nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

PDN

Certain individuals seem to be somewhat obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. To avoid the Forum being over-run with numerous threads on this subject, I am launching a MegaThread similar to the ones we already have on other subjects.

Please note that the Forum Charter still applies to megathreads - so try to treat each other with respect and courtesy, even if the subject is one that makes you hot and bothered.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

I do, but the commonalities are astoundingly, well common.

Which you've yet to prove. You're working from stereotypes.

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe this could be to do with the fact you had no father as an example to you? Something to consider. Are you perhaps showing the difference a father makes?

Nope, it's more the fact I don't like it when my kids get hurt (it's the crying, I hate it). I'm the same with my dogs too.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

I do, but the commonalities are astoundingly, well common.

But you've been given examples of how it is not common. You ignored them because you don't want to admit to them.

And even if they were commonalities, this does not exclude the possibility of two fathers or mothers providing what the gender does, nor does it show that you require all of the things that one gender supposedly supplies.

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe this could be to do with the fact you had no father as an example to you? Something to consider. Are you perhaps showing the difference a father makes?

And what precisely about that behaviour makes him deficient as a parent?

JimiTime

Sonics2k wrote: »

Which you've yet to prove. You're working from stereotypes.

No, I'm working from what I see everyday I take my kids to the park, see my friends, family etc with their children. they are not all identical, but there is no doubt commonalities, like the one I pointed out, that is most definately seen in the different genders. Proof wise, what do you want? Me to video it all?

Thats why I'm telling you all to start observing going forward. There'll be no eureka moment on the thread, as I'm sure you all realised a long time ago. But maybe some of yee will start to see what I've alluded to in the future.

Nope, it's more the fact I don't like it when my kids get hurt (it's the crying, I hate it). I'm the same with my dogs too.

Can't think of anyone who likes their kids getting hurt, I certainly don't. As I said, I think its fair to consider your behaviour, which would be more akin to a mothers reaction, down to a lack of a father. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such commonalities were found in children from similar backrounds.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

No, I'm working from what I see everyday I take my kids to the park, see my friends, family etc with their children. they are not all identical, but there is no doubt commonalities, like the one I pointed out, that is most definately seen in the different genders.

Can't think of anyone who likes their kids getting hurt, I certainly don't. As I said, I think its fair to consider your behaviour, which would be more akin to a mothers reaction, down to a lack of a father. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such commonalities were found in children from similar backrounds.

Do you have any idea how offensive you are being?

Perhaps sonics reaction is due to the fact that he is one of those 'have the first aid kit ready just in case' people I mentioned exist.

My nephew had no father - yet there could be a photo of him next to the word 'Lad' in the dictionary. Perhaps you would like to say that is because he didn't have a father either?

My great-grand father was a medic in WWI - won medals for bravery and was mentioned in dispatches. Perhaps that was because he didn't have a father either.

My brother cleans the house to relax, is a nervous nelly (forget the first aid, have an ambulance on standby) about his children. Perhaps that's because he didn't have a father...oh wait... He did.

Do stop trying to pigeon hole people based on your personal observations.

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

Can't think of anyone who likes their kids getting hurt, I certainly don't. As I said, I think its fair to consider your behaviour, which would be more akin to a mothers reaction, down to a lack of a father. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such commonalities were found in children from similar backrounds.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Their mother had no father when she was raised, and she's more than happy to let the kids do the crazy things. I'm happy to do so too, I just stand rather close ready to help.

Ironically, I'd cover the 'protective father' figure. And that's just how many men are. Some of us are very protective, others not so much.

Your logic only works if there is one set kind of natural father, and the world around us shows us you're wrong.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

I do, but the commonalities are astoundingly, well common.

Maybe this could be to do with the fact you had no father as an example to you? Something to consider. Are you perhaps showing the difference a father makes?

I have a father and have nieces and nephews, i'm always telling them to be careful. Sister is fine with them doing relatively dangerous things. :pac: Stop attempting to psychoanalyse people based on nothing There is not set criteria on how a mother or father behave. You base your statements on your own knowledge but our own knowledge tends to be flawed hence the need to research.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

I have a father and have nieces and nephews, i'm always telling them to be careful. Sister is fine with them doing relatively dangerous things. :pac: Stop attempting to psychoanalyse people based on nothing There is not set criteria on how a mother or father behave. You base your statements on your own knowledge but our own knowledge tends to be flawed hence the need to research.

Or their lives run in circles so small, they think they've seen it all to paraphrase Michelle Shocked.

Benny_Cake

Jimi, if your argument was that homosexuality is immoral according to your interpretation of scripture, and that as such same-sex couples were not appropriate parents, I could almost understand it. I would vehemently disagree with it, but I would understand it as a very conservative Christian view. But your argument seems to revolve around your own experiences of fathers and mothers, and your own view of gender roles. Surely you can see that this is utterly subjective - I personally don't know any same-sex couples raising kids, but that doesn't mean I can jump to sweeping conclusions about those that do, and I'd attach a good deal of credibility to the posters here in same-sex relationships who are bringing up kids, or the children of such relationships. I think that in a decade or two from now, discussions such as this will look rather quaint, everyone will know same-sex couples bringing up kids. Some will be doing a great job, others not so good, just like all the straight parents out there.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Can't think of anyone who likes their kids getting hurt, I certainly don't. As I said, I think its fair to consider your behaviour, which would be more akin to a mothers reaction, down to a lack of a father. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if such commonalities were found in children from similar backrounds.

Right, my head has gone sideways.

Sonic is a 'protective' father, a bit wary of seeing his children climb on flimsy branches and so forth. Given his openness regarding his background, you are able to speculate on what you think might have instilled this quality in him. Who knows? Maybe it WAS 2 Mums, maybe it's intrinsic to his nature, I suspect nobody will ever know.

So now tell me how the 'acquisition' of this character trait, whether down to nature or nurture, is relevant to the debate.

And now tell him how being a 'protective' father is somehow, in Jimi land, a character flaw, something that should have rightfully been avoided if he had had a father around.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

fair enough, you believe that this small example is without merit. I'd recommend you be more observant in the future.

I suggest you be more observant in the future, given that you're the one who is blind to all the "exceptions" out there

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you have any idea how offensive you are being?

Offence is taken not given. Its wholly reasonable in this context to question that MAYBE what I said is the case. If you want to bring your personal lives into it, you can't expect it all to be just 'Oh isn't that great'. Is that what you are looking for? Is that what you would expect, for example, from a person conducting a study?

Perhaps sonics reaction is due to the fact that he is one of those 'have the first aid kit ready just in case' people I mentioned exist.

maybe he is.

My nephew had no father - yet there could be a photo of him next to the word 'Lad' in the dictionary. Perhaps you would like to say that is because he didn't have a father either?

Not at all, I never said that a fatherless boy would be effeminate or something. My Nephew grew up fatherless due to his father being killed at 2 weeks old. In fact, if memory serves, it has been said that fatherless boys have on average, a bigger tendancy to be violent.

My brother cleans the house to relax, is a nervous nelly (forget the first aid, have an ambulance on standby) about his children. Perhaps that's because he didn't have a father...oh wait... He did.

Do stop trying to pigeon hole people based on your personal observations.

I'm not, I gave a possible reason for a type of behaviour that no-one seems to want to consider.

As I keep saying, just observe what you see in your playgrounds. There is no doubt you'll see commonalities after a while. I observed them long before this type of argument was ever brought to my attention, so its not like I even was looking for it.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

I suggest you be more observant in the future, given that you're the one who is blind to all the "exceptions" out there

deal. I'll be on the lookout more for the exceptions, and you can be on the lookout to.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Offence is taken not given. Its wholly reasonable in this context to question that MAYBE what I said is the case. If you want to bring your personal lives into it, you can't expect it all to be just 'Oh isn't that great'. Is that what you are looking for? Is that what you would expect, for example, from a person conducting a study?

maybe he is.

Not at all, I never said that a fatherless boy would be effeminate or something. My Nephew grew up fatherless due to his father being killed at 2 weeks old. In fact, if memory serves, it has been said that fatherless boys have on average, a bigger tendancy to be violent.

I'm not, I gave a possible reason for a type of behaviour that no-one seems to want to consider.

As I keep saying, just observe what you see in your playgrounds. There is no doubt you'll see commonalities after a while. I observed them long before this type of argument was ever brought to my attention, so its not like I even was looking for it.

Now sonic is more likely to be violent. And to think you said he wasn't a car crash....
No Jimi - offence is given when people make offensive statements. And you are making offensive statements.

Jimi - if you have based all you know about the human condition on what you have observed in playgrounds, driving the kids to school and watching other parents in your local area and now want to project that on to the rest of the world. Knock yourself out. But do not expect the rest of the world to sit back and say -'ah yeah, that Jimi - he's worked it all out based on observation of a hundred or so people who live on a small island off the western coast of Europe.' You are far more likely to be called 'narrow minded'.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Jimi, if your argument was that homosexuality is immoral according to your interpretation of scripture, and that as such same-sex couples were not appropriate parents, I could almost understand it. I would vehemently disagree with it, but I would understand it as a very conservative Christian view. But your argument seems to revolve around your own experiences of fathers and mothers, and your own view of gender roles. Surely you can see that this is utterly subjective - I personally don't know any same-sex couples raising kids, but that doesn't mean I can jump to sweeping conclusions about those that do, and I'd attach a good deal of credibility to the posters here in same-sex relationships who are bringing up kids, or the children of such relationships. I think that in a decade or two from now, discussions such as this will look rather quaint, everyone will know same-sex couples bringing up kids. Some will be doing a great job, others not so good, just like all the straight parents out there.

Firstly, there is no conservative Christian view and other Christian view. there is only the Christian view. You cannot reasonably argue in any way, that Christianity and homosexual sex is compatible. It simply isn't. You may want to hold this view, but you are a contradiction if you do. Either let your view on homosexual sex put you at odds with God, or trust in God. You really can't have it both ways. You view is in NO WAY Christian in this.

Now, as for the issue of the importance of fathers and mothers, well I'll tell you what I've told everyone else. Just keep your eyes open. See if you can see the common differences going forward, and see if you can see the importance that fathers and mothers play in a childs life.

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there is no conservative Christian view and other Christian view. there is only the Christian view. You cannot reasonably argue in any way, that Christianity and homosexual sex is compatible. It simply isn't. You may want to hold this view, but you are a contradiction if you do. Either let your view on homosexual sex put you at odds with God, or trust in God. You really can't have it both ways. You view is in NO WAY Christian in this.

Now, as for the issue of the importance of fathers and mothers, well I'll tell you what I've told everyone else. Just keep your eyes open. See if you can see the common differences going forward.

An illuminating post. As to whether I trust in God or not, I'll leave that to God. I'd be insulted, but then I've been termed a "bitter atheist" by another poster here recently so I'm used to it. Plainly anyone who has approached this in a prayerful manner and reached a different conclusions to you is not a Christian. You are entitled to your view, but it is one which is uncharitable, either towards the children of same sex couples as evidenced in your reply to Sonics, and to Christians who disagree with you.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, there is no conservative Christian view and other Christian view. there is only the Christian view. You cannot reasonably argue in any way, that Christianity and homosexual sex is compatible. It simply isn't. You may want to hold this view, but you are a contradiction if you do. Either let your view on homosexual sex put you at odds with God, or trust in God. You really can't have it both ways. You view is in NO WAY Christian in this.

Now, as for the issue of the importance of fathers and mothers, well I'll tell you what I've told everyone else. Just keep your eyes open. See if you can see the common differences going forward, and see if you can see the importance that fathers and mothers play in a childs life.

Go and tell that to the Church of Sweden. I think you'll find they hold the completely opposite view to the Roman Catholic Church.

No doubt you know better then the Swedish bishops because you have watched parent's in the playground...

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jimi - if you have based all you know about the human condition on what you have observed in playgrounds, driving the kids to school and watching other parents in your local and now want to protect that on to the rest of the world. Knock yourself out. But do not expect the rest of the world to sit back and say -'ah yeah, that Jimi - he's worked it all out based on observation of a hundred or so people who live on a small island off the western coast of Europe.' You are far more likely to be called 'narrow minded'.

I've based what I know on THIS topic, not 'the human condition' on my observations of parent child relationships I've witnessed, and that I've been involved in, and simple common sense. Although its never even been a question until recently, I've always noticed the differences. Until recently, these observances would probably have been taken as common sense too and no big deal.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

I've based what I know on THIS topic, not 'the human condition' on my observations of parent child relationships I've witnessed, and that I've been involved in, and simple common sense. Although its never even been a question until recently, I've always noticed the differences. Until recently, these observances would probably have been taken as common sense too and no big deal.

What are some examples of these difference you have noticed jimmitime ?

yawha

JimiTime wrote: »

I do, but the commonalities are astoundingly, well common.

So, just to clarify, you're basing this on commonalities, not inherent male/female attributes?

And therefore you oppose same sex adoption based on a statistical likelihood that the couple will not possess optimal parental traits?

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

I've based what I know on THIS topic, not 'the human condition' on my observations of parent child relationships I've witnessed, and that I've been involved in, and simple common sense. Although its never even been a question until recently, I've always noticed the differences. Until recently, these observances would probably have been taken as common sense too and no big deal.

Jimi - you wanted us to think and be honest. I honestly think you are narrow minded.

I have lived all over the world, I have worked with people of all colours, most creeds, a good few nationalities. I have worked with and for adults and children from kindergarten to university and not for one second do I feel qualified to pontificate as to what the norm for parenting is.

There is far too much diversity in the world.

I do know we all share the same needs. We need to feel secure, to feel loved, to have enough food, somewhere safe to live.

But you - in your drive to work, time in the playground and observations of a few parents deem yourself equipped to state with absolute certainty that your world view is correct and all the other people here are wrong.

To 'narrow minded' I must add unbelievably arrogant.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

Although its never even been a question until recently, I've always noticed the differences. Until recently, these observances would probably have been taken as common sense too and no big deal.

Again, even if these differences where set in stone (which even you know isn't true) there is nothing, not even in you apparently all knowing, infallible powers of observation that suggest that gay parents cannot fill these set gender roles adequately. Further even if these gender specific benefits exist (again, which you've failed to show and are ignoring counter examples) there is nothing to suggest that both genders are required to have an equally beneficial effect.

The only way to make the conclusions you are reaching fairly, accurately, free from bias and in a way that allows you to make the sweeping generalisations you are is to do well controlled scientific studies that compare gay and straight parents.
But again these have been done and they do not support you.

Your style of closed minded, assumed on faith common sense is rarely consistent with reality.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

An illuminating post. As to whether I trust in God or not, I'll leave that to God. I'd be insulted, but then I've been termed a "bitter atheist" by another poster here recently so I'm used to it. Plainly anyone who has approached this in a prayerful manner and reached a different conclusions to you is not a Christian. You are entitled to your view, but it is one which is uncharitable, either towards the children of same sex couples as evidenced in your reply to Sonics, and to Christians who disagree with you.

Not at all, it would be uncharitable of me not to tell you the Christian position and wimp out of my responsibility as a Christian. Its not to insult you, its to call for you to wake up.

Maybe you'd like to present your case as to how homosexual sex is not sinful in terms of God?

Also, I appreciate straight talking. I could have ignored what Sonics said, but he has been very forthcoming with details about his life. He's put it out there for scrutiny. Now why would I patronise him about it? When he gave his account, I said what I thought. Funnily enough, sonics hasn't got back to say he's offended. he may think I'm nuts, but I'm hoping he took it as it was meant, with no ill will. Just an honest thought. People love getting offended for others. I think it gives them a sense of righteousness.

As probably the most heinous sinners of all of us here, as I'm a hypocrite in my faith, I've nothing to feel righteous about. However, something I value in others is honesty, so I try to give it to others too. Others are more adept at dressing it up, more tactful if you will, but it stands, I was not being malicious.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jimi - you wanted us to think and be honest. I honestly think you are narrow minded.

I have lived all over the world, I have worked with people of all colours, most creeds, a good few nationalities. I have worked with and for adults and children from kindergarten to university and not for one second do I feel qualified to pontificate as to what the norm for parenting is.

I've worked and lived in few different nations myself with many different creeds and nationalities. And I've always had great conversations with them about all sorts of great topics. Always hated the whole 'Don't talk politics or religion' nonsense. Its like, what real interesting stuff is left??
Anyway, I don't claim to be a parenting expert, as you seem to be making out, though I'd certainly be a confident parent. What I know, is that I am important in my childs raring, and could not adequately be replaced by another woman. Same goes for my wifes role.

But you - in your drive to work, time in the playground and observations of a few parents deem yourself equipped to state with absolute certainty that your world view is correct and all the other people here are wrong.

I deem myself confident enough to declare that fathers or mothers are not inconsequential to a childs upbringing, and that men and women bring different qualities to parenting which together act as a very complimentary unit giving a child the best balance it could have.

To 'narrow minded' I must add unbelievably arrogant.

If what I've said you believe amounts to arrogance, then call me arrogant.

i also prefer those up front insults than those disingenuous 'i feel sorry for you' or 'you make me chuckle' ones. So kudos for that

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

I've worked and lived in few different nations myself with many different creeds and nationalities. And I've always had great conversations with them about all sorts of great topics. Always hated the whole 'Don't talk politics or religion' nonsense. Its like, what real interesting stuff is left??
Anyway, I don't claim to be a parenting expert, as you seem to be making out, though I'd certainly be a confident parent. What I know, is that I am important in my childs raring, and could not adequately be replaced by another woman. Same goes for my wifes role.

I deem myself confident enough to declare that fathers or mothers are not inconsequential to a childs upbringing, and that men and women bring different qualities to parenting which together act as a very complimentary unit giving a child the best balance it could have.

If what I've said you believe amounts to arrogance, then call me arrogant. i also prefer those up front insults than those disingenuous 'i feel sorry for you' or 'you make me chuckle' ones. So kudos for that

Indeed, you and your wife are important in your child's rearing.

I and my OH were important in my child's rearing.

For children with only one parent - that parent is important in that child's rearing.

Guess what - parents - plural or singular - are important in a child's rearing.

Are you going to tell me that because your child has a father and a mother that your child will be better reared than mine?

Are you going to tell Koth that his rearing was lesser than your child is experiencing as he had no mother?

Are you really that arrogant?

Your family works for you. As it should, it is your family after all.
My family worked for me. It worked for my son. It is my family and I love it just as much as you love yours.

Sometimes a family doesn't work and having a mother and a father won't make it work. Having two adults who love and respect each other, who support each other, who love their family - that makes it works. It has nothing to do with gender.

Or having one parent can work too - but it can be damn hard and much respect is due to those who can parent alone without the support of another adult.

But just because your family works for you Jimi, that doesn't give you the right to deny others their family. Or to insist that your model is the only viable one. It may be optimal for you but do not, in your arrogance, project that onto others and view their model as deserving of lesser rights than yours just because it is different.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Your style of closed minded, assumed on faith common sense is rarely consistent with reality.

I beg to differ. I just think if you really want to form an opinion based in reality, then the reality is all around you. This is not something that requires a lab. Just go looking honestly for yourself. What YOU conclude after honestly observing things on an ongoing basis, will be a much more valuable insight than the stories and opinions of strangers on an internet forum. If you conclude the same as you do now, then so be it.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

I beg to differ. I just think if you really want to form an opinion based in reality, then the reality is all around you. This is not something that requires a lab. Just go looking honestly for yourself. What YOU conclude after honestly observing things on an ongoing basis, will be a much more valuable insight than the stories and opinions of strangers on an internet forum. If you conclude the same as you do now, then so be it.

Can I ask you again Jimmi for some examples that you have noticed ?

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, I don't claim to be a parenting expert, as you seem to be making out, though I'd certainly be a confident parent. What I know, is that I am important in my childs raring, and could not adequately be replaced by another woman. Same goes for my wifes role.

So you're not an expert or know anything about the science, but you are confident enough to declare that you are an adequate sample to determine something for the entire population. And at the same time you are able to dismiss other, conflicting examples and comment on other people's parenting....:rolleyes:

Sorry jimi, not how the real world works.

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, it would be uncharitable of me not to tell you the Christian position and wimp out of my responsibility as a Christian. Its not to insult you, its to call for you to wake up.

Maybe you'd like to present your case as to how homosexual sex is not sinful in terms of God?

It has been pointed out that there is no single Christian position. The ructions in the Anglican communion are a perfect example of that. Obviously you could argue that the Anglicans on the liberal/moderate end of the spectrum, such as Desmond Tutu, are not Christians, but that's just an opinion. I'm quite awake when it comes to this issue, I assure you. Of course homosexual sex can be sinful, just as heterosexual sex can. My approach is to try to look at human relationships in the light of the love that God has shown for us through Christ - a selfless love which gives to others, as opposed to an abusive, selfish, self-gratification. I'll be straight up and say that I'm not a biblical literalist, just someone who has come through some tough times in life and found great hope and comfort in the Christian message and the person of Jesus Christ. I accept that others feel differently to me - if they didn't, we wouldn't need this thread.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, I appreciate straight talking. I could have ignored what Sonics said, but he has been very forthcoming with details about his life. He's put it out there for scrutiny. Now why would I patronise him about it? When he gave his account, I said what I thought. Funnily enough, sonics hasn't got back to say he's offended. he may think I'm nuts, but I'm hoping he took it as it was meant, with no ill will. Just an honest thought. People love getting offended for others. I think it gives them a sense of righteousness.

As probably the most heinous sinners of all of us here, as I'm a hypocrite in my faith, I've nothing to feel righteous about. However, something I value in others is honesty, so I try to give it to others too. Others are more adept at dressing it up, more tactful if you will, but it stands, I was not being malicious.

Fair enough, if I was over the top in what I said about your remark to Sonics then I apologise. I certainly have nothing to feel righteous about either, I'm a sinner like any other. Can I put it to you this way, I've met plenty of protective (and over-protective) Dads, mainly from classic nuclear families. Surely we can only judge parents on their merits? If one became a good father/mother simply because of their gender, if the necessary skills for childrearing was hard-coded, that would be great, but the reality of our world seems to tell a different story.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

I beg to differ. I just think if you really want to form an opinion based in reality, then the reality is all around you. This is not something that requires a lab. Just go looking honestly for yourself. What YOU conclude after honestly observing things on an ongoing basis, will be a much more valuable insight than the stories and opinions of strangers on an internet forum. If you conclude the same as you do now, then so be it.

So how are you excluding statistical anomalies?
How are you excluding any biases you might have?
How are you excluding the possibility that you are viewing a skewed sample?
How are you excluding the possibilities other than the hypothesis you are testing?
How are you ensuring that you are comparing a representative sample with a similar sample of gay parents?

And more importantly, how do you know that your observations and conclusions are superior to ours?

If you can't actually provide answers to any of these, then you position is nonsense and no match to actual science.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed, you and your wife are important in your child's rearing.

I and my OH were important in my child's rearing.

For children with only one parent - that parent is important in that child's rearing.

Guess what - parents - plural or singular - are important in a child's rearing.

Of course, that goes without saying.

Are you going to tell me that because your child has a father and a mother that your child will be better reared than mine?

No, I don't know you or your child. My children are also much to young too make any statements about how great we are as parents.
No doubt it will be seen over time though [joke]

Parenting is MORE than just 'you have a mam and dad, so you are automatically better rared than the kid from the lesbian woman'. Never have I argued that. All things being equal though, a mother AND a father is the optimum environment. Again, just to clarify, that does not equate to every child raised my a mom and dad is better off than any child raised in any other way.
The argument is this, that men and women bring different things to the parenting table in general. Most of which is down to intrinsic differences in how men and women think and act in general. The differences in maternal and paternal feelings about their child etc. So the argument in terms of adoption, is that if a qualifying nuclear household is available, then it should be given precedent over any other makeup.

Are you going to tell Koth that his rearing was lesser than your child is experiencing as he had no mother?

It would be tasteless to talk about it in terms of my kids, but I'd have no problem in believing that Koth lost out on a fairly substantial part of his life. Just like my own nephew lost out on having a father, and one of my own best friends lost out on having his mother. Sure they'd tell you that themselves I'm sure. I know my nephew and my friend would have loved to have them in their lives. We will never be able to reboot their lives to compare them as people to if they had these people in their lives neither. Such is the reality of our heinous enemy death.

Are you really that arrogant?

Again, if you belive what I've said is is arrogant, then call me arrogant:)

Your family works for you. As it should, it is your family after all.
My family worked for me. It worked for my son. It is my family and I love it just as much as you love yours.

Again, I'm not saying differently. I'm saying children are BETTER OFF with a mother and a father, not that they'll be suicidal donkey rapists without them.

Sometimes a family doesn't work and having a mother and a father won't make it work.

Can't disagree with that. However, in terms of adoption, you want to give a child the best chance you can. And when available, a qualifying mother and father is the only game in town. You will be giving a child both male and female role models, and all the complimentary traits that men and women bring to the parenting table.

Having two adults who love and respect each other, who support each other, who love their family - that makes it works. It has nothing to do with gender.

i agree with the absolutely HUGE importance of those things, but add to that both male and female role models and thats whats best.

Or having one parent can work too - but it can be damn hard and much respect is due to those who can parent alone without the support of another adult.

Again, no-ones saying 'It can't work'. I'm saying that there is a best scenario, and when it comes to adoption, this best option, for the sake of the child irrespective of the fights of a pressure group, should always be the number one priority.

But just because your family works for you Jimi, that doesn't give you the right to deny others their family.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I'm saying, lets give children up for adoption the best we possibly can.

Or to insist that your model is the only viable one. It may be optimal for you but do not, in your arrogance, project that onto others and view their model as deserving of lesser rights than yours just because it is different.

I'm sorry, but whats best for the child, and not the rights that someone believes that they are entitled to is whats important in this. Again, if this is arrogance in your opinion, then call me arrogant.