It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Children of lesbian couples do well

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I view it all it biochemicals. If the biochemicals are attracting the same sex, then there are fewer contrasts being desired.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I view it all it biochemicals. If the biochemicals are attracting the same sex, then there are fewer contrasts being desired.


Then you should see no problems with this... as the Euykarotes went through a phase of experimenting with different combinations... this gave rise to the next layer of emergence...


So from the standpoint of biochemicals.... homosexuality is still very normal.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Normal is relative. However, from a simple evolutionary stance, actions which disable reproduction are a fault.

Not that I care. But to call it "normal" is silly. It's just as normal as human sacrifice. Of course, at the risk of a strawman fallacy, it is human to not be normal in many ways. And as long as no one is dieing, I could care less what they do. But the facts are simple. Humans are social animals. limitations on that limit the human. And a starting off point would be homosexual parents.

Of course I can take that a whole step further and be more controversial. The difference in damage to the child from a homosexual relationship and a dysfunctional, sick marriage, are null.

Bare in mind neither are right, But ideally, the child would do best growing up in a stable household with a loving father and mother. Of course, that is rare these days. And that is why the overwhelming number of children growing up these days are physiologically sick. SO much so that normal has been redefined many times over.

Normal is very simple for a human, in an unbiased view. The human must feel the full range of emotions. At the same time, it must have the proper knowledge of when and where to use those emotions, and when and where to hold back from their release. A human should be a logical creature that takes offense to borderline nothing, other than violations of life liberty and the pursuit of his happiness. The very Renaissance view, if you will.

This builds a good society. However, I've not seen such a society since the times of the great awakenings of the North East US. The world has forgotten about those things.


Now to return way back to the original subject. The facts are simple. The human brain should have the base units of humanity for example from the youngest age. That is man and woman. Their cooperation in a healthy relationship is the first building block to a healthy child, and a healthy adult.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ickylevel

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Same goes with my children, raised in a same sex environment, all perfectly normal and perfectly productive.

~Keper


Productive ? Sure that's a criteria.


I meant productive members of society.

I don't care who you are, but if you raise children that are a drain on the system, that don't contribute, or just work a minimum wage job instead of going to college, then you have failed.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


OK- I disagree- I enjoy having TWO genders!! Let me clarify this- I consider myself "ambi"- I LIKE men, and "relations", with a special man. But, I really don't want to LIVE with one!! I have had a VERY happy (gay? LOL!) 20 year relationship, with my best friend.
I am "godmother", to THREE children, of close friends. The IMPORTANT thing with children, is LOVE! I DO believe that seeing BOTH SEXES represented, is probably healthy, for a child. If a child knows that they are LOVED, and have BOTH Men & Women around them, as role-models, they stand a better chance of being mentally healthy, than a child raised by a single parent, or from an abusive home. But- THAT is just my, EDUCATED, opinion.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Further in the thread I did state that I do see the bias regarding the paper after reviewing the source a bit better.

There are certainly better ways of doing these studies in an environment which would produce better and proper results.

However, either way, I don't think the results would have been much different.

To me the article simply proves that it doesn't matter who raises the child as long as there is love, acceptance, room for growth and opportunity in the home, you will get a well adjusted child.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Normal is relative. However, from a simple evolutionary stance, actions which disable reproduction are a fault.




I'd disagree... if you look at the rise of the euykarotes, this doesn't hold true... different combinations allow for different results... just like we arent all males... or we arent all females.... we arent all heterosexual... it takes much more than that for society as a whole to function well....

Just like in hives, there are some that don't even have sex or procreate....

You seem to be looking at nature as if its designed with a purpose, when in reality it's just constantly trying new things...


Keep in mind that novelty gives rise to diversity... which is evolutions friend.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Check my reply
I already replied
Your answer was invalid



Oh no, you're mistaken... my answer was in fact correct, I was just hoping today to clarify your thoughts and perhaps see if what you were saying... was actually what you were saying... it was late so thought I'd double check.

Now I know you're still incorrect, I'm happy to carry on.






homosexuals need heterosexuality to be survive and to be created
the reverse is not a need



No they don't.... As I said, All two gay men need is an adoption agency or a surrogate...

All two lesbians need is a sperm donor....

And do you know what? Both the surrogate and sperm donor could also be gay and lesbian individuals... so that takes "Straight" people out of the equation entirely.

It's the wonder of modern medicine... you should really read up on it!




If there were only heteros in this world we would be fine
if it was only homosexuals the world would come to an end
there is no debating that i'm sorry



Your ideas/statement may have been valid 40 years ago or whatever.... not so much today.
You should really update your ideas to the 21st century.

If the entire population was gay, things would still carry on.... kids would be born and raised and nothing would be different.





Just like children are dependant on their parents homosexuals are dependant on heteros.




Not even remotely true.....As I've already shown.





It's just the way it is i'm sorry
i'm not trying to be offensive
truth doesn't need to be offensive



It's the way you think in your out of date and slightly weird view of the world... but in everyday life.... in actual reality, your thoughts and ideas couldn't be further from the truth.

Thanks.



[edit on 8/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I noted that you revised your view.

I know nothing of the effects of growing up under lesbians but I assume that that depends on whether the lesbians are nice people and good parents or not.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Oh no, you're mistaken... my answer was in fact correct, I was just hoping today to clarify your thoughts and perhaps see if what you were saying...

You mean you were incorrect



Originally posted by blupblup
No they don't.... As I said, All two gay men need is an adoption agency or a surrogate...

This is still heterosexuality
Adopting comes from two hetero parents having intercourse then having a baby but whatever circumstances are there cause them to put the kid up for adoption. You are still relying on heterosexuality.


Originally posted by blupblup
All two lesbians need is a sperm donor....


Here you are correct, but it's disgusting
You are trivializing the creation of life to a business transaction.
And what you are suggesting is that this business model monopolizes the entire creation of life for homosexual couples where they do not rely on heterosexuality.

Horrible!


Originally posted by blupblup
If the entire population was gay, things would still carry on.... kids would be born and raised and nothing would be different.

How?
How would life and reproduction carry on if everyone was gay?


Originally posted by blupblup
Not even remotely true.....As I've already shown


You haven't "shown" anything though lol


Originally posted by blupblup
It's the way you think in your out of date and slightly weird view of the world... but in everyday life.... in actual reality, your thoughts and ideas couldn't be further from the truth.

I've asked you how will life carry on if everyone is gay
So now I am waiting for your "weird" response



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I noted that you revised your view.

I know nothing of the effects of growing up under lesbians but I assume that that depends on whether the lesbians are nice people and good parents or not.


I agree, I've met tons of lesbian couples who have children and not all of them were well adjusted.

You see a big problem in the Gay community, and I might be shooting myself in the foot here, but when it comes to raising children a lot of gay people have a hard time keeping their sexuality to themselves so to speak.

Just like two straight parents would not want their children seeing them intimate with each other, the same has to apply to same sex couples, even more so.

Children are easily confused and can be influenced by their immediate environment.

Granted, when my children became older, in their teens, they understood our family dynamic so it became a non issue.

I will agree that it's not a walk in the park to raise children in a same sex environment. It's a hell of a challenge, but the experience and the reward of raising well adjusted children is very much worth the hardship.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




You're just being obtuse and arguing when you have no argument.


Right.... quite simply, as I've already shown:

Gay men can "use" a surrogate.

Lesbian women need a sperm donor.

That's it.

A baby can now be "made" in a lab..... do you know this? Do you understand what can be done in terms of "making babies" without sex now?

Your "but it's disgusting" comment is irrelevant.
Facts are not decided or judged on whether people agree or like them or not, facts are facts because they are things that are true... that cannot be disputed.


It is a fact that both gays and lesbians can have children without any need for help from hetrosexuals in any way, shape or from.
You cannot argue or debate this because it is a fact.

I really can't see how you don't know this.

A fact and an opinion are two different things, just so you're aware ok?


[edit on 8/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
A baby can now be "made" in a lab..... do you know this? Do you understand what can be done in terms of "making babies" without sex now?


Ladies and gentlemen

Welcome to the new world order!!!!!!!!

Babies soon to be made in china

But of course morality is irrelevant to this topic right?

Your argument is not even an argument
You are suggesting something immoral to further your argument


Ever watch Gattaca?


That's the world you want to live in?
This is your argument?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




What are you talking about? Seriously?


I didn't say that I want everyone do be gay or that this is my ideal future.... I'm not gay, I have no desire to be or for anyone else to be...people are whatever they are, that's it.... it's all good.

Your entire argument is that men and women are not equal, and that homosexuals and hetrosexuals are not equal... I have shown, without a shadow of doubt, that this is not true.

When I said about test tubes and surrogates, it was to enlighten you to the wonders of modern science... you clearly were not aware that it was possible, I was just showing you it was.

You do realise they have these methods for hetrosexual couples who are unable to have children naturally right?
Or is it only immoral when homosexuals use these methods?

And instead of some theatrical "Ladies and gentlemen" crap.... Just admit you're wrong.
You can't argue against fact.... it is FACT.... That's F.A.C.T. that homosexual couples do NOT need hetrosexuals, in anyway whatsoever, to have children.



You have shared opinions with me... you are clearly homophobic and use words like "immoral" and "disgusting" to make this clear.

I have shared facts... actual provable and real scientific facts, that are used the world over every day.

You seriously need to do a little research on what fact means, and what opinion means.

Your username is a complete contradiction.... there is nothing either modern or academical about anything you've said in this thread, in fact it's been quite the opposite.

Thanks.





[edit on 8/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
What is this nonsense about "needing" a male to help develop a kid?

I never had a real father figure in my life. I was raised by my mom and my grandma. Last I checked, I'm straight (because apparently if you don't have a father in your life you become gay), I'm rather assertive, and I'm far from wishy-washy.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
What is this nonsense about "needing" a male to help develop a kid?

I never had a real father figure in my life. I was raised by my mom and my grandma. Last I checked, I'm straight (because apparently if you don't have a father in your life you become gay), I'm rather assertive, and I'm far from wishy-washy.


Not necesarily a "father" figure, but a strong male role model is certainly required. I'm sure you had plenty of those, whether they were friends of your mothers or grand mothers or your friends or even just people you met.

The smallest interaction can have a profound effect on children.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by SpectreDC
What is this nonsense about "needing" a male to help develop a kid?

I never had a real father figure in my life. I was raised by my mom and my grandma. Last I checked, I'm straight (because apparently if you don't have a father in your life you become gay), I'm rather assertive, and I'm far from wishy-washy.


Not necesarily a "father" figure, but a strong male role model is certainly required. I'm sure you had plenty of those, whether they were friends of your mothers or grand mothers or your friends or even just people you met.

The smallest interaction can have a profound effect on children.

~Keeper


Sadly being an inquisitive and mindful person since I was young, I always discerned whether I had a "father" figure or not. And I never did.

Sure there was my moms occasional boyfriend but I never really grasped the father figure thing. And it wasn't like I never saw my own dad, he was just more of a friend than anything.

There wasn't anyone in my life at a young age that was male that I looked up too. No role model.


My first legitimate role model, believe it or not, was Socrates. And I don't think he counts as a male role model.

Frankly I've just never accepted gender roles. I never accepted sexual roles. We're elevated beings no longer left merely to instinct and pre-determinist lives. All gender roles act as are concepts we force individuals to accept when in reality either of the two genders can fulfill either of the two roles. Not only does science shows this, but human history shows this because there have been plenty of societies where males take on feminine roles. Likewise there are examples of females taking on masculine roles.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Your entire argument is that men and women are not equal, and that homosexuals and hetrosexuals are not equal... I have shown, without a shadow of doubt, that this is not true.

Too much self-confidence bro


Originally posted by blupblup
When I said about test tubes and surrogates, it was to enlighten you to the wonders of modern science... you clearly were not aware that it was possible, I was just showing you it was.

Clearly I wasnt' aware?
I don't live under a rock

I'm a fairly strong participant in the scientific community
I am very much a science student... self-educated that is


Originally posted by blupblup
You do realise they have these methods for hetrosexual couples who are unable to have children naturally right?
Or is it only immoral when homosexuals use these methods?.

The difference is that one is not a monopoly over the other as you suggested.
And yes you did suggest it.


Originally posted by blupblup
And instead of some theatrical "Ladies and gentlemen" crap.... Just admit you're wrong.
You can't argue against fact.... it is FACT.... That's F.A.C.T. that homosexual couples do NOT need hetrosexuals, in anyway whatsoever, to have children.

You are too confident in your views
Homosexuals very much need heteros to survive.

Your way to abolish that need is very much a new world order.
Perhaps even worse then the NWO in fact


Originally posted by blupblup
You have shared opinions with me... you are clearly homophobic and use words like "immoral" and "disgusting" to make this clear..

You Clearly like to generalize
i am not homophobic
But many, not just you, consider my views as homophobic
not because they are homophobic but only because it's considered a controversial topic

The examples you give are plausible, but it's not the world we live in today
They are completely warped.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



I'm not going to keep writing long-winded replies, they're wasted on you.... you can't accept you're wrong, and you are, and you're in denial.


Here ya go.



Originally posted by blupblup
You have shared opinions with me... you are clearly homophobic and use words like "immoral" and "disgusting" to make this clear.

I have shared facts... actual provable and real scientific facts, that are used the world over every day.

You seriously need to do a little research on what fact means, and what opinion means.

Your username is a complete contradiction.... there is nothing either modern or academical about anything you've said in this thread, in fact it's been quite the opposite.

Thanks.



And these scientific methods ARE the world we live in today, not sure what world you live in though.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by No King but Jesus
 


seems some people forget who is the Authority of all topics, websites, rulers, kingdoms, nations, earth , heaven etc.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.-Matt28.18

"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'-Luke19.14

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.-Col1.16

neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.-1Cor11.9




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join