Having children? (not me!)

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

Okay, I'm sorry... Can you explain what you said. I read it again, and that's what I understand...

I never said anything about the "problems with orphans" and that gays should rescue orphans.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I went to school with two girls who had gay parents. One`s father came out of the closet when she was a baby - mom left, and she was raised by her father and his boyfriend. (A relationship which really, in my eyes, should have been seen as a marriage.) No one ever made fun of her. In fact, she always said pretty much no one even knew about it unless they were close friends with her. In grade school, other kids don`t really care. When you`re older, how much do you talk about your parents to your classmates?
She was never bullied as far as I know.

The other had been adopted by a lesbian couple. She called one mom and one by name. Everyone sort of assumed one was her mom and one was her aunt but if asked she volunteered the information willingly that they were both technically "mom". Again, no bullying that I ever heard about.

One of my best friend's dad came out when he was in elementary school, got a divorce from his wife. It was pretty tramautic for a boy that age to deal with it, but you know what? We all dealt with it and learned about gays together as friends (I think it was 5th grade), and even then it never occured to me, or to anyone that he should be made fun of. Everyone was more sad for him that his parents were divorcing than anything...and even years later everyone in high school knew and no one ever said a word...either to his face or behind his back.

In a perfect world, I do agree that the ultimate situation is for a child to experience life with his birth mother and father. But in a perfect world kids wouldn't need to be adopted, so you can go ahead and say "Gay couples are not ideal parents" but a lot of them are better and more loving than what your ideal of the "perfect couple" would be.

[Asakura]

I agrree 100% with you MMM


But guys, havent we kicked this topic to death? We've proven the point, more than once......

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

I never said anything about the "problems with orphans" and that gays should rescue orphans.

Of course you didn't say it using those words. But whever you said something like "shouldn't a child be taken in by a loving couple instead of ..........." (which you seem to say it as much as I say choice ), to me, that only implies that, not allowing a gay couple to adopt implies that the child will probably never find a loving home etc.
The same goes to the question you asked ivionkey. Asking a question like "what would you choose, a gay couple with the means, or a poor couple...?" seems extreemly limited, and goes to prove nothing apart from that you think there are a lot of children without good homes, so they're given to couples that are unable... I think for the converstation, it would have been better to ask something along the lines of "If you had a choice between two couples that you know would be very loving and caring, and are financially stable etc. One couple is gay, and the other is a standard husband and wife"... which would you choose?"
To me, that's a more realistic question that could prove something. Unless I'm totally missing the points with your questions and comments about the "poor orphans", I don't understand what your posts were trying to prove!

ps. i'm not talking about all your posts. Just the ones comparing a wealthy gay couple and a poor normal couple... and also the one about orphans and going to a loving home!

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

Of course you didn't say it using those words. But whever you said something like "shouldn't a child be taken in by a loving couple instead of ..........." (which you seem to say it as much as I say choice ), to me, that only implies that, not allowing a gay couple to adopt implies that the child will probably never find a loving home etc.

I think I made my words pretty clear over the two threads we are talking about this. I repeated myself enough. If you want to quote me, please do.

Naturally, a child should be with his birth mother and birth father. That is the ultimate and perfect situation.

UH OH! SHOCKING! Heterosexual breeders are not automatically great care-givers!

Originally Posted by noodle

The same goes to the question you asked ivionkey. Asking a question like "what would you choose, a gay couple with the means, or a poor couple...?" seems extreemly limited, and goes to prove nothing apart from that you think there are a lot of children without good homes, so they're given to couples that are unable... I think for the converstation, it would have been better to ask something along the lines of "If you had a choice between two couples that you know would be very loving and caring, and are financially stable etc. One couple is gay, and the other is a standard husband and wife"... which would you choose?"

I gave ivionkey an option on two potential adoptive parent situations THREE TIMES. One was a well-to-do lesbian couple, and one was a heterosexual, lower-middle class couple.

Not once did he answer that question directly.

....

But I am not afraid to respond to your question.

The perfect situation is for a child to be raised by his birth mother and his birth father.

If that isn't possible, what is wrong with another loving couple picking up the pieces?

---

Christ. Why is this even an issue?

Are you opening your home to children that need one?

So a lesbian couple wants to give a homeless kid a home...

Who are WE to say that is wrong?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

I think I made my words pretty clear over the two threads we are talking about this. I repeated myself enough. If you want to quote me, please do.

Naturally, a child should be with his birth mother and birth father. That is the ultimate and perfect situation.

UH OH! SHOCKING! Heterosexual breeders are not automatically great care-givers!

I gave ivionkey an option on two potential adoptive parent situations THREE TIMES. One was a well-to-do lesbian couple, and one was a heterosexual, lower-middle class couple.

Not once did he answer that question directly.

....

But I am not afraid to respond to your question.

The perfect situation is for a child to be raised by his birth mother and his birth father.

If that isn't possible, what is wrong with another loving couple picking up the pieces?

---

Christ. Why is this even an issue?

Are you opening your home to children that need one?

So a lesbian couple wants to give a homeless kid a home...

Who are WE to say that is wrong?

You have said many times, something similar to what is below...

Originally Posted by MMM

I think gay couples are thinking only about the sake of the child. Shouldn't a child with no parents have someone to love them and take care of them? Isn't that better than hopping from foster home to foster home or living in an orphanage?

When reading that, to me, it's telling me that you believe that if homosexuals adopt, then it will sort out the orphanage issue. This is why, I asked you, do YOU believe that... And then, I went to say, I don't believe that homosexuals adopting will resolve the issue.

No one will deny that. Of course it's best for the child to be with his birth parents... as long as they are capable of raising a child.

What's with that sarcastic comment? Who said that hetero's are automatically great carers?

ivionkey replied to that question by saying it's unrealistic, and makes no sense to ask it. Why would there only those two options? And tbh, he made pretty clear, that both those options are unacceptable to him.

I'm not talking about birth parents... I'm talking about two couples wanting to adopt... Both financially stable, and both very caring and loving... One coupple is gay, the other is Hetero... which would you choose?

lol, that's a poetic way of looking at it... Do you really think that homosexual couples give a home to child to save them from poverty? Please, that's ridiculous. If that was the case, then why did we even mention selfishness??. They might say it's the reason, but that's extreemly unlikely... But then again, we're not talking about exceptions... If it was really an extreme situation where the child will be in poverty unless he's adopted by a gay couple, then of course. by all means, let the gay couple take him in. They'll be saving a life. Nothing wrong with that. But in reality, this is hardly the situation. It's very uncommon to say the least.

I think you should stop using extreeme situations. The majority of the time, those situations you mentioned are extreemely rare. And in those situations, of course the bottom line is, the child needs to be saved and given a chance to live. I don't think anyone would argue with your situations...

[Suki]

I'd much rather live with gay parents than be stuck in a dirty, stinky orphanage.

[Thunda]

Originally Posted by Suki

I'd much rather live with gay parents than be stuck in a dirty, stinky orphanage.

I would totally do the opposite.

Lol I thought you mean with poor standard parents...well, rereading it..I would do so too.

[TalnSG]

Personally, though I am definitely female and certainly not asexual, I see no need to procreate, and other than medically, I don't understand this obsession in others either. Just seems like stupid ego trip to me.
(yes, I know I am way out on the far end of the strange scale on this one.)

[Slykaz1]

Originally Posted by MMM

Forgottenmemory, do you think you would believe what kids at school say over what your loving parents tell you?

Kids who have weak self-esteem always fall to peer pressure. That is one possibility as to how kids listen to kids and not their parents.

Originally Posted by Asakura

But guys, havent we kicked this topic to death? We've proven the point, more than once......

It's obvious you are still new....

But we as passionate expressers are never satisfied after 5 posts.....Expect this "discussion" to further itself....