New reasons why homosexuals should not be able to use sperm donors

Originally posted by zerbot565

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by russ212

 

To me, sperm implantation should only be used for a married man and woman that are not able to have a child. This eliminates the question of who is my daddy as the child has grown up with a father.

yet, with the high divorce rate, almost half the kids end up with one parent anyhow.
or possibly visitation with the second parent at most.
divorce rate in america

people divorce withinn 4 years usualy , its becuase thats what it takes to raise a child to an age where they can "take care of them selfs" , so if no child has been made withinn that time your biological clock will make you to produce one way or another , seams that people choose the later , which then stems to social beliefs and rituals in partnership of the today popculture tv nation ,

the above has been proved over and over again by reviews

partner ship is more then a mental connection
its biological harmony according to natures laws

Right On!
Many anthropologist are talking about an original "serial monogamy" in which the 4 year relation ship is based on this very fact that by the age of 4 the child is practically physically capable of taking care of himself. This then is where the Chinese proverb - A village raises a child - comes to bear.
The actual "natural parents" are usually by that time "stressed-out" from the basic duties of raising a child and nourishing him, that they then have already little patience to be too emotionally concerned. However "outsiders" - (Re the Village) - is not burdened with the "messy past" of the child-rearing, (i.e. diaper changing and all this "messy part") Thus the "outsider then has more focus on the actual talents of the child and is more able to invest in mentoring these talents.
We seem to always forget where we originally came from. Most people look back in history and compare child rearing in terms of what was done during the Victorian age and what is done now. So bare butt spanking as 100 years ago is now out, but this is not what child rearing is all about.
We have to think back and understand, that despite us now walking around in designer clothes and living in high-rise apartments, we are still and will remain the "naked Ape". Parenting is instinctive.
Let us for example look at the past to understand this 4yo "cut off from the parents". A family has a son. The family themselves are within their tribal structure not at all the fearless hunters the tribe depends on for food. However the 4yo boy shows a keen interest in hunting and shows signs of natural talents. So how can the "non-qualified parents" make a good hunter and tracker out of the boy? Naturally they can't so his mentor-ship and being raised by the village enables this boy to develop his talents.
So with the "job done" the parents are exhausted and strained after 4 solid years of caring, and they used to split up and found new partners, - thus the procreation cycle was started anew.

Guenter

Originally posted by russ212

.... I also believe( you may get angry but that is not my intention) that homosexuality is a mental and phsyical disorder.

You "believe" do you have any FACTS that provide a back up to this "Believe"?

Guenter.

reply to post by russ212


So because some of these children grow up having trouble because of the bigots in society the targets of the bigotry should have their rights taken away, that makes no real sense. As society moves along these children will face less and less ridicule because a good portion of the younger generation don't care whether someone is gay or straight. Indeed the very counter to this situation is more and more homosexual couples having children, either by adoption or donor. when 10 sets of homosexual parents turn up to collect their kids at the school gates it won't be such an odd thiing and kids will get used to it.

Of course i always take issue with people using donors before adopting. There are tons of kids who have had a very rough time who deserve some love and happiness in their lives. Of course this can be applied to straight couples as well, adopting instead of having their own children.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

So because some of these children grow up having trouble because of the bigots in society the targets of the bigotry should have their rights taken away, that makes no real sense.

It makes sense to me, because in such a bigoted society, the children could suffer because of their gay parents. This is a legitimate reason to ban gay adoptions, to protect the children not from their gay parents, but from backwards society they live in.

Originally posted by Maslo
It makes sense to me, because in such a bigoted society, the children could suffer because of their gay parents. This is a legitimate reason to ban gay adoptions, to protect the children not from their gay parents, but from backwards society they live in.

And while we're at it, people with red hair shouldn't be able to have children at all. Their kids will get made fun of in school because they're different. Best to save them from that trauma by preventing they from being conceived int he first place.

Originally posted by Maslo
It makes sense to me, because in such a bigoted society, the children could suffer because of their gay parents. This is a legitimate reason to ban gay adoptions, to protect the children not from their gay parents, but from backwards society they live in.

Kids will always be bullied about something, that is a part of life. fat kids, skinny kids, nerdy kids, kids with one parent, kids raised by their grandparents, kids who are ugly, kids who are stupid etc etc.

It's a poor argument you have to ban gay adoption just because some idiots in society hate gay people.

I don't believe anybody should be having kids right now.

Not all caterpillars turn into butterflies, and we are over populated as it is. Kids are dieing all over the world.

We should only allow adoption.

Of course, that's very unrealistic, I just think it's shameful everybody wants to have kids in this world right now.

Even if they raise them in a first world country, there are countless factors still against them growing into happy people with money.

It takes much more than love to raise a child, people seem to be having kids for very selfish reasons.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Rthaothal]

Homosexuality is only a different way of loving, but keep in mind the love is still there. I'd rather see my 8 year old son raised by two homosexuals than not to be raised at all. Welcome to ATS, breeding pool of ill-spirited minds.

reply to post by leira7


Why should ANYTHING matter? Why have any morals? If you can get enough freaks to agree that something is "ok", does that really suddenly make it okay? How much damage can we inflict on a kid who goes to school and suddenly realizes everybody else had a Mom and Dad and they have two moms or dads? How in the hell can a child ever expect to be a normal, healthy child when their parents have absolutely no idea how to raise a straight child?

Many gays/lesbians argue that it is genetic and it's not a choice. I agree with that to a degree, but in the case of raising a child, they will have a propensity to raise that kid as a gay/lesbian because they have no idea how to raise a child to be hetero! Two lesbians have cannot provide the traditional role of a father any more than the pet dog could. This is going to create a sick, toxic recipe for some screwed up kids. If this planet still exists 20 years from now, we will have a bunch of screwed up, confused, psychotic, suicidal freaks walking around. Hell, they'll be running for president. I can't wait.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by russ212

 

russ212,

As long as there are still children dying from starvation, being used as child soldiers or prostitutes I will be the last to comment on two men or two women trying to raise a child....

As long as they love the little one I couldn't care less....

Peace

Fantastic reply, couldnt have said it better myself

I think the OP is using this as an excuse to attack homosexuals for whatever reason.

I hope you got an applause for that post

The typical argument around homosexuality is whether it is a matter of nature or nurture.

This is a false argument, in my opinion, because - as with any other aspect of one's life - both play a role.

Examples:

Language - nature provides the ability and sound inventory (over 300 possible sounds can be made by the human vocal apparatus) but nurture narrows down the selection to a defined language.

Gender/sex - nature provides the sexual attributes (testosterone, estrogen, penis, vagina, testicles, uterus, stronger musculature, lactation, etc.), nurture assigns the gender and the roles that go with it including tasks, dress, roles, and the like (which are not universal among cultures).

Back to sexuality:

Nature and Nurture work in tandem to form sexual identity. Nature provides a sexual urge as well as the "equipment" necessary. How, what, when, where and why that equipment is used is a nurture question...a cultural question.

You might say here: "But, in the US there is no "nurture" to become gay."

You think you are smart enough or aware enough or analytical enough to see the whole forest - it's pretty big? I certainly don't claim to be, but I can still postulate a couple reasonable and eventually testable ideas about how and why homosexuality exists:

We have BPA (from plastic water bottles etc.) in pretty much all of our systems here in the US as evidenced by our analogous consumerist buddies to the north: Toxic BPA detected in 91% of Canadians

Wikipedia citing the FDA (italics mine for clarification):

Known to be estrogenic since the mid 1930s, concerns about the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in consumer products were regularly reported in the news media in 2008 after several governments issued reports questioning its safety, thus prompting some retailers to remove products containing it from their shelves. A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised further concerns regarding exposure of fetuses, infants, and young children.

Now, this is just one example of how our altered environment could be playing a role.

What about our culture in general - it hasn't been homosexual for long enough to create all these gays in their 20s, 30s, 40s and older, right?

Well, we glorify masculinity at every turn. We have phallic symbols everywhere. We have a prison culture that shows how quickly supposedly "straight" men will go gay for companionship.

Also, look at the Navy and all the stereotypes...there's a grain of truth in stereotypes. And if we go back to pre-WWI (as I heard from a researcher on NPR), the Army was actually the respite for American homosexual males.

Look at machista societies like the Middle East and Latin America. Homosexuality is the dirty little secret of coming of age.

And what about Kinsey. He's been criticized about his findings on bisexuality, but I think that, again, from experience, there is a lot of truth in his findings.

So, back to "choice"...
I won't totally disagree...there is some choice involved. There are societal choices, there are evolutionary (biological) choices, there are parental choices, and - to an extent - there are personal choices. However, none of these choices exist independent of the others.

Insofar as one can choose how their sexuality will be, the choice is not singular occurrence. One does not say to oneself some random day in pre-pubescence: "Hey! I wanna be a homosexual!" That's not how it works. Voluntary and slight negotiations (alignments) within culture are made throughout one's life (nurture) in response to involuntary and slight negotiations with the environment (nature). The choices are minute and plural and made actively and passively throughout the individual's life, as well as the collective's existence.

There is no singular epiphany of choice any more than there is for any other aspect of life.

So my question would be, Why should we expect homosexuality to be the one thing that goes against this binary nature/nurture lifelong process; the one thing that stems from a singular and sole "choice"?

reply to post by russ212


I understand that you have a certain viewpoint. The concern is that you have inappropriately labeled the article as a foundation for your discussion of homosexuals having children. An action such as the one you've taken in titling this thread demonstrates a tendency to distort fact and source to meet your own agenda.

I am curious as to whether or not you misinterpreted the article or purposefully misconstrued its subject matter to support your thread.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Dilligaf28]

Exactly how is one a bigot if they don't except homosexuallity as ok.
Treaty everyone with their God given right for respect, but you don't have to give any lifestyle a thumbs up.

.

reply to post by russ212


You know the Nazi's didn't want Jews to bread either.

Thanks for propagating hate and tension with this trash thread.

Uhm, remember this little diddy? You might want to really think about it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...."

Nuff said, this shuts down all the arguments about Gay Marriage, Adoption and all the BS gay hating sheeple in this NEOCON-Zionist nation's arguments. Unless the founding fathers were wrong.... ????

The lack of growth and spiritual awareness saddens me.

Oh and for all you christians... WWJD?

The Gospel according to
St. Matthew
7

Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Did You Know?
From: www.percy-ricketts.com...

Fifty to 65% of first marriages end within the first 15 years.
Most people who divorce will remarry, usually within 5 years. Remarriages are more likely to end than first marriages are.
When divorce occurs, mothers usually get custody of children.
24 million children in the United States live without their biological father.*
In 1970, fewer than 400,000 homes in the United States had children being raised by single fathers. By 2000, that number had risen to 2 million.*
In 2000, there were about 1.35 million out-of-wedlock births in the United States.*
Over 3 million children in the United States live with an unmarried parent and his/her partner.*
About 40 % of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different sate than their children.*
In 1960, only 9% of children in the United States lived with single parents. By 1995 that figure rose to 27%.*
Ninety percent of Americans believe children should live in the same home with their mother and father.*
Eighty-five percent of Americans feel the number of children who are born to single parents is a “serous” issue.*
Almost 18 million children in grades 1 to 12 do not live with their biological father.*
About 27% of White children do not live with their biological father, 35% of Hispanic children and 66% of Black children.*
About 80% of African American can expect to spend “a significant” portion of their childhood living without their biological father.*
In 1990, almost 5 million children lived in neighborhoods in which single mothers were head of household in more than half of all families in those neighborhoods, 80% of those children were African Americans.*
Nationally, over 19.2 million children live with single parents. About 3 million live with single fathers while over 16 million live with single mothers.*
Most single mothers with children younger than 6 years old have never been married.*
Unmarried parents accounted for over 30% of children born in 2000.*
In 2000, among White mothers about 27% of all births were out-of-wedlock, among Hispanic mothers about 43% and Black mothers about 70%.*
In 1996, over 9 million children under 18 years old who were born out of wedlock did not have a father who was legally identified.*
Girls, whose mothers were teenagers at the time of their birth, are over 80% more likely to become teenage mothers as well.*
In 1970, there were about 4 million divorced Americans. By 1998, the figure rose to over 19 million.*
Since 1970, men have been divorcing at a median age between 32 and 36 years old.*
About 60% of couples who divorce have at least one child.*
Divorce is more common among people who marry before they are 21 years old, those who are not religious; those are of a lower socio-economic status and those who marry because of pregnancy.*
Studies on families with a great deal of conflict suggest that children raised in those families do better if their parents stay together than if they divorced.*
Studies suggest that boys might be more adversely affected by divorce than girls might. However, studies of college students suggest that girls whose parents divorced are more likely to develop depression, have problems in their relationships and have children out-of-wedlock.*
Generally, people whose parents never divorced tend to feel more satisfied with their lives that others whose parents did.*
Men who divorce are two times more likely to commit suicide than those who stay married.*
One study suggested that children with stepfathers are three times more likely to be abused. Another indicated that 17% of female victims were sexually abused by their stepfather.*
Biological parents are on average more loving towards their children than stepparents are. Stepparents also tend to be more hostile and indifferent towards step-children.*
Problems associated with single parenting do not disappear when single mothers marry.*
The fathers of over 1 million children in the United States are in prison.*
African American children are 9 times more likely than White children are, to have an incarcerated parent.*

so should black men not be allowed to have children?
just say'n

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Loki Lyesmyth]

reply to post by Unknown Origin


ROFL thats too funny!

Originally posted by sensible thought
Exactly how is one a bigot if they don't except homosexuallity as ok.
Treaty everyone with their God given right for respect, but you don't have to give any lifestyle a thumbs up.

.

Well, I kinda agree I think.

I don't care for FAT people, doesn't mean I am going to stop them from rolling in flour and looking for a wet spot.

Agreed. Anyone thinking that a kid is not gonna be tripping on 2 mommies or daddies is a fool.
Kids are ruthless towards each other. Think about what the other little bullies will say and do to the kid raised by 2 of the same sex.


Geez, i can't even believe we are at this point where i'm even talking about this shiznit.
This world is going down the tubes for real.

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Agreed. Anyone thinking that a kid is not gonna be tripping on 2 mommies or daddies is a fool.
Kids are ruthless towards each other. Think about what the other little bullies will say and do to the kid raised by 2 of the same sex.


Geez, i can't even believe we are at this point where i'm even talking about this shiznit.
This world is going down the tubes for real.

And of course if it was your child doing the bullying.

As an adult you are going to maturely explain Equal Rights - - and that attraction to same sex as a birth right.

You will completely defuse the situation.

Correct?

reply to post by Romans 10:9


Yeah, and I was made fun of invariably for:

being fat
being bad at dodge ball
being the new kid (several times)

But what was mostly traumatic was that through Elementary and Middle School I was raised to be a Jehovah's Witness. Well, guess what...

When you're a JW, you do not:

Pledge allegiance (no false idol worship)
Celebrate Christmas
Celebrate Halloween
Celebrate any other holiday...

Now, let me see. My mother chose to worship the way she did. And as an only child of divorced parents, I lived with her and worshiped with her.

Now, assuming "religious beliefs" are a choice, let's compare:

Several of you are saying that a homosexual couple shouldn't have a child because of the potentiality of that child being teased and harassed for his family's composition.

I was teased and harassed for the choices my mother made (and I don't regret them because they have given me a much different outlook on life than I would have had otherwise). It was traumatic, I did go home crying. I did have to see the school counselor various times at three different schools due to the emotional stress of being constantly picked on.

What is the difference? Everyone is different and as you said, kids are kids, they're going to tease if given the impetus. Nevertheless, parents will still:

give kids up for adoption;
die and leave their children with grandparents or avuncular relatives;
die and leave their children with "relatives" of affinity (i.e., God-parents/friends);
be physically disabled or sight-impaired;
be mentally disabled;
be an alcoholic or drug-addict;
be overly strict and protective (i.e., no sports, parties, dating, etc.);
divorce and move;
take new jobs and move;
be brought up in a religion and pass it on to their children;
or choose a new one and have the children worship in it as well;
have unusual or scandalous jobs;
be a pariah in the community;
commit crimes;
have unconventional cultural or political beliefs;
raise the child in a heritage language or culture;
and, of course, be gay!

Any one of these scenarios could happen to any given child and be a reason for others to judge and tease him or her. Stuff happens, why make gay couples some weird exception to the variety of family situations in the world that may be bad, may be good, may be somewhere in between.