Originally posted by daggyz
It's not about this kid being raised succesfully. That is not the issue.

The issue is two women who have 0% possibility of having their 'own' children. Without male help this proves two things....

- Homosexuality isn't biologically normal
- Homosexuals crave for what fully healthy heterosexuals can do biologically 100% of the time - have children
- Homosexuals cannot be satisfied with being different as they have chosen, as they find the biologically natural urge as an individual to have children but they need something their partner cannot ever give...

Ok 3 things....

It's both sad and amusing.

And what does this mean for heterosexual couples who can't have children?

If you want to use the natural arguement, what animals actually copulate with babies in mind? Humans are the only animals who plan childbirth.

"Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got". I'm still waiting for the punch line?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It's that easy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it should be ok for two women or two men to raise children, that's not our business it's theres.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Actually, if it is our business (society) to intervene when children are neglected or abused or maladjusted etc. then, logically, it IS our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children.

Within a social structure some control is necessary to prevent devolution. We either quit the system altogether and let everyone do whatever they want...WHATEVER they want, or we allow the intervention/directives/control to be superimposed for the (ideally) greatest common benefit as it is perceived at a given time and under certain circumstances.
This is just how societies work. I am not taking sides here btw Remember that every change in the system was always considered negative/outrageous until people grew accustomed to it. It will not be different for either of these two issues...gay marriage and their right/ability for parenthood.

Originally posted by Alexandra9

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It's that easy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it should be ok for two women or two men to raise children, that's not our business it's theres.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Actually, if it is our business (society) to intervene when children are neglected or abused or maladjusted etc. then, logically, it IS our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children.

I agree that if we see children are neglected or abused that we should intervene. But if we see well-adjusted, happy children, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of the parents are. It is NOT our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children, anymore than it is our business to evaluate if interracial couples should raise children, or if two non-educated people should raise children, or if two atheist people should raise children, etc. etc.

w/e, this kid is just good at speeches. i don't support gay couples raising kids. It' a dangerous trend

Originally posted by wlord
w/e, this kid is just good at speeches. i don't support gay couples raising kids. It' a dangerous trend

Dangerous trend? Care to explain why it is so dangerous?

BTW, gay parents have existed for a very long time.. they've just been secret about it because people used to be murdered for being gay. So I wouldn't call it a trend beyond them just wanting to be upfront with society.

Response to post by kaylaluv
"It is NOT our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children, anymore than it is our business to evaluate if interracial couples should raise children, or if two non-educated people should raise children, or if two atheist people should raise children, etc. etc."

I hear you but I am not sure how that works out in practice. Here we frown upon the idea of evaluating/assessing an arguably unnatural base that is same-sex marriage in terms of potential effect on the children resulting therefrom.

And the suggested examples above have all been subject to some kind of debate - particularly interracial marriage, which was once not an accepted 'norm' right? But this is not related in essence. We are designed able to procreate interracially, mixed - intellect, opposing-circumstance, opposing religions...these are social constructs and not fundamental, natural issues.

My point is that people were not designed to be able to procreate with same sex partners. No mammals are! Meaning that, beyond the issue of fertilisation there is a host of hormonal, instinctive and bodily responses that are required for the union to facilitate the base for growing this new life and the child's development further on. The problem of not having a direct father figure in a female only parentage arguably proves less of a problem in this respect than lack of a mother in a male-male union. This has the potential for far reaching psychological implications for the child. (Please note that I am not excluding the possibility of it working out perfectly well in some cases. But the potential for damage is more likely precisely because it is unnatural)

If we were meant to be doing this we would be equipped for it! That's my only concern with this. I am a naturalist who feels that everything was made to be (or evolved to be) for a certain reason. This is not about social implications of such a marriage but the biological (and resulting or causative, as the case may be) psychological NATURE of it.

A sterile man and woman adopt a child. The child develops into an amazing being. The kid is loved, nurtured, guided. Another such couple turn out to be monsters and the kid ends up severely disturbed. Both scenarios can also happen in a same-sex marriage (or any marriage for that matter). But here is the thing - do you know how hard it is to be awarded a child to adopt? Do you know how harsh a scrutiny you have to undergo? Just because your body malfunctioned and you could not produce own child! I think it should be AT LEAST eqaually hard for same-sex marriage to be allowed to raise a child. Either that or remove all obstacles to having children in all cases. THEN we can talk about equality and human rights!

I personally don't care who raises children and if they raise them well. I usually concern myself with raising just my own child. I don't really care if same-sex marriage is legal or not because I think marriage in general is a social-legal convenience at best. My life with my partner was the same before and after the signature - Just harder to get out if someone has a change of heart
The debate above is purely philosophical - stemming from my psychology studies and fueled by curiosity as to the reason for all this fuss about same-sex marriage...something that I do not comprehend being rather confined by my naturalism.

All the best

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by daggyz

And what does this mean for heterosexual couples who can't have children?

It means they have to go through lengthy and harsh selection process to perhaps some day be considered FIT to adopt an abandoned/orphaned child. (See, that decision also comes from some external party). Beyond nature, as I said before, there is also the issue of equality. And it affects heterosexuals just as much as soon as they have to rely on the system. I don't see why it should be different or less rigorous for same-sex marriages!

Originally posted by REDCZAR
"Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got". I'm still waiting for the punch line?

Everybody got cake?

Also get government out of marriage.

I remember the thread about the lesbian couple that have a little boy and the little boy wants a sex change operation and the mothers want it for him too. I think instances like that is what gets peoples blood moving over homosexuals raising children.

The fact is, there are good people and bad people. The young man in the OP seems to have been raised by good people who happen to be gay. I think the case of the lesbian couple wanting their son to become a girl is a case of bad people.

Anyways, gay, bi-sexual or hetrosexual, there are good people and bad people. We should look at the young man (and children like him) as having parents, not gay parents but, just parents.

Could it be possible that a homosexual agenda exists and that it's purpose is population control through artificial insemination?

Gays or straight it doesn't really matter. As a long as you have two intelligent people who raise their children in the best interest of the children and who love and protect them you got a winning team. With that said, there are some really bad parents/people on both sides of the coin, but I think we can all agree that the parent's sexual persuasion does not equate to the child's so that is really not the issue whether you agree or disagree with it all.

Originally posted by questforevidence
Could it be possible that a homosexual agenda exists and that it's purpose is population control through artificial insemination?

Not sure how it would be a "homosexual agenda" With their population at around 5% and homosexuality not being a genetic factor I don't see them breeding an army of homosexuals...lol

Most people want a family....about that simple, I would say....