – which it is not.

Zulu

Originally posted by monument
Yes it’s Latin, so Vader is wrong once again...

"Quod Erat Demonstrandum (Latin: Which Was to Be Demonstrated"
"Latin. quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)."

But as far as I have found (the above) both of you were wrong with its meaning.

Even Zulu’s meaning to it is/was right; it was used wrongly as I was replying to a comment which said Beruthiel’s family experience is isolated – which it is not.

OK we're arguing well off the point, but...
I know his experience isn't isolated, but, as I said, that dosent validate the fact that a loving male/female couple provide the best oppertunity in which a child will develop. - That was my point.

The point of the QED, was to highlight the fact that if even a hundred people posted a response agreeing that they came from broken homes/troubled familys, that dosen't prove that "a loving male/female couple provide the best oppertunity in which a child will develop" wrong. It only proves that some people don't get along.

Atreides

Originally posted by syke
This is slightly off topic, but what about children who lose a parent at a young age? Should they be taken to a foster home is the child is going to be at a loss?

If ot, why should a single parent in this matter be any more or less capable of providing love and support for a child than a single parent adopting. Is it simply a question of rights or does it really matter about the welfae of the child?

If you are really arguing that single sex environment for children is a loss for them, then it should be applied to all parents, no?

Children who lose a parent are at a loss several (well two) of my friends have lost one or both parents, Neither of them would disagree that they where and would have been better off with both, To say they would better off in foster care, is to say if you can't have both your should have neither, I don't agree with that.

Single Parent isn't less able to provide love, simply saying that a fathers love is different to a mothers love, Fathers in most cases provide a stabilizing influence on there sons for example.Single parents do the best job they can, but do you know a single parent that would say that was the preferred situation, I don't. Even my cousin, with all the family support to raise her child you could imagine, would prefer her daughter to have a father, and I can see that in the child, the way she acts around males, there is something missing there.

Just like to add, there is nothing from with homosexuals raising children, if that's the best possible outcome in that case. For example if the parents where to die, and the guardian of the child/children, was a homosexual then that situation would clearly be preferable then a child being placed in care. I just mentioned it as yellum I think said in some thread he was a godfather to several children, a role which the dutties of in certain conditions would be toa take care of the child if anythign happened to the parents.

Zulu

Originally posted by Skanger
Children who lose a parent are at a loss several (well two) of my friends have lost one or both parents, Neither of them would disagree that they where and would have been better off with both, To say they would better off in foster care, is to say if you can't have both your should have neither, I don't agree with that.

Single Parent isn't less able to provide love, simply saying that a fathers love is different to a mothers love, Fathers in most cases provide a stabilizing influence on there sons for example.Single parents do the best job they can, but do you know a single parent that would say that was the preferred situation, I don't. Even my cousin, with all the family support to raise her child you could imagine, would prefer her daughter to have a father, and I can see that in the child, the way she acts around males, there is something missing there.

Just like to add, there is nothing from with homosexuals raising children, if that's the best possible outcome in that case. For example if the parents where to die, and the guardian of the child/children, was a homosexual then that situation would clearly be preferable then a child being placed in care. I just mentioned it as yellum I think said in some thread he was a godfather to several children, a role which the dutties of in certain conditions would be toa take care of the child if anythign happened to the parents.

Ok woooahhh there, why did you quote me here? I never said otherwise!?! In fact I've said again and again the single parents, and gay couples are well able to raise a perfect happy and healthy child.
I never mentioned foster care, or anything like that. I meary said that a loving male/female couple can provide an excelent (possiably the best) environment in which to raise a child.

Atreides

Thats because i didnt quote you

Zulu

Originally posted by Skanger
Thats because i didnt quote you

my bad - sorry

boomdogman

Central to Vader's argument is the unfounded and baseless assertion that children raised by a gay couple will be gay. He has offered neither proof nor effort at validation for this claim. Relying, as he does, aon a series of self confirming assertions does not constitute not proof.

TO RECAP( and I darn well can without being condescending) I was raised in by a hetrosexual couple without any contact with or knowledge of homosexuality yet I always knew I wanted a man. Sexuality is not the button switching exercise vader implies.

This is not to ignore the implied homophobia of this arguement that it would be a verybad thing for a young person to be gay.

Gay adoption is happening around us, if not de jure, then de facto. Yes more latin.
QED stands for "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" and means "That which was to be demonstrated", a medieval (appropriate) sign off on the proof of a geometric theorem. Not alone was it not appropriate where it was used on this thread ,(the user had proven nothing, merely offered his opinion) but it was used in ignorance of the phrase's meaning or purpose.

Zulu

Originally posted by boomdogman
"That which was to be demonstrated", a medieval (appropriate) sign off on the proof of a geometric theorem. Not alone was it not appropriate where it was used on this thread ,(the user had proven nothing, merely offered his opinion) but it was used in ignorance of the phrase's meaning or purpose.

I've already explained my use of it (QED). I've already explained that the use was sarcastic; I was implying that the previous poster had proved nothing with their comment. How is that inappropriate? How was that usage in ignorance? I think if you read the original posts, and consider the point I was trying to make - with an open mind - you'll see that the usage is fine.

If everyone agreed in this world, very little would get done, and the world would be, frankly, boring. One should strive to appreciate an others points of view, as opposed to becoming defensive as soon as your own personal view is challenged. This creates enlightened opinions and ideas. Veiled insults are both childish and inappropriate, they also weaken the users arguments.

The original point is being lost on this thread. Perhaps because of homophobia, and perhaps, because, some are too easily distracted; too eager to champion a different cause.

monument

Originally posted by Zulu
I've already explained my use of it (QED). I've already explained that the use was sarcastic; I was implying that the previous poster had proved nothing with their comment. How is that inappropriate? How was that usage in ignorance?

Because I was not replying to just back up Beruthiel, but to rebut a comment saying that her experience was not wide spread in Ireland.

(I have explained this at least once before)

Can we get back on topic?

boomdogman

Probably cos the sarcasm translates badly in text, might have gotten it if twas in speech. Didnt mean to insult ya, sorry. Agree with you on appreciating the other persons point of view. I'm not good at that tho!

kc3po

Regardless of peoples opinions in this matter there are many children being raised by same sex parents (although mostly women) in this country right now. And it is only a matter of time, in my opinion sooner rather than later, that the adoption law will be challenged and amended to include same sex couples. But regardless of the adoption laws kids are still being brought into gay homes in a variety of ways: previous marriage, insemination, fostering.

As a parent with a same sex partner raising children and someone who knows quite a few similar families, I feel I can speak with some experience on this topic. For one thing having children for us is a major decision and rarely a burst or non existant condom. I've heard every argument against gays having kids and obviously disagree with them. I've read every book and every study available on the subject. The FACTS are that kids raised in gay homes turn out just fine. In fact it turns out that boys raised in lesbian homes are much more respectful of the women in there lives than those raised in heterosexual homes.

It is important for kids to have role models of different sexes. No argument here. For us it means providing our kids with male role models whom we choose. How many "normal" or single parent families do that. We play soccer, hurling, barbies, volleyball, cards and boardgames with our kids. Everything we do is based around the kids and what would make them happy and be best for them.They come first every time.

With regard to them being teased: We, unlike other parents, know in advance what they may be teased about. Our response, encourage them to be confident in who they are, to talk to us about things, and to stand up for themselves in a non agressive way. So far they have not experienced any negativity about our family. They are not ashamed but proud that they have 2 mammies. Their friends accept it totally (in fact some are jealous) because kids just accept the reality of what is, adults are the ones who complicate things.

Another point not addressed here is the fact that most children available for adoption are not cute little babies but in fact kids over the age of 9. And there aren't any well adjusted, rich, heterosexual childless couples lining up to give them "balanced" homes. And as for vetting people properly, in Dublin a significant number of homes where foster kids are living have not been checked out by the health board. This was on the news a couple of weeks ago. It would be interesting to see if adoption for gays was made legal how many of these older children would have homes. A great many I think.

I have no doubt that the decision we made was the right one and the only proof I need is in the faces of my children. Though far from being a perfect home, there's no such thing, our home is certainly a happy one.

ixoy

Now that's the best post so far in this thread - someone who knows what they're talking about. Encouraging too. Well done