do you think they should be allowed to? I wanna hear peoples oppions thanx

Another easy one.

Of course! I can't imagine a possible reason why people in same-sex relationships should not be "allowed" (even putting the question this way gives me the creeps) to have children, to raise them, to adopt them, and so on. Obviously some people will be good parents, some will be lousy parents.

Even if I had some evidence that being raised by a same-sex couple would tend to increase the possibility of children growing up to be in same-sex relationships, I would have no objection whatsoever. I consider same-sex relationships to be exactly morally equivalent to opposite-sex relationships in every way.

All other things being equal I think a heterosexual couple should be given preference over a gay couple when it comes to adoption of children. Unfortunately bigotry against gays could adversely affect their children. I realize I am to some extent using bigotry to justify discrimination. Of course, in the real world, all other things are seldom equal; the gender preference of the parents should be a very small factor, probably about 2% of the score if there was a scoring system for adoptive parents.

I wouldn't prevent homosexual couples from raising a child. If that is the best option for the child then fine.

However I find something very disturbing about the thought of a gay couple paying a surrogate mother to rear a child fathered by one of them, or one member of lesbian couple artificially inseminating herself with a donation from the sperm bank. For me this smacks too much of children being another commodity to be purchased.

The ideal way for a child to come into this world is as the result of a loving relationship between a woman and a man.

So yes I would allow homosexuals to be parents - but they certainly don't have a right to have children. No-one has that right.

Biology says "no".

i also say "no". Well, maybe i don't say "no" so quickly when you look at the mess the foster child system is in. Given there are many, many healthy gay couples who are willing & able to lovingly raise a child(ren), they should be subject to the same scrutiny as a straight couple. To allow an unmarried straight couple the full rights to child rearing/adoption & not allow a gay couple is every bit discriminatory.

You may notice from another thread here at Domestic Policy that i don't support the legalization of gay marriage. I defend this is not inconsistent with raising children in a loving, healthy environment.

You might not get this opinion from your average married straight male christian parent (that's me), but i recognize love as love, and emotional stability is essential for a healthy upbringing.

ok, i'm at "maybe". I'll keep checking back & see if anyone can push me off the fence.

Ok, let me help.

As you already spotted, the foster "care" system and most state-controlled child "welfare" (and I use that term very loosely) is poorly run, poorly managed. Any loving parent is preferred over that.

[NOTE: I don't blame the people who help run these organizations; I blame the short-sighted state legislatures who refuse to properly fund it]

Here's the flaw in the argument from folks who claim "I have nothing wrong with gay people, I just don't think they should adopt kids or be teachers": I know a couple of women who got married, had kids, were miserable, divorced, and then found their life partner in a woman. If gays shouldn't adopt or teach, do we take away those women's kids? Of course not.

And there's the fallacy: if you consider gays to be a bad influence on kids (what? it's catching?? ), then you should quickly snatch those kids away from that parent who follows his/her heart and takes up with a same-sex partner. But that's not the way it works, is it?

Meanwhile, single people, who are the least likely to succeed at raising kids on their own, can adopt. Abusive, alcoholic parents can keep having kids (until they're caught being abusive, usually much too late). So why not gays?

I think it comes down to the "is it biological or environmental or a choice" question. If it's biological, then it's not catching and the kids will be fine. If it's environmental (all evidence to the contrary), then it's catching and the kids will turn out "like that". If it's a choice (rare, but possible), it could also be transferred to those kids. That's the "logic" of it, anyway.

Or maybe the question comes down to "homosexuality == pedophilia == beastiality" equation that so many "slippery slope" proponents like to mention. Although slippery slopes are a bad joke on logic, they don't want to look closely enough at their hard-fought beliefs to reject it.

There are thousands of kids in thousands of orphanages across the world who need our love. Why would someone want to deny those kids love just because the potential adopter requires a same-sex relationship with their adult partner?

Final thought: this topic also relates to the gay marriage topic currently getting attention. If gay adoption is ok, then I'd want BOTH partners to be able to adopt the child, so that if one dies in a car accident, then the other could immediately take over raising the child. Without allowing gays to enter civil unions, marriages, whatever you want to call it, that doesn't happen. Only one adult could then adopt the child and the state would step in if he/she dies. This is "family values"?

my sentiments are not based on the legalities. laws and the constitution seem to be pulled in all different directions to accommodate the whims of every position under the sun so regardless of what I FEEL to be wrong or right, I'm sure the "right to have children' will be extended or altered to grant everything and anything.

And while my or anyone else's "feelings" have very little to do with law, they are therefore "subjective" and basically not up for consideration and otherwise rendered useless when debating topics such as these. be that as it may...i'll register an "opinion" anyway.

my sentiments on this issue is based on this... children do not ask to be born. there are a multitude of reasons why they...we, do come into this world. extending the bloodline. the creation of a life shared which is part of another person. a sister for mary or brother for johnny. basically selfish reasons, if the belief is that children do not ask to be born.

babies are born to good loving parents who do understand that it is THEY who wanted them not the other way around and act accordingly to provide everything humanly possible to assure baby is adored, cherished, psychologically given the best chance to become emotionally healthy, happy and secure human beings and adults. oh, add to that being housed, fed, clothed, educated, and protected.

that would be the ideal. In many cases, thankfully, it is. however, these babies, who never ask to come into this world, are also born to alcoholics, drug addicts, parents who have no physical way of feeding, housing, clothing or educating this baby. babies are born to the emotionally and mentally disabled, abusers, users, baby killers, pedophiliacs, parents who abandon them for whatever reasons, a mom or dad who later in the baby's life decide they are gay and leave the family or mom's or dad's who are serial baby-makers according to the flavor of the week and the list goes on. These would not be the most optimum circumstances for happy healthy cared-for baby. But because it is "our right" to produce offspring, anyone can bring a-not-ever-wishing-to-be-born human, into this life.

My view is simply this. since we do all we can to help our children through the ups and downs of this sometimes cruel life, would this child be the undue brunt of serious psychological harm because of the parents? from my experience as a mother, most children growing up do not want to be singled. being single out for best athlete or best in spelling, etc in their minds are the best ways to be singled out. being singled out for being "different" is very often a fate worst than death

Granted, there are children that face being "different." most of which is internal such as a handicap might put a child in a different category, rather than external ie, something not of their own person or making but something thrust on them.

In this sense, it is in my mind, not fair to the child. In an climate already rife with parents being leary as to who the STRAIGHT parents are of the children their child befriends, would parents of little boys choose to have their young son spend time, perhaps have sleepovers in a dad/dad household? there are many things to consider other than the ease with which a couple can love and snuggle a newborn. babies are easy, childhood and adolescence requires much more than just cuddling, changing diapers, and nursing. Just being able to have a baby and that of WANTING a baby is treated much too frivolously. and just because we can...should we?

my feelings are that our children owe us nothing outside reciprocation of the respect and love given them. It does happen that they do eventually give so much more however I firmly believe that we owe them. which is why my stance also is pro-choice. So at the end of the day, and based purely on my experience as a parent and not any legal consideration, I am not in favor of same-sex partners adopting.

Let me ask you this then, do you feel that interracial couples should be allowed to have children? Interracial children bare a tremendous amount of public pressure. Should black families in areas that are predominantly white be allowed to have children? Howabout people with hereditary physical disabilities? Those children would face all the same difficulties as the children of gay couples. Yet I can't picture you saying that these people shouldn't be allowed to have children?

Lets look at the issue specifically in terms of adoption then. Suppose a child up for adoption has fetal-alcohol sydrome. That child is going to be ridiculed and have a hard life. Should we permit ANYONE to adopt that child so they can integrate, or should they remain in an orphanage or some other form of isolation to save them the harm of being exposed to ridicule? Of course they should be released to a loving family... but your argument basically says otherwise, and considering that you're a parent I find that very perplexing.

an interracial family is still mother and father based. do they have some problems? maybe. are they more likely to share the same problems of heterosexual couples or homosexuals couples? there is still a man and woman present as guides for sexual identity.

identity. another issue.

the child has no benefit of interaction with and exposure to mother in the case of male/male households or a father in the case of female/female households. I feel that to be well rounded with respect to a growing sexual indentity there needs to be the presence, not absence of both sexes. Now, if you feel that there are no benefits to the child exposure to a mother AND father or that it makes no difference in the development of the child pysche then you may think that.

does a girl need relationship with a father to understand the inherent differences between men and women? studies do say that girl's relationships with their father good or bad DO reflect and have clear affects on her future relationships with men. Similarly with sons and mothers. children "identity" with either their mothers or fathers and/or take from both. is it in the child best interest for growth to deny them that? as before, if you think it matters little or much ado about nothing, we would certainly be at odds. I care nothing for the parents, my concern is for this growing human being having all every benefit.

I'll change my comment on gays and parenthood a bit to be more specific. I do not believe gays should procure "breeders" to become parents. I understand straight barren couples do this yet straight barren couples include a mother and father. I do not think that gays should be given priority over heterosexual adoptive parents in adoptive situations.

While I agree that a two-sex family structure is probably the "best" one for a child, your argument seems to be that anything outside two similar, opposite sexed parents should lose priority for adoption.

In other words: single parents, gays, interracial parents, white parents looking to adopt Asian kids, etc.

You shouldn't base a child's happiness on what you perceive to be society's hangups about that child's family situation. A child that's a ward of an orphanage or the state is in a MUCH worse situation.

where have I said interracial couples should not have children?

I haven't.
what I DID say that male/female couples (never did I mention race) should have priority in adopting. single people and gays to be considered after available children are given to stable, emotionally, mentally, financially capable heterosexual couples. Has less to do with your suggestion on what society does or does not agree with and more to do with studies that point out that children in THESE kinds of households benefit the most.

we are talking about what benefits children most, aren't we? if not then anything goes.

later

Well, for starters, biology and sexuality are such that there is very little that anyone can do to "stop" any kind of couple from raising children that one or both of them has conceived naturally. I don't think that confiscating children that have been naturally conceived from their parents should be considered in any modern civilised society unless the parents' lifestyle is one that poses a direct threat to the life and well-being of the children in question.

Specifically, physical or sexual abuse are the only reasons I see for taking children away from their natural parents. I'm not up with trends in child psychology, but it seems to me that other forms of abuse - e.g. emotional or verbal - do not necessarily have definite deleterious effects on all children, whereas a bruise is a bruise, and rape is rape. There are no grey areas.

So it seems to me that the debate kind of restricts itself to access to medical facilities to aid in conception where natural methods have failed, and to the adoption process.

In medically-assisted conception, I think the wide principle should be that nobody has the right to have children - but they do have the right to try. In countries with a largely private healthcare provision, such as the US, IVF and other such programmes are presumably paid-for services. Where there is a comprehensive tax-funded healthcare system, such as the UK, I think IVF, AID et al should be funded only during "normal" childbearing years (i.e. prior to menopause in a particular woman) and only on a limited basis (e.g. three tries per woman/couple). They can buy privately if they don't fit these criteria.

In adoption, I think that the selection process for the suitability of a couple or person to be allowed to adopt is sufficiently rigorous that anyone who qualifies, regardless of age, sex, or sexuality, will most likely be a better parent than many of the people that squirt kids out naturally with no more thought than they give to bowel movements.

Apologies for lowering the tone, but let's be clear - a large minority of children are born in such circumstances, and unless we are prepared to start telling people they can't have children because we, as a society, don't want them to (a very slippery and dangerous slope), we should view anyone who actively wants to raise children as valuable people in our societies.

I think it should be based on the sex of the child and the couple that would like to adopt. Chances are two gay men are not going to be able to teach their daughter about menstruation, and too lesbians wouldn't know how to teach a boy how to be a man (they are too nuturing by nature.)

While I think a parent can definitely have an insight into the "growing pains" of an adolescent of the same gender, I don't think that is a prerequisite for rearing a child. There are alot of single parents out there, where the other parent is either absent willingly, incarcerated or dead. I'm sure the majority of people out there who where raised in a single parent home turned out just fine. The most important thing, I think, in raising a child is unconditional love and acceptance of that kid as an individual. Regardless of what sexual orientation we are, children bring out the best in us and I think that when you connect to a child you form a nurturing bond that supersedes everything else in your life. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be a parent regardless of who you sleep with.

Well what do you consider just fine. Almost all of the single parent homes that I have witnessed have been struggling to say the least, and when the child is released into the world they continue struggling especially when compared to a 2 parent home. These kids have it worse then the kids in same sex families.

How do they bring out the best in you. They are an additional responsibility. To say they supersedes everything in your life is untrue. To secure money or resources to provide for that child and to have time to nurture that child will supersede raising that child by far.

Eh-Hem... Bill Clinton was from a single parent home and he became President of the United States.

And look at his family values. (Sorry,I didn't want to use a one liner but could think of anything to add.)

Uh, look at Jim Baker, he came from a two family home.
The rationale that only healthy, normal people come from a two parent, two gender family is absurd. Just like everything else, you have to judge it individually.

And by the way, humans are flawed and make mistakes. No one is perfect.

Healthy normal people come from all types of homes, but there is a better chance of a healthy child from a two family home. It's almost normal for kids to blame their failures on being from a single family home. Look at Bruce the Shark from "Finding Nemo." When he almost ate Marlin and Dori his friends said "He didn't even know his father." If a Disney movie isn't mainstream then I don't know what is.

Never seen the flick, sorry.

Yes, I agree with you that a person has a better chance in life if their raised in a two family home. Be it a straight OR gay home as long as their is unconditional love.

Now back to the main subject. Like I said earlier there are still somethings that men know how to do the majority of women don't and visa versa. Like putting pads on a football player, and a pad in their underwear for girls. Then there are the gays that are gay because they fear the other sex. What happens to them when their kid grows up to be one of those things that they fear?

Oh jes-la-weez! If you have COMMUNICATION and TRUST and RESPECT built up with your child, you'll be just fine. Plus, I'm sure every gay man has either a sister, aunt, mother or a whole GAGGLE of lesbian friends that would be more than happy to assist him in that delicate subject when it arose.

I'm gay and ALL of my best friends are guys. I don't fear any man. And anyone who has those types of issues, probably needs counseling before considering raising a child.

This pretty much sums up my take on the issue.

As traditional as heterosexual parenting may be, there is no guarantee that a heterosexual couple can or will provide the best environment for child rearing. Out of all the people who might possibly apply to raise a child, there are going to be some single persons and homosexual couples who will be better qualified for the task.

Attentiveness and responsibility speak volumes more for parental qualifications than does sexuality.

So far, there only seem to have been two major reservations expressed here regarding same-sex parenting: the children being subjected to ridicule and the children lacking one or another "role model". Much of what follows has already appeared in various threads here. Those of you familiar with some of my history need not bother.

My response is entirely anecdotal, but I am speaking from a relatively unique position here: my same-sex partner and I have fostered two sons. Granted, we took them in when they were both about fourteen, so we did not have much impact on their formative years - though heterosexual couples had already taken a serious toll on both these lives.

One, Paul, was raised by an overworked mother with four other kids and a father who was a heroin addict who spent more time in prison than out. paul became addicted to heroin himself by the age of twelve and had taken to prostitution to support his habit. He was living on the street when we took him in.

The other, David, had been fostered by a family with two natural children for ten years before being abruptly returned to state care because their government stipend for raising him was no longer profitable for them. He was placed (illegally) in half-way houses with drug addicts and prostitutes for two years because the state orphanages were full - and he was no longer being schooled.

In both cases, we had to foster the boys as single parents: Sean fostered Paul (after his mother gave up legal guardianship) and I fostered David. Paul continued to have problems for several years, battling his addiction and so on, but has now been in recovery for about six years. He is still a bit scarred by his childhood, though far less so than when we met him. David is extremely well-adjusted - bright, good natured, reasonably ambitious - and got married just a few months ago. [I'm treating that as a "proud father" emoticon, heh]

Throughout their teen years, they had few problems at all with being "singled out" or subjected to ridicule of any kind. I know of only one incident where a mate of Paul's made some remark about him "living with a couple of steamers" (Dublin slang equivalent to "faggots") - and Paul beat the living crap out of him. Within a few weeks, the guy was at our house playing video games. Sean and I got to know many of their friends (and girlfriends) and the parents of a few friends (and girlfriends) - and most of their peers thought that their home life was "cool". And this was in Holy Catholic Ireland! On the whole, I think that some parents are far more judgemental than their children - and project their own prejudices a bit. The kids themselves seem to have no problem, despite the famous "cruelty of children".

As far as role models go, neither of our boys seemed to have much problem - though, admittedly, in Paul's case, he did (and does) still see his natural mother with some frequency. David, on the other hand (who recently described us as "the best parents he could possibly have had"), has had very typical relations with the opposite sex. He had four or five steady girlfriends over about eight or nine years and, just over a year ago, met the girl that he recently married.

Sean and I are both predominantly gay, we are both reasonably "straight acting" (in other words, no chance of a "feminine" role model), and our relationship is not entirely monogamous - one of the things which has kept us together for twenty-three years - though our domestic life is relatively quiet and neither of us is rampantly promiscuous. Raised in this environment, neither of our kids turned out to be much of a "player", neither indulged in the sort of recreational sex their parents experienced at their ages, and David is entirely heterosexual. Paul remains a bit conflicted regarding his own sexuality (largely due to his adolescent hustling of gay men), but has "remained faithful" to girl he fell in love with when he was sixteen. They're good kids. (Okay, they're in their mid-twenties now and would hate being referred to as "kids", but - well, too bad. )

While our case may not be typical (though, if anything, most children in foster care here are in far better shape - physically, emotionally, and psychologically - than our kids were), we saw no adverse affects from two boys being raised by two men. As has been a leitmotif in this thread, the key was love. David and Paul were raised in a loving, supportive environment - one of mutual respect; of care and discipline; of genuine concern for their well-being. And neither the gender nor the sexual preference of their parents seemed to have much impact (at least not a negative one) on how they turned out.

We were - and remain - family.

Over half of the heterosexual married couples in this country - those who have divorced, those who have remained childless, those who have subjected their children to physical and mental abuse, neglect, or incest - cannot say the same.

To go by our experience, kids raised by a same-sex couple are no worse off than those raised by an opposite sex couple. No, actually: to go by our example, the kids raised by a same-sex couple were better off than being raised in the heterosexual system from which they were saved.

Wertz,

Thats is an incredible story man. I salute you and your partner. I think it needs to be judged on a case by case basis...unfortunately you don't need a law to procreate in this country.

cusbilla

Absolutely - regardless of the gender and/or sexual preference of the parents (and regardless of whether we're talking about fostering, adopting, artificial insemination, or using surrogate mothers). I know some gay and lesbian couples who would make terrible parents (at least in my assessment) - and loads of straight couples who would be even worse. But to deny anyone the right to have or raise children - to deny children the right to a loving home - on something so frivolous as the mere gender or sexual preference of the parents is criminal.

Sexual orientation has no provable correlation to parenting ability. This should be a non-issue, but I guess some people are so afraid of gay people that they make it one. Legally though, until gay marriage is given state approval, gay couples will have to adopt their children as single parents like Wertz did.

I think gay men or women should be able to adopt just like any one else. As for a kid becoming gay because of being raised in a same sex famliy is ridicules.
What a child needs who is an orphan is love and a famliy who is willing to love them.
I bet if you ask kids who we not adopted as a baby but in their teens (which most people don't want) sad as that is, will say they love their adoptive parents for just loving them and giving them a family they never had.
Wertz you may be able to give me some insight on this. Do most gays take kids that are not babies, but in their teens?
I will have to check in to this but I believe married couples do not want a teenager. Then want a baby.
There are so many kids that just need a loving parent/s be it the same sex or not that is it sad to me to deprive these kids of any family life and love.
God Bless these people who are willing to make them feel loved.

I see nothing wrong with LGBT people adopting children. I think it's time society ended discrimination against these people. It's shameful that abusive adults are allowed to adopt children so they can abuse them yet some LGBT people who don't abuse children are not allowed to.

Why not? There are many variations of families, not just the Ward and June Cleaver type. You have single families, families headed by grandparents, adopted families, as well as multi-ethnic families. We have "blended" families who were separated and combined with different marriages. We truly need to get over this "suzy 1950s" image of what marriage is. That ceased being the reality years ago.

I do not believe the issue is as simplistic as whether or not they will make good parents. I would be genuinly conerned at what the children would have to put up with in their youth as a result of bullying etc. This is obviously a crying shame and saying this makes me feel very disapointed with society. I also dont like saying it because it seems I am willing to restrict something merely as a result of a soceital prejudice.

Is Predjucice a permanent phenomena? If homophobia is - it would surely be right to introduce the legistalation and the couples and their children will have to face the brunt of society, just as those in the civil rights movement did and still do.

Taking a step back individually and a leap forward in society? Its difficult to predict the outcome which is what i believe makes this topic so problematic.

The greatest problem is not knowing the effect of gay parents on a child's devlopment. It would involve taking a risk where the test material is a living being

Yes, Paul, it seems you ARE content with legalizing discrimination based on POTENTIAL bullying, which is pretty hard to justify. Inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, etc., all have this problem to one extent or another. They deal with it. They don't look to government to codify it; they want government to make their choice OK for all. Not BETTER for those who choose it, just not worse.

I do not believe the children of Inter Racial couples and inter faith couples will face as much discrimination as those who are the offspring of homosexuals. To me, young people (esp. young males) seem to be more homophobic than they are racist or relgiously intollerant

But that is because society has changed, largely as a result of seeing more interracial couples. Not too long ago (and to this day, in certain parts of the country) people made the exact same argument you are making as a reason to oppose interracial couples.
It is unfortunate that bigotry exists, but it does and to use it as it's own excuse seems the height of illogic. Same sex couples have children right now and they DO face bigotry, but this is not the fault of the children nor of the parents. The ones at fault for this are the bigots, and they should be the ones to change.

I don't think that children would suffer irreparable psyhological harm by having gay parents. If they had gay parents they would grow up loving them and thinking that to a certain extent that kind of behavior was normal and acceptable. In fact just having two parents is a good thing considering there is a 50% + divorce rate amongst straight couples.

You are correct in thinking that children do not want to be singled out growing up, but if you think that to your best efforts it doesn't happen anyway then you are too far removed from being a child. Children between elementary and junior high ages are just cruel, they will find any way possible to make fun of someone else and pick out their differences. Eventually they grow out of it and it is not an issue.



To me this statement suggests that you don't know too many homosexuals and thus are acting on stereotypes and bigotry. I have not met a single homosexual couple that would even consider molesting a child, and to say that they are more likely to than a straight couple is simple bigotry. Parents should be careful who they entrust their children to in this day and age regardless of sexual orientation.

You say that you are pro-choice, so consider the alternative... these kids will sit in adoption homes for their entire childhood, never having parents. Or they'll go from foster home to foster home eventually becoming a detriment to society. Parents generally do not want to adopt grown children, babies are in high demand. I can speak to this because my parents have gone through the adoption process twice in the past 5 years and I know all the details about it.

So rather than allow a same sex couple to give a child a home, give a child the love that he/she deserves you would have them sit in orphanages? Doesn't make much sense to me.

In looking over some previous posts, there have been some concerns about gay parenting. I would point out that established research has stated that many of these concerns are merely myths. There are many children who grow up psychologically healthy and who develop into able, contributing members of society. About the only real valid concern is the one regarding social criticism and rejection of children of gays by their peers. For a more elaborate discussion on this topic, rather than by a layman such as myself, check out: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

I believe allowing gay couples to adopt is jumping the gun FAR too fast for society to tolerate. By "tolerate," I mean (as some posters here have already suggested) that these children will likely be subject to ridicule and isolationism, especially in the elementary and middle school years, when they are trying to discover themselves.

Now there will be incidents to the contrary, in which it appears that little to no ridicule would occur (as one poster here has told us in his uplifting anecdote). While this is wonderful, I honestly believe it to be the rare exception. It wasn't too long ago that I was a product of the public school system, and I can vouch that at least for *today* society just isn't ready to deal with this...and the unfortunate result will be putting the child on the front line.

Now, is this right? Many of us (including myself) say no. However, as long as this remains the status quo, I am uncomfortable with putting the child on the front line to bear the brunt of society's intolerance.

So what is the solution, then? I think before we can even think about gay couples adopting, civil unions first need to be in place, and be in place long enough to become something somewhat prevailent. When this becomes the new status quo, and new generations of children grow up with this new status quo, then children raised by gay couples will not face the same level of ridicule.

I know many of you will not like what I have said because it appears to be rewarding what you would call ignorance, but I think in any adoption situation, it's the child's best interests that need to be put at the forefront. So for the preceding reasons and for the present time, I would deny homosexual couples the right to adopt.

Let's take this a step further: because children of gay couples would be subjected to the same ridicule and same intolerance that you suggest will happen, ALL children of gay couples should be saved of this embarrassment.

I have a friend who married and had three kids. After 8 years of marriage, his wife wanted a divorce. She won custody of the kids, of course. Then she took up with a female lover. The father of the kids was more tolerant and decided that this really didn't matter to how the kids would be raised. Or maybe he just decided that he didn't want to raise the kids himself. Doesn't matter; she raised the kids.

In your scenario, the government must "save" the kids from this potential embarrassment and remove the kids from that woman's home.

Adoption is a government-sanction activity. Your position uses the government to sanction making sure kids ONLY get into homes with a mom and a dad of the same color, religion, whatever, because otherwise the kids "might" be subjected to embarrassment and harrassment. And the same logic could be used to remove kids from homes that don't "conform".

While I agree that working for civil unions is the right thing now, having the government use sexual orientation to decide whether a parent can create a loving environment for an adopted child based on how other people in society would perceive that child's family is just faulty reasoning.

We can not base our legislation on protecting people from potential ridicule (even if that potential did exist - which I don't believe). Fat children are ridiculed and isolated in school all the time. Should we therefore legislate against childhood obesity? Children who are lousy at or uninterested in sports are ridiculed and isolated all the time. Should we therefore legislate against children who prefer reading? Children of same-sex parents might be subject to ridicule or isolation (though as it's nothing to do with the child per se, I rather doubt it). Should we therefore legislate against gay adoption?

If one of your answers to the above questions is not like the others, I'd like to know why.

You mention that, as a recent product of the public school system, you can "vouch that at least for *today* society just isn't ready to deal with this". On what do you base this conclusion? Were there adoptive children of gay parents at your school? Or are you referring to ridicule and isolation based on something else? If so, is it something which is - or should be - prohibited by law? If not, how can you possibly compare it to what is being debated here?

Interesting thread...and this is my first reply as I am a new member.

Briefly...yes, I think homosexual couples have the right to raise children.

But, just because they have the 'right', doesn't mean that decision is right.

Although there are studies to counter other studies, the fact remains that children are more healthy, emotionally and physically, and better prepared to enter adulthood, coming from a traditional mommy and daddy household.

Gays often complain, and rightfully so, of the tough life they have had and all the societal animosity towards them. The rate of depression, suicide, drug abuse,disease and death rate for gays are all higher. That being an absolute truth, what gay couple would raise a child knowing that it is likely he or she will be gay?

I am a producer of a conservative radio talk show and we recently had a guest on from a gay-rights groups who commented on the fact that children raised in a gay household are more likely to be gay. I think that is common sense as children often mirror their parents....positively and negatively.

I recommend the book by Tammy Bruce, a lesbian feminist, who states the radical gay mafia (my term) are 'malignant narcissists'....meaning they think of themselves first and foremost. They want so much to be viewed as 'morally equal' that they mimic traditional institutions in hopes of some semblance of society (read: nature's law) views them as normal.

To make a short story much longer, yes, they have the right to raise children......and the kids will suffer for the 'parents' arrogance.

Yes. Of course. So what if the child grows up to be 'influenced' towards a tolerance of homosexuality?

What possible difference does it make if a person is homosexual or not?

And this remaining "fact" would be based on what? Do you have a source for which of the studies or counter-studies you have deemed to be the most remainingly factual?


Again, this "absolute truth" is based on what? Do you have a source for any or all of the above? I would be particularly interested in seeing the study which proves that the "death rate" is higher for gay people. I thought everyone died eventually.


And how should gay couples come by this "knowledge"? Once again, do you have anything to back this up apart from someone who once said something on an entertainment program on the radio???


That same "common sense" would lead us to believe that all children raised by one parent who is attracted to men and one parent who is attracted to women should grow up bisexual - and that the sun revolves around a flat earth. So much for the "common sense" argument.


Tammy Bruce ("A Girl Named Bruce" as she's known at The Daily Howler) is also a reactionary nut case much loathed, for any number of her political positions, among the gay community - against whom it is entirely unsurprising she should lash out. By all accounts, she's an authority on malignant narcissism. Also, I know of no "gay rights group" to which she belongs - she certainly doesn't deem any such organization worthy of mention in the lengthy autobiography posted at her web site.


Source for this, Grig? Most of the gay men and lesbians that I know (and I'll bet I know more than the faux liberal Bruce) want to have nothing to do with emulating straight society and don't give a damn how they're viewed - including those who wish to use their - often substantial - parenting skills to nurture children. I might also suggest that you study "nature" a bit more closely as you are apparently unfamiliar with many of her "laws". (cf. the Nurture vs. Nature thread in the Gender Issues forum.)


Where's your evidence that such children will suffer? And from what?? And how do you reach the conclusion that any gay man or lesbian who wishes to raise a child in a loving environment is guilty of "arrogance"? Or are you assuming here that all parents, gay or straight, are somehow "arrogant"? If not, what makes gay parents more "arrogant" than straight parents?


I realize that you are new to the board, so let me share an excerpt from the Survival Guide with you:
By my count, you have made no less than ten such "bold statements" - or is it blanket generalizations? - without having provided foundation for a single one of them. You might wish to consider having a bit of support for your next posting.

Further, some of your statements here could be seen as inflammatory - which is also against the Rules. As a gay mafioso parent who is, perhaps, a bit less malignant, arrogant, and narcissistic than most, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this time.

If you have not yet read the Rules and the Survival Guide, this might be a good time to do so.

Of course they have the right to have children.
I had a three friends growing up whose parents were gay. They turned out as normal as normal could be. The only times they were harassed were by the typical goons that generally seek to torment anyone they can. Generally those smaller than themselves. None of them are gay.

I have several "Gay" friends and their lives are no more messed up than anyone else. Typical problems that we all face. Except I have never had anyone try to crack my head open with a baseball bat because of my sexual orientation. Nor have I had people turn their backs on me because Jesus told them to hate people.
BUT they are who they are and they take that stand and even risk the chance they could be killed for being as they are. but they all refuse to hide who they are because this country has far too many close minded ignorant bigots.

As for the two parent theory. I will agree that it is better. Sometimes. In all honesty we all know people who would have been kinder to their children if they divorced. SURE THEY STAYED TOGETHER and ended raising children who saw marriage as something you grin and bear. Or worse go thru life thinking it normal to mentally abuse others because you're miserable. As long as the child has good strong role models in their life they will turn out fine. I am comforted by the fact that should I die my children have a grandfather whose character is the stuff of legend and a friend who even though he is a Die Hard Born Again Christian I would trust them both to guide them from a male perspective. (Those are just two of them Throw in my brother father step-father and a few more friends.)
On the other side between their mother grandmothers and several friends the female perspective is also well covered.
AS LONG as they have nurturing rolemodels to guide them they'll be fine. STRAIGHT OR GAY PARENTS!

Nuff Said

Dear Wertz,

Being new, I thank you, and all, for your latitude whilst I adjust to this form of debate.

Please allow me to address your concerns:


[QUOTE]And this remaining "fact" would be based on what? Do you have a source for which of the studies or counter-studies you have deemed to be the most remainingly factual?[/QUOTE]



http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5014/CFI/family/


http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=...tegoryid=family

It is much the same argument for a traditional family unit vs. a single parent.


[QUOTE]Again, this "absolute truth" is based on what? Do you have a source for any or all of the above? I would be particularly interested in seeing the study which proves that the "death rate" is higher for gay people. I thought everyone died eventually. [QUOTE]



http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BSC/4...1/article.jhtml

The truth is I could fill this whole thread with supporting articles/studies/finding...most gay rights group admit this as reasons for greater compassion and more understanding. This is from their perspective...not mine.

Although I fear your being sophmoric and flippant at my expense, I wont make an issue of it. I can certainly dish it out...so I can take it also. By 'Death Rate' I mean early death ie. the mortality rate of gays. I refer you to the first 'cited' source for comfirmation of this.




[/QUOTE]And how should gay couples come by this "knowledge"? Once again, do you have anything to back this up apart from someone who once said something on an entertainment program on the radio???[QUOTE]

This quote is referring to my assertion that children raise in a gay parent households are more likely to emulate behaviors of their parents. Again, the above cited source should address that concern.
But, I should point out, sources should not be required to express an opinion. You can disagree with my opinion but, as it is my own, I am not only entitled to it, I am an expert in it.


[/QUOTE]That same "common sense" would lead us to believe that all children raised by one parent who is attracted to men and one parent who is attracted to women should grow up bisexual - and that the sun revolves around a flat earth. So much for the "common sense" argument.[QUOTE]

This is your opinion and I respect , although, disagree with your analysis. It seems you are trying to make a logical arguement that children do not emulate bahaviors of the most influential people in their world...their parents. One can spin this anyway they want, but I think most rational people believe the parents do have a significant impact on their childrens behavior and learned skills.
Some times, studies from 'experts' and testimony from 'talking heads' are not required. I believe there are some truths that are self-evident.

[/QUOTE]Tammy Bruce ("A Girl Named Bruce" as she's known at The Daily Howler) is also a reactionary nut case much loathed, for any number of her political positions, among the gay community - against whom it is entirely unsurprising she should lash out. By all accounts, she's an authority on malignant narcissism.[QUOTE]

I find the ferocity of your attack on a cited source interesting. You call her a "nut case" and so on diligently work to dis-credit her. Rules prohibit name calling of members, but I wonder if doing such to cited authors is just be-smirching members by proxy? Never mind......
Tammy Bruce, a notable feminist lesbian, makes a compelling case to the points I have alluded too. It is all there in here book for people to reach their own conclusion.

[/QUOTE]Source for this, Grig? Most of the gay men and lesbians that I know (and I'll bet I know more than the faux liberal Bruce) want to have nothing to do with emulating straight society and don't give a damn how they're viewed - including those who wish to use their - often substantial - parenting skills to nurture children. I might also suggest that you study "nature" a bit more closely as you are apparently unfamiliar with many of her "laws". (cf. the Nurture vs. Nature thread in the Gender Issues forum.)[QUOTE]

You got a couple of thing going on here, let me break them down:

You were spot on about the gay couple you know and I do apologize for making a inclusive comment about all gays. I am referring to the gay couples I know and the gay rights movement in general. Do I really need to cite gay rights groups website and statements to make the claim that they, in general, wish to enter into the mainstream of society (read; marriage, adoption, civil rights, etc) ? I think people here are smart enough to make that leap.

The other point is about 'nature' and her laws. Unfamiliar with nature's laws? Really? Am I to assume that the 'natural' and complimentary fit between a man and a woman is not a natural law? This is absurb. I have no doubt about the ability of gay couples to nurture....you will get no arguement out of me on that one.
But I think people who try to re-configure self-evident truths to fit their political agenda are mis-guided at best. I asked this question of Rick Garcia, a guest on our show from Equality Illinios, a local gay rights activist group. He actually opined that the male/female sexual relationship was NOT nature's intent. What?

[/QUOTE]Where's your evidence that such children will suffer? And from what?? And how do you reach the conclusion that any gay man or lesbian who wishes to raise a child in a loving environment is guilty of "arrogance"? Or are you assuming here that all parents, gay or straight, are somehow "arrogant"? If not, what makes gay parents more "arrogant" than straight parents?[QUOTE]


Why can't I express an opinion without supplying evidence? Just because you don't agree with it? I reach the conclusion about 'arrogance' by the above cited fact that, despite knowing that a man and woman make the ideal structure for rasing a child, some gay couples insist on doing so despite that fact. It seems to me that in an effort to reach 'equality' they are willing to put their children on the altar of political correctness...results be dammed.

Along the same lines is a couple who has a genetic predispostion to a disease that will have the highest probabillity of passing that gene on to their off spring. Now, do they have the right to re-produce? Sure. It is wise? It is wise to be so self-centered and arrogant to knowingly subject a child to certain pain, social isolation and potential early death because they have a 'right'?
How nurturing and loving is that?


[QUOTE]Further, some of your statements here could be seen as inflammatory - which is also against the Rules. As a gay mafioso parent who is, perhaps, a bit less malignant, arrogant, and narcissistic than most, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this time.[/QUOTE]

The term 'gay mafia' was used to describe a movement...not you specifically and not gays in general. There is a clear distinction.

In reference to your perception of inflammatory Sir, I would caution you. That is nothing but a veiled threat and I take exception to it. I am sorry if you object to frank talk and pointed conversation.
To put me on your 'personal probation' system is contemptible. The implication is that if I exercise my freedom to speak and criticize the gay rights agenda, that rises to the level of 'inflammatory' speech.

I don't buy that argument. The moderator might disagree with me on that and I would like a ruling on that for clarification.

**I hope I did the quote things right...not to sure.

First, Grig, thanks for providing a few sources - it's a courtesy (and, sometimes, a boon to credibility) that a few people here have never been able to grasp.

[quote=GrigUSA,Jan 6 2004, 11:51 AM][quote]And this remaining "fact" would be based on what? Do you have a source for which of the studies or counter-studies you have deemed to be the most remainingly factual?[/quote]
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5014/CFI/family/

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=...tegoryid=family[/quote]
As you admitted yourself, there are studies and counter-studies. In asking which you decided to believe, I find it interesting that you could only come up with a "Protect Christian Families From Everything We Dislike" web site. This link, on the other hand, is from a primary source - the American Academy of Pediatrics - and includes their report in full with over thirty supporting references (not, like the CWF, sources quoted without context - where sources are provided at all). From the AAP report:[quote]The weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents...

Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents' sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children's development. [emphasis mine][/quote]
They also state that "Empirical evidence reveals... that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or dealing with general problems of parenting." Indeed, comparing hetero- and homosexual fathers, they found that "gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children's activities." In other words, gay dads may be even better than straight dads. They cite even more evidence for similar conclusions about lesbian mothers. You won't find that at the site you cite - which is committed to "bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy". Heck, you won't even find any "Biblical principles" there.

[quote]It is much the same argument for a traditional family unit vs. a single parent.[/quote]
I fail to see how "the same argument for a traditional family unit vs. a single parent" can be applied to same-sex partners. Surely, comparing a two-parent household with a two-parent household makes more "common sense" than comparing any two-parent household with a single-parent household. Of course, I've never been able to discern much "sense" in the opinions of the Christian right, period - "common" or otherwise.

[quote][quote]Again, this "absolute truth" is based on what? Do you have a source for any or all of the above? I would be particularly interested in seeing the study which proves that the "death rate" is higher for gay people. I thought everyone died eventually.  [/quote]
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BSC/4...1/article.jhtml

The truth is I could fill this whole thread with supporting articles/studies/finding...most gay rights group admit this as reasons for greater compassion and more understanding. This is from their perspective...not mine.[/quote]
While, again, this thread could be filled with counter-articles/counter-studies/counter-findings, may I ask what your perspective...not theirs might be? Are we to assume that if, indeed, stigmatization and discrimination lead to some of the problems you claim exist that gay men and lesbians should have less compassion and less understanding? Doesn't that strike you as rather contributing to the problem than helping to ameliorate it?

[quote]Although I fear your being sophmoric and flippant at my expense, I wont make an issue of it.  I can certainly dish it out...so I can take it also.  By 'Death Rate' I mean early death ie. the mortality rate of gays. I refer you to the first 'cited' source for comfirmation of this.[/quote]
Uh, thanks, but that source "is temporarily unavailable or no longer exists on our servers". Regardless, if there is a difference in life expectancy, I imagine that it has a lot to do with the AIDS epidemic and the decade or more during which no one took it seriously. Even at that, some studies on the issue seem to be deeply flawed. With some improvement - at last - in the treatment of HIV, I don't imagine there will be much statistical difference in the future. The only other factors affecting life expectancy would relate to those things which might be the result of the stigmatization and discrimination which induce compassion and understanding in some, apparently, but not others.

[quote][quote]And how should gay couples come by this "knowledge"? Once again, do you have anything to back this up apart from someone who once said something on an entertainment program on the radio???[/quote]
This quote is referring to my assertion that children raise in a gay parent households are more likely to emulate behaviors of their parents. Again, the above cited source should address that concern.[/quote]
I'm not sure if you're referring to the Christian Opinion Network or the site which doesn't exist, but, again, the research evidence of the American Academy of Pediatrics indicates that "none of the more than 300 children studied to date have shown evidence of gender identity confusion" and that "no differences have been found in the gender identity" of such children and that "similar proportions of young adults who had homosexual parents and those who had heterosexual parents have reported feelings of attraction toward someone of the same sex." They cite four corroborative studies for these conclusions alone, one of them a meta-analysis (Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol. 1995;31:124-129; Gottman JS. Children of gay and lesbian parents. Marriage Fam Rev. 1989;14:177-196; Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Dev. 1992;63:1025-1042; Tasker FL, Golombok S. Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1997; Allen M, Burrell N. Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: meta-analysis of existing research. J Homosex. 1996;32:19-35).

[quote]But, I should point out, sources should not be required to express an opinion. You can disagree with my opinion but, as it is my own, I am not only entitled to it, I am an expert in it.  [/quote]
I agree entirely, but personal opinions are seldom prefaced by "That being an absolute truth..." Forgive me if I express some doubt that your personal opinion would be universally accepted as "absolute truth" on this issue or any other - whether you're an expert on your opinion or not.

[quote][quote]That same "common sense" would lead us to believe that all children raised by one parent who is attracted to men and one parent who is attracted to women should grow up bisexual - and that the sun revolves around a flat earth. So much for the "common sense" argument.[/quote]
This is your opinion and I respect , although, disagree with your analysis. It seems you are trying to make a logical arguement that children do not emulate bahaviors of the most influential people in their world...their parents. One can spin this anyway they want, but I think most rational people believe the parents do have a significant impact on their childrens behavior and learned skills.

Some times, studies from 'experts' and testimony from 'talking heads' are not required. I believe there are some truths that are self-evident.[/quote]
Never mind the one mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (which you apparently don't find "self-evident"), how about this truth: "children are more powerfully influenced by family processes and relationships than by family structure". This is another conclusion by the AAP. Children are likely to emulate emotional relations between their parents - whether they are loving, supportive, conflicted, or abusive - regardless of the gender of those parents. That seems self-evident to me (and is born out in the experience of the children raised by my same-sex partner and I).

[quote][quote]Tammy Bruce ("A Girl Named Bruce" as she's known at The Daily Howler) is also a reactionary nut case much loathed, for any number of her political positions, among the gay community - against whom it is entirely unsurprising she should lash out. By all accounts, she's an authority on malignant narcissism.[/quote]
I find the ferocity of your attack on a cited source interesting. You call her a "nut case" and so on diligently work to dis-credit her. Rules prohibit name calling of members, but I wonder if doing such to cited authors is just be-smirching members by proxy?[/quote]
According to the rules here, no, it isn't. Examining the credentials, methods, and veracity of cited sources is standard in this type of debate.

[quote]Tammy Bruce, a notable feminist lesbian, makes a compelling case to the points I have alluded too. It is all there in here book for people to reach their own conclusion.[/quote]
Notable? Why? Because she has made a career out of being the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom? I don't begrudge her her contract with Fox News or the money she makes from her minimal book sales, but that does not mean I have to respect her - or her opinions. I'm just letting you know how she's viewed within the gay community (and the wider political community, for that matter). She lacks, to put it mildly, credibility.

[quote]You were spot on about the gay couple you know and I do apologize for making a inclusive comment about all gays. I am referring to the gay couples I know and the gay rights movement in general. Do I really need to cite gay rights groups website and statements to make the claim that they, in general, wish to enter into the mainstream of society (read; marriage, adoption, civil rights, etc) ?  I think people here are smart enough to make that leap.[/quote]
With all due respect - and unless you have a far more interesting circle of friends than I would imagine on the basis of your "absolutely true" opinions - I suspect that I know rather more gay men and lesbians - and gay couples - than you do (not to mention a more intimate knowledge of the gay rights movement). If you can find any "gay rights groups websites" that actually claim they wish to "mimic traditional institutions" in order to be considered "normal", yes, you really do need to cite them.

[quote]The other point is about 'nature' and her laws. Unfamiliar with nature's laws? Really? Am I to assume that the 'natural' and complimentary fit between a man and a woman is not a natural law? This is absurb.[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly what you are to assume - well, if you find empirical evidence convincing. That's why I referred you to the Nurture vs. Nature thread in which there are several links indicating that homosexuality is widespread throughout the animal kingdom. Further, to ignore the fact that, in nature, monogamous, one-male, one-female, two-parent family units are the exceedingly rare exception rather than the rule is not only absurb, it is absurd.

[quote]But I think people who try to re-configure self-evident truths to fit their political agenda are mis-guided at best.[/quote]
If you believe that gay men and lesbians wish to raise children in order to realize some "political agenda", then you are the one who is misguided - at best. We wish to raise children because many of us have strong paternal feelings, because many of us love children, and because we make damned good parents. Sean and I fostered David and Paul because they needed a stable home environment, because they had been severely damaged by heterosexual parents and needed our help and guidance, and because we love them. A "political agenda" had nothing whatsoever to do with it - and I rather resent the implication that something so shallow would figure in our family, as would most gay parents. There are many bad reasons for people to become parents - heterosexuals are expert in this field - and I'm sure gay men and lesbians would be no less guilty of some of them. But to add "Let's have a kid as a facile lobbying effort" sounds like the argument of someone who does have a political agenda.

[quote]I asked this question of Rick Garcia, a guest on our show from Equality Illinios, a local gay rights activist group. He actually opined that the male/female sexual relationship was NOT nature's intent. What?[/quote]
I'm afraid I missed that program , but I expect that what Mr. Garcia was actually saying was that the male/female relationship is not the only sexual relationship which occurs in nature. If so, he was absolutely right. Homosexuality exists in all higher mammals and, where they have been studied, many species of lower mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, etc. Arguments have been made elsewhere as to why homosexuality might be essential to the advancement of species - again, cf. Nurture vs. Nature.

[quote][quote]Where's your evidence that such children will suffer? And from what?? And how do you reach the conclusion that any gay man or lesbian who wishes to raise a child in a loving environment is guilty of "arrogance"? Or are you assuming here that all parents, gay or straight, are somehow "arrogant"? If not, what makes gay parents more "arrogant" than straight parents?[/quote]
Why can't I express an opinion without supplying evidence? Just because you don't agree with it? I reach the conclusion about 'arrogance' by the above cited fact that, despite knowing that a man and woman make the ideal structure for rasing a child, some gay couples insist on doing so despite that fact.[/quote]
As has been pointed out, your "above cited fact" seems to be a bit of a fiction - or, at the very least, is highly, highly moot. You are welcome to your opinions - and you are free to publish them wherever and whenever you wish - but don't try to claim that they are based on "facts", where none may exist.

[quote]It seems to me that in an effort to reach 'equality' they are willing to put their children on the altar of political correctness...results be dammed.[/quote]
Again, when gay men and lesbians raise children, they do so out of love. "An effort to reach 'equality'" has nothing to do with it. The "altar of political correctness" has nothing to do with it. It would be nice if the self-evident truth that all men are created equal was actually practiced in this country, but until it is, nothing is going to stop me from loving my kids - and I don't love them in order to make any kind of political point. I love them because they are my family. Period. Your blanket generalization about why gay people want to have the right to raise kids is offensive in the extreme. And has nothing to do with reality.

[quote]Along the same lines is a couple who has a genetic predispostion to a disease that will have the highest probabillity of passing that gene on to their off spring. Now, do they have the right to re-produce? Sure. It is wise? It is wise to be so self-centered and arrogant to knowingly subject a child to certain pain, social isolation and potential early death because they have a 'right'?

How nurturing and loving is that?[/quote]
Talk about fallacious arguments! A genetic predisposition toward a disease is so far from being "along the same lines" that it's not even worth addressing.

But there's something fallacious about your entire argument here. What if you were actually right about any of the arguments you're making about gay parents? What if homosexuality were contagious? What if all gay men and lesbians were promiscuous, disease-ridden drug addicts with short life-expectancies who wanted to raise children for purely political purposes? Would that still mean that they should not have the same rights as straight men and women who are promiscuous, disease-ridden drug addicts with short life-expectancies who raise children for no purpose whatsoever? Absolutely not. Until we have legal criteria for heterosexuals to raise children, there should be none for homosexuals. That's what that self-evident truth about equality means - and it is way more self-evident than any of the "truths" that you've come up with.



[quote][quote]Further, some of your statements here could be seen as inflammatory - which is also against the Rules. As a gay mafioso parent who is, perhaps, a bit less malignant, arrogant, and narcissistic than most, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this time.[/quote]
The term 'gay mafia' was used to describe a movement...not you specifically and not gays in general. There is a clear distinction.[/quote]
As you put no parameters on your definition, you could well be describing me specifically - as well as several other members of this board. I was heavily involved with the "gay pride" movement in the seventies. Does that make me a gay mafioso? I signed petitions, wrote to representatives, attended rallies, and marched in demonstrations. Does that make me a gay mafioso? I wrote for a gay magazine and have written and edited gay newspapers. Does that make me a gay mafioso? I frequently write in defense of various gay rights on this discussion board. Does that make me a gay mafioso? I have been in a relationship with another gay man for twenty-three years and together we have raised two sons. By your definition, such "arrogance" means that I am doing nothing more than using my family to pursue a political agenda, placing my kids on "the altar of political correctness". That must make me some kind of gay godfather. What "distinctions" are you making here, Grig?



[quote]In reference to your perception of inflammatory Sir, I would caution you. That is nothing but a veiled threat and I take exception to it. I am sorry if you object to frank talk and pointed conversation.

To put me on your 'personal probation' system is contemptible. The implication is that if I exercise my freedom to speak and criticize  the gay rights agenda, that rises to the level of 'inflammatory' speech.[/quote]
My apologies if my threat seemed "veiled", Grig - I meant it to be quite blatant. As with any other participant, if I find something inflammatory, I will report it - as should you or anyone else. As you are a new contributor, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm still doing so...

I have no problem with "frank talk" or "pointed conversation" (within the posting guidelines of America's Debate, of course). I do have a problem with people citing "facts" without reference (which, after a fashion, you have rectified), with people claiming that their opinions are "absolute truth", and with people who make blanket generalizations which have no foundation in reality. In your response here, you as good as accused me of exploiting my children to pursue a political agenda. I take that as a highly personal - and genuinely contemptible - attack. Be as frankly pointy as you like - just don't expect to get away with murder.

Wertz, please retract the claws. I don't want to make this personal and, despite what you think, I really do want to know your perspective on this and many more issues regarding gay issues.

So, as opinionated as we both are, let me extend the olive branch here and hope that future debates/discussions can be viewed with the understanding that although we might differ in opinion, we both, as parents and as human beings, are genuinely compassionate creatures.

I would respond to your rebuttal but it is laced with hurt feelings, innuendoes and mis-trust...and I don't want to continue in that fashion. Is that okay? I am certainly prepared to defend my stmts. but think no further good can come from this thread.

I am sorry you took my generalizations personally, but I do understand. I felt much the same I guess when you used the term 'right' or 'Christian Right' in a perjorative sense.

If I was better at this forum (still learning) I would of written to you personally stating this...but I haven't gotten that far yet.

You have a perspective I don't get the opportunity to hear often and I want to learn from you. I am hopeful that you think likewise.

I wish we would have had the opportunity to speak/email/thread earlier as I am interviewing an ACLU guy and a member of a gay rights group tomorrow on our radio program. Hope I learn something there as well.

If this wasn't a public forum, I would give you the info. so you could listen...or even call in. If there is a way for u to email me without me posting my addy, pls. do and I will give you all the pertinent info on the radio program.

What do you say?

Edited to remove quote of Wertz's entire post - we can all scroll

Works for me.

A couple of notes, though: Appearances to the occasional contrary, I'm a bit more thick-skinned than you may be assuming. Much of my "taking things personally" is more rhetorical than emotional - despite the tone.

Also, my mention of "the Christian right" was in reference to the CWF site - not to you personally. I have no idea what your religious beliefs are, if any. My criticism was of the site you chose to back up your initial argument - the message, so to speak, not the messenger.

Regarding info on the radio program, you could either PM it to me (use the PM button at the bottom of this post) or send me an e-mail through my profile (click on my name, and use the Email link under "Communicate" - I don't think email generated from within the forum attaches a return address). I would be interested in at least listening in, if possible.

Oh - and forgive the claws (you'll get used to them ). I've had a couple of frustrating experiences in similar threads - especially with participants refusing to provide foundation for their arguments - so I may be a bit quick to hiss in this sort of debate. Believe it or not, gender issues are not high on my "political concerns" list, though I do seem to find myself getting embroiled in them often enough...

Finally, I did take such statements as "I have no doubt about the ability of gay couples to nurture" on board - but where's the discursive entertainment value in agreeing?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


and scroll... and scroll... and scroll...

lol....agreeing? No. But I am finding that parties can disagree, even passionately, without resorting to scathing personal attacks or even the reference to it.

Rational disagreement. Yep. That's the ticket.........

With reference to your claws? Sharpen them sir...I am not done with you yet.

Oh, I see--so, parents that might possibly cause their children to suffer taunts should then not be allowed to have children. Where, exactly, should this line be drawn? What about, just for a start....ugly parents (who would decide that?), trailer-trash, low income, obviously any parent with any sort of deformity...etc. This list would get quite large, I would think. Unless, of course, we don't go down that path at all, and it really is as simplistic as whether or not they will make good parents. For which, to my knowledge, there isn't much evidence against. Not to mention the fact that being bad parents is obviously not a requirement to begin with--else there are many out there who would not qualify.