can a child be properly raised with two gay parents? - no bigot crap please

[Coyote]

can you point out in his post where he used the term pedophile....because making shit up is pretty ignorant....

how 'bout the term "fox in the henhouse". how would you construe that?

Certainly sounds like a coy way of saying "pedophile" to me.

 

[manifold]

Define properly.

???

 

[JD_2B]

The question is not whether it CAN be done but whether it SHOULD be done. In my opinion, no matter how good a gay person is, it is terribly selfish to want to raise a child in that environment. I believe in their struggle for "equality" they set a terrible precedent by raising a child in an incredibly confusing environment.
It is not up for debate which method is better. It is already clear that it is better to have straight parents than gay guardians. From the moment they start learning, they are taught that gay unions are equal to legit marriages. The questions that arise in a child's mind must be horribly frustrating as outside influences begin to implant in the child's mind. Children should be focused on developing their personalities and skills while receiving balanced love from a mother and father in their highly impressionable youth.
They shouldn't be forced to grow up with guardians forcing an agenda on them. And it IS forced, believe you me. Even if they aren't forceful people. The fact that they think it is ok to raise youth in the gay environment is arrogant, selfish and wrong.
Arrogant because they think they know better than thousands of years of history proving their position wrong. Selfish because they do this trying to prove something, taking advantage of the impressionable youth's state of mind. Wrong because deep down inside everyone's heart, they know it is a poisonous environment.

Bull SHIT. That is such a bunch of horseshit!! I have a couple of good friends who are living together, raising a kid.. They are lesbians. Big deal. They are the only parents that the two of them know (besides me) who don't smoke pot, too.
I have raised my son, after divorcing, with a couple of live in boyfriends, outside of wedlock. Are you going to bring back the criminal statutes for that shit, too, claiming that it is OH SO immoral to give my kid the idea that it is okay to live together and <shock> FUCK before a couple gets married?
Get real, dude.
Many children HAVE been raised (for thousands of years, BTW) by being surrounded by MEN. Yes- men used to raise the kids, back when kids were allowed to work their fingers to the bone, out in the fields, or in the factories, right next to dear old dad, and all his MAN friends. NOW, kids who are with their Stay at home moms, still get surrounded by WOMEN, and that is in a heterosexual household.

The only ISSUES the kid has are really, having to deal with BIGOTRY. GOOD. This teaches them to have more tolerance for other people's ideas and lifestyles, later on in life. Bigotry DOES hurt..

But it is the BIGOTRY that is hurtful, not the FAMILIES that you are bigoted against, that do any real harm.

 

[del]

Glad you showed up...

i wouldn't miss your pontification for the world.

how's the magic u-trou treating you?

I don't know what the u-trou is but if you want more of my words, come to my other thread and chime in a little more

no thanks, moderation in all things.

 

[manu1959]

can you point out in his post where he used the term pedophile....because making shit up is pretty ignorant....

how 'bout the term "fox in the henhouse". how would you construe that?

i wouldn't....i would ask him to clarify what he means rather than jumping to conclusions.....

 

[manu1959]

can you point out in his post where he used the term pedophile....because making shit up is pretty ignorant....

how 'bout the term "fox in the henhouse". how would you construe that?

Certainly sounds like a coy way of saying "pedophile" to me.

should pedophiles be allowed to adpot.....

 

[jillian]

can you point out in his post where he used the term pedophile....because making shit up is pretty ignorant....

how 'bout the term "fox in the henhouse". how would you construe that?

i wouldn't....i would ask him to clarify what he means rather than jumping to conclusions.....

why would you do that if

a) it's obvious what it means; and
b) it's in keeping with all of his prior posts.

sorry... i don't need people to actually spell out what they mean when what they mean is apparent.

 

[Truthspeaker]

What are the real long term effects of being raised by two gay parents? Obviously there are kids who become successful no matter the home, but I am talking about what gives the best chances. I have read 'studies' that argue for both sides of the debate, but I don't really trust the researchers in this area because the chance for bias is so high and because there will never be a formula that proves it right wrong.

I'd like to ask you a few questions. Do you have children?
Were you raised by two straight parents your whole life or otherwise?
Are you straight or gay?
How many of your favorite school teachers were gay?
How many of your bff's are gay?
Are you religious or irreligious?
What city/area were you raised in?

Personally it seems very difficult to me for a kid to be raised properly in a house like this. The idea of daughters with 'daddy issues' gets joked about a lot, but it is a real problem and Id on't think no matter how much love came from two lesbian parents that this essential need will be made up for.

Did you have a close relationship with your dad?

There is also overwhelming statistics on issues with boys being raised by single moms in terms of crimes and other violent behaviour, and I don't see two women fixing this because the essential male role model isn't there. The downfalls run along the same path for a two men household.

I think the discussion is truly what is best between two scenarios:
1. Normal straight parents who stay married and show love to their children.(Single moms and disfunctional families don't fall in this category)
2. Gay guardians.

Boys often de velop serious issues in regards to women when their is no motherly precense around and they never became close to a woman while growing up. I also think kids see how their family is done and view that as 'natural' and I wonder how much that effects them when they start to envision their own family.

This is exactly the reason why gays want to adopt children. They want more people to accept their lifestyle so they teach the youngest and most impressionable people there are. Children. I don't think that is healthy for the child.

I think a non-'all gays will burn in hell' debate on this could be very interesting and I would like to hear from people who deal with this often or have done more research/thought into it.

I definitely don't believe all gays are going to hell. Judgment is God's only and he will judge each person according to the purity of their heart and actions. Although I believe homosexuality to be a sin, it is not a greater sin than any other. We all have different challenges and homosexuality is just one temptation people suffer from. Not everyone feels the temptation to murder, or steal, etc. Homosexuality is no different.

The way I see it, sexual orientation plays little, if any role in the upbringing of children. I have seen some really happy, well adjusted children from homosexual homes, and some really screwed up kids from hetero homes.

Did you grow up in the same home as these people? You may never know what demons they truly face or shames they would never tell anyone. It's easy to say that someone has grown up well balanced because they have a good job or no criminal record, but there may be hidden side effects and personal anguish that may never heal from coming from such an environment.

I

don't give a fuck whether the kid comes from a mom who dresses like a man, and a dad who dresses like a woman, or a couple of stuntmen, or circus freaks, even- raising a child has nothing to do with one's personal lifestyle choices, and everything to do with loving and providing for that child, the three needs- food shelter and clothing, as well as providing guidance and support in the child's own endeavors, whatever those might be.

Despite what some people think. Image is very important to children. The image we portray to others is often a symbol of what is going on in our personal lives. This is not up for debate. It's a fact. Although image is NOT everything, it certainly means a lot. We would all do well to consider our appearance in front of children especially. You never know how a child can take the message you give them by your appearance, even if you never say a word. Children have vivid imaginations that if unchecked can mutate into wild and horrid fantasies that were once based on the images they saw as a young child.

You see kids (usually on TV, because most parents aren't this supportive) climbing walls and stuff, because their dad is a stunt double somewhere, or kids doing awesome tricks on their bicycles, etc.. This is because their parents are supportive. A person does not have to be straight to support and encourage their child.

You are right, being supportive is not the issue. Anyone can be supportive, but that doesn't make an adoptee the child of any adopter. Support should be given by all parents and guardians, but that is not the only measure of the quality of a parent or guardian. It is in the teachings they support. Are they good teachings or bad teachings. Wise or foolish? Fantastic or realistic? Healthy or unhealthy? God knows.

Being a parent is much easier than people seem to want to make it out to be. We are ALL wingin' it, here.. Nobody really knows what the fuck is coming next, so all any of us can really do is try to encourage good habits, and high self esteem in our children.

There is nothing simple or easy about being a parent. That is because there is nothing simple or easy about the psychology of an individual. They all need to be listened to and nurtured properly. Caring mothers and fathers are best at this. Your response indicates that you have no children. If I am wrong please let me know and be sure to use as many f-bombs as you can so that you make sure I get the correct emphasis you are trying to put out. Thank you. Btw, some of us aren't winging it and do have a clue as to what's coming next as clear as the writing on any wall.

Giving a child the RIGHT to be THEMSELVES is a gift that MANY parents fail to do. I think, because of this, that lesbian and gay parents might actually be BETTER parents than straights, because they tend to be more broad-minded and supportive, emotionally.

This is one of the most prejudiced statements I've ever heard.
It's also one of the most erroneous.

Admittedly there may be certain psychological issues, but those issues will be there any way..

Not bloody likely. Where's your guarantee?

Like lacking a dad and having two lesbians as parents. Well, 2 is better than one, anyways.

That's heavily debatable on so many levels.

If the dad is not around, the dad is not around, and it makes not a hill of beans difference that there is an extra female in the house.

Where did you get your degree in child psychology? UC Berkeley?

I mean, two gay dads will not affect the kid, as long as mom is involved, too.

"will not affect the kid"? That is an utterly oblivious statement.

And if the other parent is dead or in and out of jail, or just not participating in the kid's life, then two same sex parents ARE STILL better than just having one parent, and whatever issues the kid has over missing the other biological parent are still going to exist anyways..

That's saying a lot, gay guardians are better than having dead parents or criminal parents. I have a better suggestion than both. Straight foster parents. But again, I think the original debate is what is better between traditional functional parents or gay guardians.

So whatev. =)

I think you said it right there. To you, "whatever" goes. There are no rules, no guidelines and certainly no history to learn from.

 

[manu1959]

how 'bout the term "fox in the henhouse". how would you construe that?

i wouldn't....i would ask him to clarify what he means rather than jumping to conclusions.....

why would you do that if

a) it's obvious what it means; and
b) it's in keeping with all of his prior posts.

sorry... i don't need people to actually spell out what they mean when what they mean is apparent.

he doesn't want gay pedophiles to adpot...seems a pretty reasonable position to me....

 

[jillian]

he doesn't want gay pedophiles to adpot...seems a pretty reasonable position to me....

i don't want any pedophiles to adopt. but given that wasn't what his response was to, you're going far afield.

the O/P inquired as to whether GAYS should adopt (not pedophiles)

sir hates-a-lot opined that gays adopting is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse...

stop defending the bigot.

 

[xotoxi]

Define properly.

Meaning that they eat with utensils and don't shit on the carpet.

 

[manu1959]

Define properly.

Meaning that they eat with utensils and don't shit on the carpet.

well that rules out quite a few folks from adopting....

 

[manu1959]

he doesn't want gay pedophiles to adpot...seems a pretty reasonable position to me....

i don't want any pedophiles to adopt. but given that wasn't what his response was to, you're going far afield.

the O/P inquired as to whether GAYS should adopt (not pedophiles)

sir hates-a-lot opined that gays adopting is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse...

stop defending the bigot.

i am not defending him and you know it....jumping to more conclusions based on statements that are not there....

he stated he didn't want gay pedophiles to adopt...

you claim his statement means something else.....i originally said one should ask him before jumping to conclusions....

sometimes i wonder why any of you are even here.....you all make up your minds and decide what everyone means before they type anything....

the burden of being right about everything must be great....

 

[Maple]

What are the real long term effects of being raised by two gay parents? Obviously there are kids who become successful no matter the home, but I am talking about what gives the best chances. I have read 'studies' that argue for both sides of the debate, but I don't really trust the researchers in this area because the chance for bias is so high and because there will never be a formula that proves it right wrong.

Personally it seems very difficult to me for a kid to be raised properly in a house like this. The idea of daughters with 'daddy issues' gets joked about a lot, but it is a real problem and Id on't think no matter how much love came from two lesbian parents that this essential need will be made up for. There is also overwhelming statistics on issues with boys being raised by single moms in terms of crimes and other violent behaviour, and I don't see two women fixing this because the essential male role model isn't there. The downfalls run along the same path for a two men household. Boys often de velop serious issues in regards to women when their is no motherly precense around and they never became close to a woman while growing up. I also think kids see how their family is done and view that as 'natural' and I wonder how much that effects them when they start to envision their own family.

I think a non-'all gays will burn in hell' debate on this could be very interesting and I would like to hear from people who deal with this often or have done more research/thought into it.

I think that any two people who love children can successfully raise a child in a warm, secure loving home as long as they act in the best interest of the child. Absolutely yes. And this from a right wing conservative.

In fact, I would much rather see a child in the home of 2 loving gay people, than I would a violent, careless, neglectful heterosexual couple. Which unfortunetly often happens.

 

[jillian]

i am not defending him and you know it....jumping to more conclusions based on statements that are not there....

he stated he didn't want gay pedophiles to adopt...

you claim his statement means something else.....i originally said one should ask him before jumping to conclusions....

sometimes i wonder why any of you are even here.....you all make up your minds and decide what everyone means before they type anything....

the burden of being right about everything must be great....

no...he said letting gays adopt was like letting the fox into the henhouse. that has specific implications and was intended to evoke a certain mindset.

it is not jumping to conclusions to take everything you know about a person, read something they write which is consistent with that person's prior statements and draw a conclusion.

i'm not right about everything. but one doesn't need to be a genius to have read someone's prior posts and put it together with a current statement.

 

[GHook93]

I personally think 2 gays are at a disadvantage than a hetro couple. Nevertheless I think can be good parents, but I still think prefer should be given to straight couples for adoption.

 

[manu1959]

i am not defending him and you know it....jumping to more conclusions based on statements that are not there....

he stated he didn't want gay pedophiles to adopt...

you claim his statement means something else.....i originally said one should ask him before jumping to conclusions....

sometimes i wonder why any of you are even here.....you all make up your minds and decide what everyone means before they type anything....

the burden of being right about everything must be great....

no...he said letting gays adopt was like letting the fox into the henhouse. that has specific implications and was intended to evoke a certain mindset.

it is not jumping to conclusions to take everything you know about a person, read something they write which is consistent with that person's prior statements and draw a conclusion.

i'm not right about everything. but one doesn't need to be a genius to have read someone's prior posts and put it together with a current statement.

so just so i am clear.....are you pro gay pedophile adpotion or against it....

 

[xsited1]

What are the real long term effects of being raised by two gay parents? ....

Good luck with that. The gay lobby is very, very powerful and gays are a protected class. Any studies which paint them in a negative light will most likely be censored.

 

[oki]

maybe theres a diference but thats not the same as less good.

when its 2 men, that doesnt mean there will be no important women in the kids life.

and the arguement that you dont want the kids to fall into the hands of gay pedofiles, is rediculous. any adopted kid can fall into the hands of pedofiles, whether its hetero or gay parents. gays are no more a risk group then heteros.

 

[Maple]

i am not defending him and you know it....jumping to more conclusions based on statements that are not there....

he stated he didn't want gay pedophiles to adopt...

you claim his statement means something else.....i originally said one should ask him before jumping to conclusions....

sometimes i wonder why any of you are even here.....you all make up your minds and decide what everyone means before they type anything....

the burden of being right about everything must be great....

no...he said letting gays adopt was like letting the fox into the henhouse. that has specific implications and was intended to evoke a certain mindset.

it is not jumping to conclusions to take everything you know about a person, read something they write which is consistent with that person's prior statements and draw a conclusion.

i'm not right about everything. but one doesn't need to be a genius to have read someone's prior posts and put it together with a current statement.

so just so i am clear.....are you pro gay pedophile adpotion or against it....

I don't think anyone is talking about a pedophile adopting ANY child, but just because someone is a homosexual does NOT mean they are pedophiles. Pedophiles are predominantely heterosexuals, not gays.