One Take on the Gay Parenting Issue

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Never ever believe any woman who assures you its okay for men to cry; its the oldest lie there is, older even than the fake orgasms. You may cry when your mom dies, thats it. They only say it to make themselves look respectable. But a man crying is the kiss of death to a relationship.

 

[3113]

I don't think you're getting the point of my posts.
As JBJ said, having a father and mother would be optimal.

I am getting the point of your posts. You think a mother and father would be optimal. I disagree. That's the point. And I make that disagreement because you and I assume JBJ (who I have on ignore) say that as it's obvious and a given--yet it's not.

What makes two moms less than optimal? Do you know someone raised by lesbians and so can say? If you don't know, then stop saying "it's best if there's a mom and dad..." Because you really don't know that. All you know is that YOU were raised that way. And you're having trouble imagining yourself in another scenario. The truth is, however, that kids can be raised in what you would consider really weird circumstances yet turn out fine. Raised by sister-moms with one distant dad. Raised by older brothers and sisters, or grandmother/grandfather. Kids have been raised on military bases by soldiers or in monasteries by monks--all male. Or in convents by nuns, all female.

And this was considered normal by them. It's all normal until they go to some other kid's home and see different. Then they think maybe they're not normal--They ask questions, the parents answer, and things go back to "normal." And the kids ends up either a good and fine human beings or really messed up. But it isn't till we see that result and what's lacking that we can trace what went wrong--being raised by soldiers, or being raised by those particular soldiers.

Optimal is nonsense. It's nonsense until and unless you can show that any other combination ends up with bad results. Bad results, not less-than-the-very-best results (whatever those may be). Because if "fine" is good enough for most families, then it should be good enough for one with lesbian parents. Why should they have to prove themselves better than typical parents who are doing "fine" not "best" even with a dad? Which is to say, your own feelings of love and admiration for your father, or dismay over gay friends unable to commit aren't enough to prove to me that I should take it for granted that "a dad/mom are best."

I'm calling it into question. I am not going to take it for granted without more evidence.

 

[Handley_Page]

Never ever believe any woman who assures you its okay for men to cry; its the oldest lie there is, older even than the fake orgasms. You may cry when your mom dies, thats it. They only say it to make themselves look respectable. But a man crying is the kiss of death to a relationship.

Well, I have to confess to two occasions when I cried as a grown-up.
One, when my wife died, but that was very slow in coming.
Two, when my dog died.
I was sat in the garden when my grand-children turned up. The lad looked at me, (he was about 8), put his arms round my neck, gave me a big kiss and went to tell his Grandma; "Grandad's crying. . . . .".
His sister came out and they both occupied a knee each until I felt better.

 

[PolyLvr]

I am getting the point of your posts. You think a mother and father would be optimal. I disagree. That's the point. And I make that disagreement because you and I assume JBJ (who I have on ignore) say that as it's obvious and a given--yet it's not.

What makes two moms less than optimal? Do you know someone raised by lesbians and so can say? If you don't know, then stop saying "it's best if there's a mom and dad..." Because you really don't know that. All you know is that YOU were raised that way. And you're having trouble imagining yourself in another scenario. The truth is, however, that kids can be raised in what you would consider really weird circumstances yet turn out fine. Raised by sister-moms with one distant dad. Raised by older brothers and sisters, or grandmother/grandfather. Kids have been raised on military bases by soldiers or in monasteries by monks--all male. Or in convents by nuns, all female.

And this was considered normal by them. It's all normal until they go to some other kid's home and see different. Then they think maybe they're not normal--They ask questions, the parents answer, and things go back to "normal." And the kids ends up either a good and fine human beings or really messed up. But it isn't till we see that result and what's lacking that we can trace what went wrong--being raised by soldiers, or being raised by those particular soldiers.

Optimal is nonsense. It's nonsense until and unless you can show that any other combination ends up with bad results. Bad results, not less-than-the-very-best results (whatever those may be). Because if "fine" is good enough for most families, then it should be good enough for one with lesbian parents. Why should they have to prove themselves better than typical parents who are doing "fine" not "best" even with a dad? Which is to say, your own feelings of love and admiration for your father, or dismay over gay friends unable to commit aren't enough to prove to me that I should take it for granted that "a dad/mom are best."

I'm calling it into question. I am not going to take it for granted without more evidence.

So, as a lesbian, you are basically saying men aren't necessary except for procreation? That's a little narrow minded, don't you think?

Optimal isn't nonsense, but it is rarely encountered in real life.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I firmly believe that I am correct, but I can't prove it because none of the gays or lesbians I've ever known have had children.

Oh, wait. I just remembered a female cousin who had 2 children and adopted 3 more. She then left her husband and abandoned her 2 natural children and moved in with the other 3 and a girlfriend. Of course the 3 she took with her are special needs and will never grow up "normal".

And in case you haven't guessed by my user name, I'm a believer in many forms of alternative relationships, so I have no quarrel at all with gays or lesbians, as such.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think you need to read more carefully, polylvr. What she said is that "fine" is good enough for hetero families, and "fine" should be good enough for same-sex families as well. She did not say that same sex families are guaranteed to be better-- in fact sh's saying that no family situation is guaranteed.

Your cousin sounds like she was delivered an ultimatum; "Get rid of the spazzes or lose your family!" She wasn't willing to desert children she'd made a commitment to, so she lost her family. Have you ever asked her?

3113 is het BTW, and sadly for me.

 

[PolyLvr]

I think you need to read more carefully, polylvr. What she said is that "fine" is good enough for hetero families, and "fine" should be good enough for same-sex families as well. She did not say that same sex families are guaranteed to be better-- in fact sh's saying that no family situation is guaranteed.
Hmm, I'll have to reread my posts. My belief is, in a perfect world, a man and a woman would be the preferable parenting arrangement. But I am also aware that this world is far from perfect. I cannot say for sure since I know no gays or lesbians with children (aside form my cousin), but I believe that gays and lesbians have the capacity to excel at parenting.

Your cousin sounds like she was delivered an ultimatum; "Get rid of the spazzes or lose your family!" She wasn't willing to desert children she'd made a commitment to, so she lost her family. Have you ever asked her?

3113 is het BTW, and sadly for me.

I won't go into details, but from what I've been told, she just kinda lost it for a while. Burned her bridges.
I understand she will only talk to her mother, no one else in her extended family.

My apologies to 3113 for misreading her orientation.

 

[Edward Teach]

It takes a village.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I won't go into details, but from what I've been told, she just kinda lost it for a while. Burned her bridges.
I understand she will only talk to her mother, no one else in her extended family.

My apologies to 3113 for misreading her orientation.

More like: "my apologies to 3113 for misreading her post."

 

[3113]

Look, what I'm questioning here is this constant use of the word "optimal" when it comes to lesbian parents. The minute two women try to raise a family, someone has to qualify it with: "Optimally, there should be a dad!" (like lesbians put dads under attack) and everyone else says, "Yes, you have a point."

Why do they have a point? Kids have been raised in all sorts of ways by all sorts of families. By nannies and monks, by tribes and elder siblings. Spartan males raised the boys away from their mothers, and Spartan women raised the girls away from their fathers. In the middle ages kids were raised by foster parents or those they were apprenticed to. A nuclear family, with only a mom/dad raising the kids, is fairly new and some would call it less than optimal because there's only two parents. There is certainly no evidence that I know of to say it is "optimal" to any other type of family, including that of a lesbian couple.

Which is why I think if a person really believes that gays can be good parents, and have a right to be parents, then they should question that "Well, optimally...." which implies reservations against gay parents AND facts to prove those reservations right. Because anyone saying "Optimally..." probably doesn't have those facts, nor, come to that, a definition for what they mean by "optimal."

So, what point, really, do they have?

 

[amicus]

That children canbe raised in the rubble of bombed out Berlin existing on boiled rats, is a fact related to me by a Luftewafe Pilot, an educated man, who came to the United States and acquired a teaching position at the University of Hawaii, the only man I ever met who knew more about everything that I did.

Since you object to the use of the word, 'optimal', for whatever reason, let us instead refer to the nature of the species and the sexes and the natural role assigned each by biology, physiology and psychology.

One should acknowledge that the past half century has certainly challenged conventional and tradition family structures and indeed the formerly natural roles of male and female in society.

But fifty years is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the history of the species and only a fool would take current views as definitive or functional.

For some women, one might even purport 'most' women, having a baby is their only means of finding completion to their life, to reproduce, nurse, nurture and raise an offspring.

Fathering a son, for many men, a boy child to follow in his footsteps, is a primary goal in life, to pass on the genes and appearance through family lines that generate a history to find pride and honor in.

It is truth that children can be raised under almost any circumstances but that does not make the case, it only adds an option and a less preferable one in the eyes of many and perhaps of nature.

In both gay men and lesbian women couples, it is the concept of the male that falls away in importance and is essentially left behind in favor of the more passive female role.

Women have achieved freedom and independence, or had it given to them by legislation and the courts and to some have shown that they did not earn and do not deserve that freedom by the flibbertigibbet actions they have taken.

1.3 million women each year in the United States, kill their babies while still in the womb while over 2 million adoptive parents each year are seeking children. What is missing in that equation?

It does not take great intellect to query why men seek men and women seek women for comfort and solace and why it is even an issue.

Ignore the reality if you will but to any rational person, something is dreadfully wrong in society and no one is seeking answers.

Amicus

 

[Lisa Summers]

Never ever believe any woman who assures you its okay for men to cry; its the oldest lie there is, older even than the fake orgasms. You may cry when your mom dies, thats it. They only say it to make themselves look respectable. But a man crying is the kiss of death to a relationship.

Oh, for goodness' sake.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's true. Your team hates men who cry. It makes you nervous and insecure. Tears is how girls cull out the sissies.

Another girl treachery is clothes. Girls always buy boys clothes that only milk & water sissies like to wear. And if a real boy wears this clown gear girls generally demand bribes not to laugh at him.

I can write an effing book about girl tricks.

 

[lisa123414]

Wow, good job trolls, your comments are honed and aimed….but wait, I just realized I am not a flibbertigibbet (with this word, ami shows his disdain for women)

Crying kills a relationship? Yeah, I suspect a relationship with a crocodile maybe. What really gets me in this “discussion” is the spouting off of just plain rude nonsense by two old trolls. I do not know either of these two from Adam, but suspect that due to their age, they were part of the “hands-off” generation of fatherhood. They never changed a diaper, missed a lot of events due to “building a career” and “supporting a family.” These are the guys who showed up late for dinner, if at all. They came home, they ate, they fell asleep on the couch.

Yep, a couple of regular cavemen, well guess what guys? Even then, the kids were raised by women. Whether a group of cavewomen, or perhaps your sensibilities would prefer the idea of a harem, the females worked together to raise your progeny.

As long as we are talking about what we think, no scientific proof required, then I will say that I believe that children should only be born to persons who are willing to put the time in, the time that a child requires –

-oh yeah, biology, in it’s infinite wisdom only gives children to those who are ready and able….

Balloney

 

[Pure]

answer to ami

ami 1.3 million women each year in the United States, kill their babies while still in the womb while over 2 million adoptive parents each year are seeking children. What is missing in that equasion?
----

a 't'.

try this one, ami: 1% of the US population are homeless*. a different 1% have two or more homes. a simple solution, here, as well!

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Statistics_and_demographics

 

[amicus]

Wow, good job trolls, your comments are honed and aimed….but wait, I just realized I am not a flibbertigibbet (with this word, ami shows his disdain for women)

Crying kills a relationship? Yeah, I suspect a relationship with a crocodile maybe. What really gets me in this “discussion” is the spouting off of just plain rude nonsense by two old trolls. I do not know either of these two from Adam, but suspect that due to their age, they were part of the “hands-off” generation of fatherhood. They never changed a diaper, missed a lot of events due to “building a career” and “supporting a family.” These are the guys who showed up late for dinner, if at all. They came home, they ate, they fell asleep on the couch.

Yep, a couple of regular cavemen, well guess what guys? Even then, the kids were raised by women. Whether a group of cavewomen, or perhaps your sensibilities would prefer the idea of a harem, the females worked together to raise your progeny.

As long as we are talking about what we think, no scientific proof required, then I will say that I believe that children should only be born to persons who are willing to put the time in, the time that a child requires –

-oh yeah, biology, in it’s infinite wisdom only gives children to those who are ready and able….

Balloney

~~~

A post worthy of quoting and reading again Lisa123414, in the usual fashion of attacking the messenger and foregoing a defense of your own position save criticism of the opponents.

Replace the pejorative 'caveman' with 'traditional and conventional' lifestyles that existed long before the feminists gained the upper hand or the louder voice and you find a more true assessment of the changes in society over a half a century.

It may come as news to you, my dear, but even same sex couples must be employed to support a family; thus one, or both, must be out in the market place while one or daycare, raises the child/children for them.

The 'male breadwinner' lifestyle still exists for many families , the mother cares for the children while the father provides. You may think that participation by changing diapers and preparing formula, et cetera, is ideal or 'optimum', those functions were and still are considered female tasks for which she is much better suited than the male.

There have been great changes in social more's and rather than foresee the future as an entirely gay and lesbian world with the old sexual roles repressed and vilified, I suggest it behooves one to consider the roots of the changes, the consequences of gay and lesbian parenting and possible alternatives to your Utopian concepts.

You are pushing an agenda and assuming a superior and righteous vision of the future without ever defending what you stand for aside from attacking those who disagree. That has become the typical left wing procedure as few will step up and defend their efforts to reinstitute slavery and oppressive government edicts that control and regulate the common man.

Most hetero two parent families are forced to seek employment because the size of government has grown so much and taxes are so high, all taxes; property, income, sales, luxury, hundreds of taxes that require in the income of two people to support a family.

I, for one, would like to see government reduced to about a tenth of its' current size which would allow a single breadwinner to support a family. Just how much that would impact your dreams of an unisex world I have no idea, but it might giver 'normal' people a chance to suceed with a traditional lifestyle.

There is also an underlying societal change as western industrial societies have moved into a 'service' style economy and essentially made the nature of, 'work' in society less physically demanding and more socially oriented which favors the nature of the passive nature of the female.

The 'natural' male tendencies are less in demand in a service economy which implies those attributes of what it formerly meant to be 'male', have changed but the nature of the man has not.

I do not know and can not predict the outcome of this quantum shift is societal behavior, but your gay pride parades with balloons and funny clothes claiming that you are the future has worn a little thin as society in general, is coming apart at the seams.

Doctors and hospitals are happy to perform the 1.5 million abortions American women have each year, they smile all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, two million parents are seeking to adopt children, foster homes are making big bucks, the schools cater to the bi-polar and autistic and neglected children in the millions, unemployment is rife, people are losing their homes, the cost of government increases each day, but you you, everything is beautiful and the future is so bright you wear shades.

Gimme a break...



amicus

 

[amicus]

ami 1.3 million women each year in the United States, kill their babies while still in the womb while over 2 million adoptive parents each year are seeking children. What is missing in that equasion?
----

a 't'.

try this one, ami: 1% of the US population are homeless*. a different 1% have two or more homes. a simple solution, here, as well!

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Statistics_and_demographics

~~~

There I fixed the 't' in equation, I hope your picky sensibilities are satisfied.

I suppose in your socialist view of the world, Pure, you would just take the second home from those who have and give it to those who have not?

The funny thing discovered on the way to the forum is that government edicts, driven by environmental fanatics through land mitigation and building codes plus higher property taxes, University fees only the wealthy can afford, you have driven the middle and lower class segments of our society into bankruptcy.

Of course, your solution is to simply nationalize everything, control the means of production and provide every citizen with a prefab home and MRE's.

Such a deal...

Ami

 

[Pure]

Originally Posted by Pure
ami 1.3 million women each year in the United States, kill their babies while still in the womb while over 2 million adoptive parents each year are seeking children. What is missing in that equasion?
----
a 't'.

pure: try this one, ami: 1% of the US population are homeless*. a different 1% have two or more homes. a simple solution, here, as well!

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeles...d_demographics
~~~

ami: There I fixed the 't' in equation, I hope your picky sensibilities are satisfied.

I suppose in your socialist view of the world, Pure, you would just take the second home from those who have and give it to those who have not?

Pure, current response: you miss the obvious point. you wouldn't dream of taking a rich person's second home and giving it to a homeless.

niether should you dream of taking or transferring babies from 'teen moms' (and others) and giving them to those wishing to adopt.

===

the rich man can burn down his second home if he pleases [assuming some things about continguity of other homes]. i have absolutely no say in the matter.

the 'teen mom' can get an abortion, simply for asking, up to three months along, and with a little more red tape, up to 6 mos.

and you, ami, have absolutely NO say in the matter.

 

[amicus]

Pure has a problem writing a cohesive thought with any form or content.

the 'teen mom' can get an abortion, simply for asking, up to three months along, and with a little more red tape, up to 6 mos.

and you, ami, have absolutely NO say in the matter.

The obvious point in my assertion was that instead of committing pre-meditated murder, your 'teen mom', could carry the child to term then give it up for adoption.

When it comes to the innate right of life I absolutely do have a say in the matter both with a vote to ban abortion forever and a vote on a jury to convict those who take innocent human life without cause.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

a few grams of potentiated tissue sitting inside an bodily organ is not yet a human life, ami.

And there's nothing you can do about that, either.

 

[amicus]

a few grams of potentiated tissue sitting inside an bodily organ is not yet a human life, ami.

And there's nothing you can do about that, either.[/QUOTE]

~~~

In the news today...as will be seen as a commercial during the upcoming Super Bowl, Heisman Trophy winning Quarterback for the Florida Gators was, at one time, ' a few grams of potentiated(what a weasle word) tissue....' ad nauseum....his mother was advised by her doctor to abort him because of an illness.

That is what 1.5 million, 'few grams' of life might become if only they were allowed to live.

The barbaric age of abortion will one day be viewed as the Salem Witch Trials are today, inhumane and cruel.

While still in the womb, a human female has 300 to 400 eggs that carry her entire genetic history and DNA.

Not that it relates in any way, but on a NOVA program on PBS last night, I learned that a Monarch Butterfly mates and gives birth to 300 to 400 baby flutterbys...they fly north for several hundred miles, mate....and die. The next generation flies north again for several hundred miles, mates...and dies. The third generation does the same thing...and dies...but the fourth generation, which is the puzzle, is born, flies all the way south to Mexico, goes basically dormant for five months, then mates....and dies...and her three to four hundred babies, who will live only a month or so, repeat the journey north all over again.

Life is precious and miraculous. One should respect it.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, grow up. If your Heisman Trophy winner had been aborted, someone else would have won the Heisman. You would have never noticed the difference.

As you point out, a woman carries a few hundred eggs in readiness. So what if she aborts one? There will be another one ready to go a month later.

Life is abundant, and hardly a miracle. And real life entails choices that you want to deny. People like you show no respect at all for the actual living people-- only the big romantic concept.

 

[stephen55]

I'm new here...........

I've only been around lit for a short time. What is a "flibbertigibbet"?

Damn!! It is in my Oxford Concise!!

Now, on with the thread. As a married (for the second time) hetero father of five, (yours, mine and ours), I think that children are definitely better off being raised with two parents. If I was the only parent of mine, which I was for a short time between marriage1 and marriage2, my children would likely have grown up to be right wing conservatives (Canada), gun totin' desecrater's of wildlife and drinkers of the Demon Rum as well. We needn't talk about cigars.

If my significant other was the only parent around, hers would likely have been unable to experience the joys of politics, guns, booze and cigars, not to mention fly-fishing. So how are our joint five doing? The jury is still out.

Remember when Dan Quayle took on Candice Bergen, over that TV show where she was about to become a single parent? Oh yes, Murphy Brown. Dan said something about how children of a single parent were at a disadvantage to those having two parents and thus, Candice was doing a disservice by promoting single parenthood. He, of course, got roasted.

Several months later, an article was published, I believe in Atlantic Monthly, entitled "Dan Quayle Was Right". The author had done a lot of homework and presented reams of studies showing how children of a single parent were at a whole host of disadvantages, mostly because of the financial problems that most single parents (usually moms) have. From education opportunities, future income, housing, nutrition, heath, taking part in sports, arts, music and down the line, single parent children had the short end of the stick.

I agree with all of that. I've seen it. We all have.

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, was there any evidence that the sex of the parent or parents had any effect on the outcome. Gay versus straight was irrelevant. It all came down to the advantage of two parent families having more money.

Money may not buy happiness, but when it comes to food, clothing and shelter, the stuff is very useful.

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

I was simply gonna cut out of this thread, but it won't die. It's gone from name calling, fetus swinging, fly fishing, peeing in a toilet to a discussion on abortion.

I only wanted to make one point.
The sex of either parent doesn't matter. Wise parent will produce good decision-making ability in children, again, not applicable to every situation, but as a general rule should apply.

What is optimal, antiquated thinking, peeing in a toilet and all the other comments that came spewing out don't matter a hill a beans. Crappy parents and good parents come in all shapes and varieties, lesbian, gay, straight, transsexual, transgendered and etc. I'm sure a fare share of those on this thread have many stories to tell, and could provide all kinds of awesome hunting in Canada stories, lessons on peeing and some downright hellish horror stories.

People make the difference in rearing a child, bottom line. If that couple be ff or mm or fm it simply doesn't matter. Below is a link to support this statement. And yes, I'm no Phd., doctoral student or statistician who can analyze meta-studies and historical rhetoric, but facts are facts, the world is changing. Nothing stands as it was forever.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

May your day and life be peaceful,

Esperanza

 

[stephen55]

Never could tell it straight...

Esperanza, I agree with you. The sex of the parent(s) make no difference.

I admit to a warped sense of humour and I seldom get to the point quickly, but that was my point.

I did, however, get sidetracked on the issue as to whether two parents are better than one. That's not to say that a single parent has anything to be ashamed of. I once was one.

Now, awesome hunting in Canada stories....I have a few.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pish Posh

Each sex contributes something different to the mix of parenting; any other conclusion is absurd and psychotic magical thinking.