Separated-at-birth twins get married

[FatBastard]

@NetSnake
What is Normal. I am trying to figure out your point, but the definition of 'normality' is what prevents me from achieving that.

you also wrote "Being a single parent by choice is also not very good". again, at the risk of sounding redundant, what is choice. what do you mean by it?
For example, if a female didn't find a husband, or has wasted 10 years with Mr wrong and gotten divorced, now she is in her mid 30s or early 40s and wants to have a child.
Are you saying she shouldn't? or should she do it with someone she doesn't really want? would that be considered a healthier environment for a child?
Who exactly should she ask permission from? you? the government? society? the church? it's ridicules.

I'll tell you what, some women, would get themselves knocked up, and sue a poor, unsuspecting, horny bastard for child support, easing her burden. forcing a dual parents scenario in the ugliest way I can think of.

A woman that decides to go for it, all by herself, fulfilling nature's master plans for her, should be admired for her courage, and offered all the assistance she needs by the state.

[NetSnake]

normal is to have two parents of opposite sex. I think this goes beyond social or cultural influence. I think this is a very basic feature of all humans as species.

that being said, I think there are different shades of "normality" and a single parent is one of them maybe not the optimal but it is.

[Wulfman]

normal is to have two parents of opposite sex.

I'd suggest that this is a very recent point of view. normal could be a large family with several brothers/sisters and grandparents around. or multiple female/one male (or vice versa) "parents" in a household, depending on the society. iirc, there are several societies were men have nothing to do with their children up until a certain age, etc. which one is normal?

mfg
wulfman

[Fat Tone]

...A woman that decides to go for it, all by herself, fulfilling nature's master plans for her, should be admired for her courage, and offered all the assistance she needs by the state.

And there's another worm being let out of the can. Why should I be forced to pay because someone else feels the need to reproduce? Heck, its not like the planet is short of people, is it! We don't all get everything we want.

[FatBastard]

Spoken like a true die hard capitalist. I really have very little ability to participate in this (apparently) political discussion, primarily because I know very little about current social legislation aimed at assistimg single parents.
Personally? I have no problem with it,
I am perfectly OK with the government taking my money and helping single moms, the elderly, aids patients, the chronically unemployed, drug addicts or any other human being who have to cope with some less then fortunate circumstances.
Yup, I'm a sucker. proud of it too.

[NetSnake]

I'd suggest that this is a very recent point of view. normal could be a large family with several brothers/sisters and grandparents around. or multiple female/one male (or vice versa) "parents" in a household, depending on the society. iirc, there are several societies were men have nothing to do with their children up until a certain age, etc. which one is normal?

mfg
wulfman

all the things that you mention are different shades of normal. the only thing that is recent (and whether it is recent or not is irrelevant anyways) is 2 homosexuals raising a child and NO, THAT IS NOT NORMAL. do not confuse the right of any person to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't hurt another person, with announcing something as normal just because there is a group of people that wants it to be so.

If could ask all the people on this planet if they want to have sex with 8 year olds how many do you think they would answer "yes" (assuming that nobody lies). Probably enough to form a group of considerable size. Should that be announced as normal too?
What about those tribes that remove the clitoris of young females. they think its normal and its a very old tradition for them. Should every parent start doing that if they wished to? is that normal too?

[NetSnake]

Personally? I have no problem with it,
I am perfectly OK with the government taking my money and helping single moms, the elderly, aids patients, the chronically unemployed, drug addicts or any other human being who have to cope with some less then fortunate circumstances.
Yup, I'm a sucker. proud of it too.

I agree with that part. No problem with me either. I just don't think its the best for the child.

[Fat Tone]

I think I would generally call myself more of a socialist than a capitalist, but I'm not a die-hard anything. I pride myself in seeing both sides of an argument.

The difference here is you talk about the State helping those who have to cope with less fortunate circumstances, which I would agree with 100%. Can you honestly put a person's unfulfilled desire to have children in that category?

Spoken like a true die hard capitalist. I really have very little ability to participate in this (apparently) political discussion, primarily because I know very little about current social legislation aimed at assistimg single parents.
Personally? I have no problem with it,
I am perfectly OK with the government taking my money and helping single moms, the elderly, aids patients, the chronically unemployed, drug addicts or any other human being who have to cope with some less then fortunate circumstances.
Yup, I'm a sucker. proud of it too.

[Brian Ellis]

I have not had much experience with same-sex partnerships. The only one I came in contact with was a couple of males looking after a boarding house in Brighton where I stayed for a couple of weeks, long before anyone ever admitted to being homo. The two were obviously Jack and Jill types, the Jill being, to me, revoltingly camp. Most of the customer relationships were with the Jack type. They were obviously very fond of each other and were very caring people, to their guests as well as to each other; in fact, I don't think I've ever stayed in a boarding house where I was looked after better. I could easily imagine that if that pair brought up a kid, he would be looked after at least as well as by any hetero couple - and he/she would have two loving parents with very different personalities as in any "normal" household.

Conversely, my wife has recounted that one of her college profs was very much a "butch" lesbian who had a partner with two young children resulting from a failed marriage. Margaret met the partner and kids only once but she obtained the impression that she was a more submissive type but who adored the more domineering butch prof. The kids were apparently very normal kids for their ages, as far as a brief encounter could tell and they were obviously well looked after by both women. Again, parenting by two very different personalities. Which would be better for the kids: a stable relationship like that or a single-parent one, assuming that the partner would never wish another marriage with a man.

Both these cases took place in the 1950s, to put them into perspective. In the first case, the two blokes could have been arrested for indecency as homosexuality between males was still a criminal offence: of course, they were very discreet.

[NetSnake]

I am sure there are many other cases of homosexuals who have raised children just like any heterosexual couple would have. Giving an example or 2 or 100 still doesn't answer the question whether this should be considered normal or not and whether there are some underlying dangers in these situations. The most obvious being that the children develop psychological problems because of that. Also, I would imagine that a situation with 2 caring homosexual male parents would be more likely to be problematic for the children than one with 2 caring homosexual female parents.

OK, lets try another "mind experiment". Lets say you can build a very caring robot. Perfectly capable of taking care and giving guidance to youngsters. would you let your children be raised by it? would that be OK and normal?

[FatBastard]

The difference here is you talk about the State helping those who have to cope with less fortunate circumstances, which I would agree with 100%. Can you honestly put a person's unfulfilled desire to have children in that category?

How can I be the judge of what qualifies as unfortunate?
What you call an "unfulfilled desire" I see as the most natural of rights.
besides IMHO categorizing eligibility for state assistance in this manor is s very slippery slope.
I'll give you a simple example:
Take a normal male-female couple. they have 3 kids or so.
Take a single mother in comparison.
The married male was a life time cigarette smoker, he gets lung cancer and the state spends a small fortune to give him a few extra years.
The single mom in comparison never smoked in her life, she exercises and lives very healthy life.
the assistance she gets from the state, until her child turns 18 is a drop in the bucket compared to the smoking married man. now I ask you, is this fair?

Lets continue with this example. skip 18 years into the future,
one of the kids of the cancerous married couple enlists to the Army, he meets the single mom's child in his unit. they are both shifted off seas for a war.
Do you think the state has done justice with your tax money by supporting both families equally?

[Fat Tone]

Sorry, but I don't think extending the argument into what-ifs for smokers etc is at all helpful. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You and I might draw the line in different places. At the bottom of my thinking for most things is that people don't have the right to expect anything from anyone else. The fact that we live in societies with a generally benevolent structure is a bonus.

[Brian Ellis]

At a news conference in Baltimore, the professionals highlighted an extensive body of scientific research supporting the idea that children raised by lesbian and gay couples develop as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.

Link

Rauch said he is working with U-M professor William Meezan, who is his cousin, on a paper that examines same-sex parenting. Meezan, the Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Social Work, found no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples suffer from emotional, social or cognitive disadvantages.

"If same-sex marriage helps [children] find secure two-parent homes, that seems like a good thing," Rauch said.

Link

[az]

NetSnake:

We live in societies where it is not acceptable to test people if they are fit for having children, like a driver's licence. Sometimes we may wish we did, but then we face the dilemma of how to enforce and monitor and, more essentially, what criteria should apply?

You gave perfect examples (pederasty, female "circumcision") that normality can't serve as a criterion, because the number of people doing something doesn't necessarily correlate with a practice's sensibility. This is a very basic problem for any democratic society.

Normality is defined by society, and this definition changes significantly over time. Diversity is one of the great advantages we humans have, IMHO. How close to normal should everyone be to suit your taste? As Tony said, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I draw it somewhere else than you do.

The robot example is too unrealistic to be meaningful, besides, most of us here would probably prefer to raise their children themselves, which has almost nothing to do with the original question.

Say god gave you the duty to find parents for two children he planned on bringing into this world. Would you prefer the loving gay couple that badly wants to have children, or rather pick a heterosexual couple you don't know anything about, running the risk that they don't really want children (or are poor and have to work lots, or are abusive, mentally unstable, addicts or just very strange despite their normal sexuality)? There is of course also the chance of the randomly picked hetero couple being very child-loving.

People wanting to adopt are closely examined anyway, so I see no risk in letting homosexuals adopt children like any others can, too.

[FatBastard]

us being in disagreement on where should the line be drawn, is exactly the point I was making.

most things is that people don't have the right to expect anything from anyone else.

The fact that we live in societies with a generally benevolent structure is a bonus.

You should run for office. your incredibly demagogues ability to feed people a zero calories dish, but serve it in silverware fit for an emperor is truly astonishing . .