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.

 

Gay Marriage and Raising Children: The Elephant in the Room

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

Well actually he's saying (and via his chosen quote and source) that such single-parent homes are already quite common.
But from what is presented this is due to the predicaments and choices of heterosexuals.

It's almost lately as if gay people must somehow "save" the failed heterosexual structure in some weird way.

So as a gay person I'm presented with another example of the spectacular failure of heterosexuality.

And what do they do about it?

Well blame it on the gays!

Totally not nice, and really useless in every way imaginable.

But that's not surprising really.
That's the lack of quality we've come to expect.
Just claim anything anti-gay, the other homophobes will fill in the missing parts as they go along.
edit on 9-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 

I don't understand what you think the "fundamental structure of the family" should be. If it just a man & a woman, then your "elephant in the room" is about the size of a dust bunny.

Have you ever read anything on uninvolved parenting? Have you ever taken a hard look at children that have been given up for adoption? Ever know a kid that had to be raised by their grandparents because the man/woman who brought them into this world could not be bothered to raise their own child? What about all the kids that are sent off at a young age to boarding schools?

The only "fundamental structure" that should be looked at for any family is the love and care provided. It matters not the sex of the parent(s) involved.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Absolutely agree that this is clearly a troll thread since his 'theory' has no grounds for fact. This day and age the chance that a child will even have both parents at home is highly unlikely. Male/Female relationships this day and age are more about sex then anything and no o0ne seems to want to have the responsibility of a child. I live in welfare central USA, I see children get neglected all the time and these are straight people, that at the moment can legally have children. FYI If anyone in this country shouldn't breed it's the people on welfare. www.huffingtonpost.com... (Good article about marriage rate drop) I say if two people want a child and WANT to raise the child then for the love of the world let them, since clearly there are enough people having children that don't want them and could careless about them.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 



The only "fundamental structure" that should be looked at for any family is the love and care provided. It matters not the sex of the parent(s) involved.

Very much agree. And it matters not the biology either.

My biological parents raised lots of kids from different biological parents of different races. My family unit really stretched the tradition! I think we turned out great
And it was, as you said, love and care.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I am sorry, but threads like this disgust me because when you whittle it down, you are trying to launch a debate that ultimately translates into whether one group should be deprived of children simply because you are ignorant, uninformed and believe your lifestyle is morally superior to that of gays. It is no different than asking, gee, should we let black people raise white babies. There are NO consequences to a gay couple raising kids anymore or less than a straight couple. The fact that one group thinks it even okay to have this, um, discussion and think it within bounds of humanity is disappointing, as if as a heterosexual "Christian" your judgment and parenting are somehow superior and you have a right to render a decision on others.

Why not have the debate about whether we should let single parents raise children because the data show that children of single parents are at far greater risk for failure than two parent households? No, you would not think a debate like that is even within bounds, right? (Well, maybe you woul depending on how far right Christian you actually are.) Well you'd be right, it is not within bounds EVEN in light of the risks made clear in the data. Some things just are no friggin' business of ours.

I think the argument can be made that a gay couple will raise MUCH more balanced and morally based children that ANY hetero couple who thinks this debate is acceptable. I say that because the gay couple is surely more intelligent than such a person, less judgmental and knows what it is like to live in a society full of bigots that are not even aware they are bigots.

I'll put my money on the child of a gay couple 10 to 1 leading a rich and successful life over a child from a bible thumping family any day.

Go live your own damned life. Live it in peace and joy and stop f%^&ing around trying to debate or pass judgment on other people's lives like you are some superior being.



edit on 9-8-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

Well actually he's saying (and via his chosen quote and source) that such single-parent homes are already quite common.
But from what is presented this is due to the predicaments and choices of heterosexuals.

It's almost lately as if gay people must somehow "save" the failed heterosexual structure in some weird way.

So as a gay person I'm presented with another example of the spectacular failure of heterosexuality.

And what do they do about it?

Well blame it on the gays!

Totally not nice, and really useless in every way imaginable.

But that's not surprising really.
That's the lack of quality we've come to expect.
Just claim anything anti-gay, the other homophobes will fill in the missing parts as they go along.
edit on 9-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Such homes are common now, but before they became so, no one had any idea what would happen regarding the children. we know now that such homes do have an effect on the kids, even with a very loving and attentive parent. The simple fact is that children do better in a home with a mother and a father. The information he shared showed this. It's well known.

Nothing about that is bashing anyone, and those studies don't claim that those single parents care any less. They simply state that the fact of a missing parent affects the children.

As for homosexual parent couples, no one is blaming them for anything. The OP simply stated that, as we didn't know what would happen in single parent homes, we don't know the long term effect of gay parent homes, either, and we should, for the sake of the children. That isn't saying who should and should not be a parent, but any parent should wan to know if something about their situation will have an adverse effect on their children.

I could have used that information, when I found myself a single mom. Not by my choice (he had issues, and abandoned us), and I did all I could to provide for my daughter, and spend extra time with her, but there are still effects. Had I known about some of those, maybe I could have done more to try and counteract them. Nothing about that is "anti-gay"; it's about parenting.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I mean nature, nature....

Penis/Vagina...

Computers dont make babies, people do!



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 



The OP simply stated that, as we didn't know what would happen in single parent homes, we don't know the long term effect of gay parent homes, either, and we should, for the sake of the children.


We do. You don't. You have a very different fundamental view of gay people. When you understand completely that they are simply people. The 'long term effects' are indeed predictable. Some will be great parents and some won't. For all the same reasons..all the same co-factors as heterosexual parents. That's it, it's that simple.

And again I have 2 close friends that were raised by same-sex and they are in their upper 20s. I am way more involved with that then the negative accounts you related. Does this knowledge impact you at all or do you only fish out negative cases to support a made-up mind?? I myself expect to hear both positive and negative cases. When you view LGBT as equal you will expect it too.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I swear to God this thread still has me pissed off. Have we really come to this point when a large segment of our population genuinely thinks this is a perfectly fine and reasonable conversation to have?

I swear it is time to crack down on the cult of evangelicalism. It is not a religion (as they will tell you), so it is not a "faith." Since it is not a faith or a religion, it falls outside the Constitution and can thus be properly labeled as the hate group it is.

OP, your parents (your heterosexual parents) failed you. They raise you as the most dangerous of person -- a soft bigot with a moral superiority complex inherent in an evangelical.

If you had gay parents, you'd have turned out more kind.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Like if gays can have children (which i think they should, but with much consideration into the childs thoughts)

does that means transexuals should?

Like that bird, that had a sex change to be a bloke, who married a women who also had a sex change to be a man, , and then the bird/man had a child...


THATS SO MESSED UP ITS UNREAL.

I mean seriously, whats that kids head gonna be like?!



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I mean nature, nature....

Penis/Vagina...

Computers dont make babies, people do!


I don't know how to respond to this. I imagine this means you didn't get my point. Perhaps it also means I didn't understand yours.

Either way



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
I swear to God this thread still has me pissed off. Have we really come to this point when a large segment of our population genuinely thinks this is a perfectly fine and reasonable conversation to have?

I swear it is time to crack down on the cult of evangelicalism. It is not a religion (as they will tell you), so it is not a "faith." Since it is not a faith or a religion, it falls outside the Constitution and can thus be properly labeled as the hate group it is.

OP, your parents (your heterosexual parents) failed you. They raise you as the most dangerous of person -- a soft bigot with a moral superiority complex inherent in an evangelical.

If you had gay parents, you'd have turned out more kind.


OMG its people like you that are hate inciting! No subject should be tabboo. At all.

Everything deserves discussion!

Ignorance at its finest.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That isn't saying who should and should not be a parent, but any parent should wan to know if something about their situation will have an adverse effect on their children.

"any parent should wan to know if something about their situation will have an adverse effect on their children"

This leaves me shaking my head. It has been known for a very long time that divorce has a negative effect on children and yet hetro couples continue to get divorced (and at a growing rate!).

I'm sorry but saying that "we don't know the effects of gay parenting, but it could be bad" is no kind of argument. We know the effects of divorced parenting and it's not really something man/woman couples are concerned about.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You said because it doesnt matter that its unnatural (so you accept its unatural)

You said good things good from being unnatural, like computers.

Im pointing out there's a big difference from a computer and a human life.

I think what I'm trying to say is, I'm all for freedom, but when are boundries crossed?
edit on 9-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

No we don't have evidence that children do better (whatever that means) in homes with a father and a mother.

In fact, even religiously we don't have a popular example of that.

We don't have anything on the inherent goodness of life-long heterosexual monogamy historically (marriage was often parentally pressured and romantic love was outside rather inside marriage), we don't have good examples Biblically, and the only place we have it is from 1940s-1950s US propaganda sitcoms like Ozzie and Harriet.

Even so, if heterosexual monogamy is so good then the OP should address its failure, rather than making a straight problem a gay problem.

How can straight people hate gay people so much that they project their failures onto gay people?

Too bad the OP didn't title the thread: "Single Moms and Raising Children: The Elephant in the Room".

Oh but anything goes when it comes to gay bashing.

Of course he's gay bashing!
Are you blind?


edit on 9-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



we don't know the long term effect of gay parent homes, either, and we should, for the sake of the children.


Something to ponder.

How would we know the long term effects of gay parenting unless we let them parent for a long time?

How would we know the long term effects of gay marriage unless we allow them to marry for a long time?

Looks like you should support it, for the sake of the children

edit on 9-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You said because it doesnt matter that its unnatural (so you accept its unatural)

You said good things good from being unnatural, like computers.


I am saying something being natural or unnatural doesn't automatically make something good or bad. Which it seems you are. My point with bringing up technology was not to say computers make babies. It's clear we live in a world were unnatural things are not just accepted but integral to our way of being. So in that light what's the issue with homosexuals using tech/medicine to have children?


I think what I'm trying to say is, I'm all for freedom, but when are boundries crossed?

Why don't we assess that as each new technological achievement presents itself and not drown ourselves with wild speculations of 'going too far'.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


1) I havent said theres an issue with gays having babies, just that i think the child should have a choice fom an early age.

2) Im a firm believer all children that currently live should be homed before any test tube babies are brought into the world.

ETA: "Wild speculations of whats going to far" (?!?)

Okay, I want a mokey kangeroo child.

too far?
edit on 9-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I confess, I did NOT read all the posts. There was a great deal of dancing around and "not me" and "I have a friend who...".

ALL parents make mistakes rearing children. Whether thru abuse, neglect or educational opportunities (blah blah and blah). I could cite a few examples:

1) Liza Minelli's father was a homosexual. Judy Garland caught her husband having sex with a man. This ended their marriage. Liza isn't exactly what I would call a level headed character.

2) Jeffery Dahmer's parents were heterosexual. They were still married when he started nibbling on the dead.

3) This kid, right here: m.youtube.com...

Dunno. Seems like we can all screw up. I did. My daughter is in NY, fairly successfully persuing a career in modeling. My son is in the Navy. I'm divorced (a few times). Im decidedly straight.

We can all be successful rearing the curtain climbers. My kids tested each and everyone of my buttons. Still do, actually.

ANY statistician can tinker with numbers to prove/disprove any point. I'm not buying that this is a political topic. New social topic.

Be a living, breathing, warm person. TRY to do what you feel is right by any kid that looks to you for guidance. For F's sake, try to be aware when you screw up.

That is all we can do.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Lets leave aside sexual orientation for a moment and just think about it from a slightly different angle. Consider the following:
A) A boy grows up with a man and a woman for parent figures.
B) A girl grows up with a man and a woman for parent figures.
C) A boy grows up with a man and a man for parent figures.
D) A girl grows up with a man and a man for parent figures.
E) A boy grows up with a woman and a woman for parent figures.
F) A girl grows up with a woman and a woman for parent figures.

Up to now, option A and B have been the basic options. Now we are poised to introduce 4 new options on a mass scale. Is it not reasonable to at least wonder how this could change things? Will it change the way little boys and girls think of and relate to themselves? The other gender? Are there things that a man as a parent can inpart to a boy or a girl than a woman cannot, and visa-versa? And why are people muttering darkly about "suprematism" for merely wanting answers to these questions, or at the very least investigation and debate.

Men and women are different. Their brains, bodies, and endocrine systems have evolved differently over millions of years to serve different genetic purposes, and what they impart to children (of both genders) is different.

Note that Nothing here relates to sexual orientation: merely gender.
edit on 8/9/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join