The New Definition of Gay Tolerance..Just what Those Opposed Thought it WAS!!

[dmp]

It's pure hysterics to believe that any child will be damaged if they learn that not all families fit a Christian-cookie-cutter mold...Oh, The Horror!

And it's pure Reality that the Biblical/Traditional model of a 'family' is BEST. Single parent families? Not as good. Doable...but not ideal. Homosexual-lead families? Horrible. It'll keep 'shrinks' in business, I suppose..

 

[Gem]

missileman wrote:

It's pure hysterics to believe that any child will be damaged if they learn that not all families fit a Christian-cookie-cutter mold...Oh, The Horror!

Actually, its fairly well-documented that people who are raised in single-parent homes, for instance, suffer many more obstacles and hurdles and are statistically more likely to end up involved with crime, having trouble in school, more likely to experiment with drugs, sex at an earlier age, etc.

Now...before you flip out, please use your brain. I am married to a man raised by a single mother who overcame a drug and alcohol addiction while raising him. He's a Captain in the Air Force presently attending one of the best law schools in the nation...obviously his single-parent upbringing didn't "ruin" him. One of my bridesmaids was raised by her mother and her mother's girlfriends. Her mother, her mother's partner, and her mothers ex-partner were all at attendance at my wedding. My friend didnt turn out too damn bad either (although she is lousy with money...wonder if there's a correlation??? )

Everyone knows that there are exceptions and that kids can turn out screwed up in the perfect setting and normal as all hell in the most screwed up setting. However, most people also acknowledge the problems inherent with non-ideal settings and are informed about the statistical challenges facing kids being raised in non-ideal settings. Read "Freakonomics" for an interesting and well-researched look at the challenges facing single-parent kids.

Now...what would be USEFUL...is a debate as to whether not having two parents of opposite sexes as role models is the key element to the best chance for success or whether poverty, lack of education of the parent, or the amount of importance the parent puts on education, safety, supervision of children, is the issue.

This would actually get the conversation about gay people adopting out of the "You hate gays....you're a Christian bigot! You smell!" "Oh yea! Well those kids'll wind up dumb and immoral...gay people shouldn't raise kids! Poopy butt!" toilet and into educated discourse where it belongs.

 

[mattskramer]

Give up your fantasies. A woman can never be a real "daddy" no matter how much she works at it.

A mommy or a daddy – there is not that much real significant difference except in anatomy at least when it comes to raising a child. As far as raising a child, at the very least, I think that it is better that a child be raised by a loving couple (even if that couple is of the same sex) than by an orphanage. A child can have two caring adults who happen to be of the same gender. It doesn’t take an egg donor to be a “real” mommy.

 

[mattskramer]

HOMOSEXUALS who adopt kids are NOT loving parents - they are selfish people who insist on force-feeding abnormal sexual addiction upon the lives of young people.

Certainly homosexuals who adopt kids are loving parents. They are likely to be more loving than the people who gave kids away. The homosexuals are no more selfish than are heterosexual people who force-feed their views or behaviors or addictions upon the lives of young people.

This isn't about NORMAL people who want to create a NORMAL, Healthy Family. It's about ABNORMAL people who want to create an UNHEALTHY family, and in turn, eventually, a destroyed society.

The word normal is relative, subjective and variable. Is it normal to smoke? Should people who smoke and who think that smoking is normal be allowed to have children. It can be said that they are selfish people who insist on force-feeding abnormal addiction upon the lives of young people.

 

[dmp]

Certainly homosexuals who adopt kids are loving parents. They are likely to be more loving than the people who gave kids away. The homosexuals are no more selfish than are heterosexual people who force-feed their views or behaviors or addictions upon the lives of young people.

Force-feeding heterosexuality? Wha? Heterosexuality is biology. It's normal. It's Nature. Homosexuality isn't any of those things - but it's a choice based upon some motivation, for members of one sex to enjoy having sex with others of the same sex.

It can be said that they are selfish people who insist on force-feeding abnormal addiction upon the lives of young people.

That just might be true.

 

[Gem]

Mattskramer Wrote:

The homosexuals are no more selfish than are heterosexual people who force-feed their views or behaviors or addictions upon the lives of young people.

Hold up...I want to make sure I am reading you correctly.

You are saying that homosexuals are no more selfish than heterosexuals who force their views (such as religious or political views) or behaviors (such as bad tempers or emotional eating) upon the lives of young people. Correct?

 

[Dr Grump]

I accept the world for what it is. I don't use technology to try to warp biology to accomadate my own desires.

Really? You've never had a surgical procedure?

Says you. Got any proof?

Never seen or heard a god. That'd good enough for me. You cannot prove that a god exists. You have faith. That's it.

And you're just another version of Dr. Moreu, warping what nature has created to fit what you want it to be. There's no way to make gay relationships normal, and all of these feeble attempts to do so only make things worse.

A gay relationship is normal to them. Just like you running the 100 metres in 20 seconds is normal for you compared to the world record holder who can run it in under 10 seconds. Back in the day you would have burning people at the stake. Conservatives naturally do not want things to change. If non-conservatives had listened to conservatives the sun would still be revolving around the Earth, the Earth would be flat and lightening would have been caused by angry gods...

 

[dmp]

Never seen or heard a god. That'd good enough for me. You cannot prove that a god exists. You have faith. That's it.

Circular "logic". You cannot prove god doesn't exist. You have Faith god doesn't exist. That's it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A mommy or a daddy – there is not that much real significant difference except in anatomy at least when it comes to raising a child. As far as raising a child, at the very least, I think that it is better that a child be raised by a loving couple (even if that couple is of the same sex) than by an orphanage. A child can have two caring adults who happen to be of the same gender. It doesn’t take an egg donor to be a “real” mommy.

So you think there is no significant difference other than between a dike and a daddy?

I don't know whether to or

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
That's right. Adoptive parents are NOT the real parents.

That might well be one of the most ignorant, evil statements I have ever seen.

Aw, did that FACT bruise your liberal sensibilities? Whenever you liberals call us "evil" it's almost certain we won the argument. :dev1:

I'm sure you didn't like reading that fact because it doesn't help the liberal argument that attempts to justify homosexual parenting because we allow heterosexuals to adopt children and become "parents". Liberals like to say these heterosexuals are now the child's "real" parents and so it follows that homosexuals can also become "real" parents. However even the heterosexuals are not the "real" parents and never can be.

If we point out that heterosexuals can substitute for the real parents because they are a MAN and a WOMAN exactly like the real parents are a man and a woman, it destroys the idea that homosexuals can equally substitute for the real parents as they are NOT a man and a woman.

 

[Dr Grump]

Circular "logic". You cannot prove god doesn't exist. You have Faith god doesn't exist. That's it.

No i have proof god doesn't exist. I have never seen/heard him/her. Nobody I know has, or can prove they have. I can prove certain things do exist. I also have faith the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist. Using your "logic" they do exist to some...which is just fine...

 

[MissileMan]

HOMOSEXUALS who adopt kids are NOT loving parents - they are selfish people who insist on force-feeding abnormal sexual addiction upon the lives of young people.

That is perhaps the most intolerant, bigoted, piece of horseflop I've ever seen you post. You have no ******* idea what motivates gay couples to seek adoption.

 

[MissileMan]

And it's pure Reality that the Biblical/Traditional model of a 'family' is BEST. Single parent families? Not as good. Doable...but not ideal. Homosexual-lead families? Horrible. It'll keep 'shrinks' in business, I suppose..

I agree that one mom/one dad is the ideal...that doesn't make all of the other possibilities unacceptable. Perhaps you can explain how a child raised by a single women or man is a better arrangement than a child raised by 2 women or 2 men.

 

[MissileMan]

missileman wrote:


Actually, its fairly well-documented that people who are raised in single-parent homes, for instance, suffer many more obstacles and hurdles and are statistically more likely to end up involved with crime, having trouble in school, more likely to experiment with drugs, sex at an earlier age, etc.

Now...before you flip out, please use your brain. I am married to a man raised by a single mother who overcame a drug and alcohol addiction while raising him. He's a Captain in the Air Force presently attending one of the best law schools in the nation...obviously his single-parent upbringing didn't "ruin" him. One of my bridesmaids was raised by her mother and her mother's girlfriends. Her mother, her mother's partner, and her mothers ex-partner were all at attendance at my wedding. My friend didnt turn out too damn bad either (although she is lousy with money...wonder if there's a correlation??? )

Why would I flip out? I am aware of the data and am not arguing against it.

Everyone knows that there are exceptions and that kids can turn out screwed up in the perfect setting and normal as all hell in the most screwed up setting. However, most people also acknowledge the problems inherent with non-ideal settings and are informed about the statistical challenges facing kids being raised in non-ideal settings. Read "Freakonomics" for an interesting and well-researched look at the challenges facing single-parent kids.

Now...what would be USEFUL...is a debate as to whether not having two parents of opposite sexes as role models is the key element to the best chance for success or whether poverty, lack of education of the parent, or the amount of importance the parent puts on education, safety, supervision of children, is the issue.

This would actually get the conversation about gay people adopting out of the "You hate gays....you're a Christian bigot! You smell!" "Oh yea! Well those kids'll wind up dumb and immoral...gay people shouldn't raise kids! Poopy butt!" toilet and into educated discourse where it belongs.

I'm of the opinion that any normal kid raised by a good parent or parents will turn out ok. It would be wonderful if every child could grow up in the perfect family with a perfect mom and perfect dad. You and I both know that's not a realistic expectation.

 

[mattskramer]

Force-feeding heterosexuality? Wha? Heterosexuality is biology. It's normal. It's Nature. Homosexuality isn't any of those things - but it's a choice based upon some motivation, for members of one sex to enjoy having sex with others of the same sex.

I stand by my statement. I am not going to argue whether or not homosexuality is normal. Such an issue is irrelevant. Things that are normal are not necessarily good. Things that are not normal are not necessarily bad. Smoking is not normal but it is certainly allowed, even when children are present. A parent, or any adult for that matter, is free to tell a child that, as far as he is concerned, homosexuality is normal or anything else for that matter. People have a right to be wrong. Heterosexuality is a choice based upon some motivation, for members of one sex to enjoy having sex with members of the opposite sex.

You are saying that homosexuals are no more selfish than heterosexuals who force their views (such as religious or political views) or behaviors (such as bad tempers or emotional eating) upon the lives of young people. Correct?

Yes. That is fairly accurate. I’m sorry that I can’t explain my point more clearly. Ultimately, it is up to parents to raise and teach children. Many people from various walks of life try to convince people, including children, that their views, behaviors, etc are okay. Parents force religious view, opinions on smoking, eating habits, and a variety of other things onto their children (and, to some extent, other people’s children).

 

[Gem]

mattskramer wrote:

Yes. That is fairly accurate. I’m sorry that I can’t explain my point more clearly. Ultimately, it is up to parents to raise and teach children. Many people from various walks of life try to convince people, including children, that their views, behaviors, etc are okay. Parents force religious view, opinions on smoking, eating habits, and a variety of other things onto their children (and, to some extent, other people’s children).

Thank you for the clarification...you expressed yourself perfectly...I was just having a slow moment.

 

[nt250]

missileman wrote:


Actually, its fairly well-documented that people who are raised in single-parent homes, for instance, suffer many more obstacles and hurdles and are statistically more likely to end up involved with crime, having trouble in school, more likely to experiment with drugs, sex at an earlier age, etc.

Now...before you flip out, please use your brain. I am married to a man raised by a single mother who overcame a drug and alcohol addiction while raising him. He's a Captain in the Air Force presently attending one of the best law schools in the nation...obviously his single-parent upbringing didn't "ruin" him. One of my bridesmaids was raised by her mother and her mother's girlfriends. Her mother, her mother's partner, and her mothers ex-partner were all at attendance at my wedding. My friend didnt turn out too damn bad either (although she is lousy with money...wonder if there's a correlation??? )

Everyone knows that there are exceptions and that kids can turn out screwed up in the perfect setting and normal as all hell in the most screwed up setting. However, most people also acknowledge the problems inherent with non-ideal settings and are informed about the statistical challenges facing kids being raised in non-ideal settings. Read "Freakonomics" for an interesting and well-researched look at the challenges facing single-parent kids.

Now...what would be USEFUL...is a debate as to whether not having two parents of opposite sexes as role models is the key element to the best chance for success or whether poverty, lack of education of the parent, or the amount of importance the parent puts on education, safety, supervision of children, is the issue.

This would actually get the conversation about gay people adopting out of the "You hate gays....you're a Christian bigot! You smell!" "Oh yea! Well those kids'll wind up dumb and immoral...gay people shouldn't raise kids! Poopy butt!" toilet and into educated discourse where it belongs.

I am a single mother. But I am not a single mother by choice. I did not set out to get pregnant on purpose or to raise a child by myself on purpose. I got pregnant and my lover broke up with me the day I told him I was pregnant. While that did not surprise me, it did break my heart.

I considered an abortion. I am militantly pro-abortion. I don't believe any man has a right to even express an opinion on the subject, and when I go though menopause and can no longer conceive, neither will I. That decision is totally up to the woman and she should have the right to make that decision and it's nobody else's business. I was 34 years old, I owned my own home, I made good money, and I loved him. I couldn't do it. I chose to have the baby.

Being a parent is the hardest single thing I have have ever done in my life and I do not recommend it to anybody. Married or single. In some ways I have it easier than married couples do. My word goes. I don't have any conflict with a father to have to deal with. There is no father. It's just me.

Why anybody would purposely put themselves in that position I will never understand. Being a parent is so hard. It's not the least bit rewarding. It's worry, and guilt, and more worry, and it never ends. If we're lucky, our kids won't turn out to be drug addicts or hookers or serial killers. If we're really lucky, they'll grow up to be decent people who can make their own way in the world, and not hate us too much.

I sorta forgot what my point was, but being a single parent does not only suck from the kids point of view.

 

[jillian]

I am a single mother. But I am not a single mother by choice. I did not set out to get pregnant on purpose or to raise a child by myself on purpose. I got pregnant and my lover broke up with me the day I told him I was pregnant. While that did not surprise me, it did break my heart.

I considered an abortion. I am militantly pro-abortion. I don't believe any man has a right to even express an opinion on the subject, and when I go though menopause and can no longer conceive, neither will I. That decision is totally up to the woman and she should have the right to make that decision and it's nobody else's business. I was 34 years old, I owned my own home, I made good money, and I loved him. I couldn't do it. I chose to have the baby.

Being a parent is the hardest single thing I have have ever done in my life and I do not recommend it to anybody. Married or single. In some ways I have it easier than married couples do. My word goes. I don't have any conflict with a father to have to deal with. There is no father. It's just me.

Why anybody would purposely put themselves in that position I will never understand. Being a parent is so hard. It's not the least bit rewarding. It's worry, and guilt, and more worry, and it never ends. If we're lucky, our kids won't turn out to be drug addicts or hookers or serial killers. If we're really lucky, they'll grow up to be decent people who can make their own way in the world, and not hate us too much.

I sorta forgot what my point was, but being a single parent does not only suck from the kids point of view.

And there you hit it on the head. It is VERY hard work raising children. I admire your choice, but had you made a different choice, I can't imagine anyone holding it against you. I also can't imagine a 14 or 15 year old who may have made a mistake being forced into your position against her will because some religious zealot decided his determination should prevail.

On a bright note, today the FDA approved RU-486 for over the counter use. It wouldn't have been relevant, it sounds like, in your position, but it will help others.

Keep on keepin' on! And thanks for sharing your story.

 

[manu1959]

Funny. No one is teaching my 8 year old son any such thing. But assuming they were, would you prefer that the children of gay couples be victimized by other kids because they are being taught not to be tolerant?

funny....didn't know they were teaching kids to victimize kids of gay parents....which class is that?

 

[Dr Grump]

It's not the least bit rewarding.

Really? I am rewarded every day with my kids.

It's worry, and guilt, and more worry, and it never ends. If we're lucky, our kids won't turn out to be drug addicts or hookers or serial killers.

C'mon, don't be so negative! Most kids turn out fine, and some great. You gotta be pretty unlucky for your kid to turn out bad. The vast majority are fine...

If we're really lucky, they'll grow up ... and not hate us too much.

Almost all the people I know love their parents...single parents too...