Separated-at-birth twins get married

[az]

Don't drop to personal insults, please.

[FatBastard]

I was trying to lighten things up. didn't you notice the smilies ? (see , no role eyes smiley)

[NetSnake]

NetSnake:

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.

this was not an example but an experiment.

The point that I was trying to make is that the children themselfs are not robots that only need correct "use" and "programing" by the parents. In the early years the figure is also important IMHO.

so a very caring, able to express emotions and capable and even cute cubic shaped robot with a head and hands and legs cannot be as good IMHO as a caring and capable parent.

and I think the same goes for a caring and capable homosexual "Joe" that dresses up in mini skirts, wears lipstick and so on and so forth.

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.

just to give a quick answer: if I had to choose between a loving homosexual couple and complete randomness (and this is not a realistic example either) I'd go for the homosexual couple.
BUT, I am against homosexual couples adopting children because of the examples I gave in my previous posts NOT because I think that homosexual couples are more likely to be violent or negligent or anything like that....

[Brian Ellis]

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

This is very true. If "normal" parents were examined to the same criteria, I would hazard a guess that 90% of them would not be allowed to keep their kids!

[Fat Tone]

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 . .

That's hardly fair, winking simleys or otherwise. If I wanted to do that sort of thing I'd go down the local pubs, not try to have an intelligent conversation here.

[az]

this was not an example but an experiment.

The point that I was trying to make is that the children themselfs are not robots that only need correct "use" and "programing" by the parents. In the early years the figure is also important IMHO.

so a very caring, able to express emotions and capable and even cute cubic shaped robot with a head and hands and legs cannot be as good IMHO as a caring and capable parent.

Absolutely, which was actually the point I was trying to make in saying that your robot experiment was unrealistic - we are still very, very far away from robots that could disguise as humans. Any not completely human-seeming robot would be out of the question, of course. But likening homosexuals to non-humans goes too far (and is not the point you were trying to make, I know. I just still think this experiment is a little off topic).

and I think the same goes for a caring and capable homosexual "Joe" that dresses up in mini skirts, wears lipstick and so on and so forth.

I see your point. But this would not actually be more harmful than if the potential (heterosexual) parents were extremely goth, amish or any other extreme you can think of. This has very little to do with sexuality and everything with conformity, which, if not taken to extremes (there's that word again!) is a good thing. Just like a little deviation from the "norm" does us all good. Now, how about two normal-looking, well-dressed guys with good jobs who just happen to like penises?

just to give a quick answer: if I had to choose between a loving homosexual couple and complete randomness (and this is not a realistic example either) I'd go for the homosexual couple.
BUT, I am against homosexual couples adopting children because of the examples I gave in my previous posts NOT because I think that homosexual couples are more likely to be violent or negligent or anything like that....

I know. I probably wouldn't even try arguing with you if you really thought that.

I know a few homosexual couples, and I'd give them my child over the weekend any time. I'd also vote for them being able to adopt. They happen to be very normal and nice people (some even more conservative than me), which, of course, has nothing to do with their sexuality. Which is why I think sexuality really shouldn't play that big a role when deciding whom to allow to adopt children. Believe me, they know that heterosexuality is the norm and they are neither gay because they want to push an agenda nor do they want children to have somebody to indoctrinate. They also have plenty of heterosexual friends. They just like the c*ck.

[az]

I was trying to lighten things up. didn't you notice the smilies ? (see , no role eyes smiley)

Please don't confuse "lightening up" with "lighting up". Adding a smiley to an insult doesn't make it any better.

Now please let's continue this discussion like the almost-grown-up almost-completely-heterosexual men that we are.

[Fat Tone]

That's hardly fair, winking simleys or otherwise. If I wanted to do that sort of thing I'd go down the local pubs, not try to have an intelligent conversation here.

In fact, <snip> oh never mind, I'm not going to get personal like you did.

[FatBastard]

Please don't confuse "lightening up" with "lighting up"

Thanks for that. I learned something new today.

[Umfriend]

I can;t believe we're having this argument again. We had it, I think, a similar discussion about a year ago (it was about adoption by same-sex couples) and I won.

I'm not going to read it all but just a few comments:
- On opposite sex vs same sex couples as parents

Although the suspicion that being raised in samesex families is worse than in oppsex families, there is no support for that from research, and there is research on this question.

Even if it could be established that oppsex are, on average, better than samesex, it is still not a convincing argument. There will still be many samesex couples expected to do worse than many samesex couples. If you want to distinguish on expected performance you'd need to do better that solely using samesex vs oppsex as a determinant.

- On 'normality' of samesex

Normally, we do not fly. Yet, we advance and change. It's the advance and changes that enable us to do things different (and hopefully typically better). I see no reason to accept a conservative POV in the absence of sound objective arguments. Moreover, I see no reason to require 'normality' for acceptance of something.

An argument can be made for the fact that (AFAIK), samesex couples do not raise kids in nature. You wanna limit yourself to the behaviour of dogs, be my guest.

- On 'samesex', child-rape and bestiality

OMFG. We're talking about samesex couples that have a wish to share something that oppsex couples 'normally' (pun intended) do. Assuming we all accpet that child-rape and bestiality is not something oppsex couples normally do, what is the point of dragging this into it?

[NetSnake]

- On 'normality' of samesex

Normally, we do not fly. Yet, we advance and change. It's the advance and changes that enable us to do things different (and hopefully typically better). I see no reason to accept a conservative POV in the absence of sound objective arguments. Moreover, I see no reason to require 'normality' for acceptance of something.

An argument can be made for the fact that (AFAIK), samesex couples do not raise kids in nature. You wanna limit yourself to the behaviour of dogs, be my guest.

no, normality should not be a reason for acceptance of something. But, announcing something as normal when its not helps to push the limits further and advancement is not always an improvement. We are not talking about dogs, this is natural for the human species too. nobody is trying to copy dogs or any other animal.

- On 'samesex', child-rape and bestiality

OMFG. We're talking about samesex couples that have a wish to share something that oppsex couples 'normally' (pun intended) do. Assuming we all accpet that child-rape and bestiality is not something oppsex couples normally do, what is the point of dragging this into it?

nobody talked about bestiality. about child rape: people that do it often consider it normal and not so long it was even socially acceptable in many places. that, of course, does not make it right.

[Umfriend]

no, normality should not be a reason for acceptance of something.[/quoye] But, announcing something as normal when its not helps to push the limits further and advancement is not always an improvement. We are not talking about dogs, this is natural for the human species too. nobody is trying to copy dogs or any other animal.

OK, we agree that 'normality' is no ground to either accept or reject behaviour. I'll accept that as most children are raised by oppsex couples or single parents, it is not normal to be raised by samesex couples. I'll also accept that not all advancement andor change is an improvement.

But you are arguing against allowing samesex couples to have children, right? On what grounds then?

nobody talked about bestiality. about child rape: people that do it often consider it normal and not so long it was even socially acceptable in many places. that, of course, does not make it right.

Again a good point in invalidating 'normality' as a criterium. [Bestiality, that one came around in the other thread on samesex adoption, sry.]

I'll say it again: there is no ground to not allow samesex couples to have kids or adopt. It does not have to be normal to allow it. It just needs to be allowed.

[NetSnake]

Again a good point in invalidating 'normality' as a criterium. [Bestiality, that one came around in the other thread on samesex adoption, sry.]

something not "normal" is not necessarily bad. The problem is that something "normal" tends to be considered appropriate and even DESIRABLE. So normality is very often ground to accept behaviour.

But you are arguing against allowing samesex couples to have children, right? On what grounds then?

I am arguing about same sex parents (and I am talking about loving and caring parents) not having children because I think the child would be far, FAR more likely to have psychological problems.

Think:
Teasing at school (children can be very cruel) unless of course you wanna have military discipline and control at schools just to avoid that
or
Very much increased possibility (yes, something equally disturbing might happen with "normal" parents but its much less likely) of the child accidentally catching one of the "fathers" shaving his legs dressed as a nurse at home. That can't be good. Even a perfectly "normal" looking homosexual couple can be slightly different in private and there is no way to control that.

Also, there are few cases where homosexual couples were allowed to have children and the children don't appear to have any problems. But its different to examine with the same scrutiny that those few couples were examined the hundreds of thousands of couples that might want to do the same if ti became legal everywhere.


az: a goth couple might look a little or a little too much weird to some people (not by me by the way but that's irrelevant) but its still a man and a woman.

[Umfriend]

something not "normal" is not necessarily bad. The problem is that something "normal" tends to be considered appropriate and even DESIRABLE. So normality is very often ground to accept behaviour.

But wait, you did say:

no, normality should not be a reason for acceptance of something.

So what is it for you?

I am arguing about same sex parents (and I am talking about loving and caring parents) not having children because I think the child would be far, FAR more likely to have psychological problems.

You may think so, but can you back it up? Is your own suspicion sufficient to disallow it?? What would it take to make you comfortable with samesex parents? A couple of studies showing it does not make a difference?

Think:
Teasing at school (children can be very cruel) unless of course you wanna have military discipline and control at schools just to avoid that or Very much increased possibility (yes, something equally disturbing might happen with "normal" parents but its much less likely) of the child accidentally catching one of the "fathers" shaving his legs dressed as a nurse at home. That can't be good. Even a perfectly "normal" looking homosexual couple can be slightly different in private and there is no way to control that.

...shaving... any decent homosexual male should shave his legs, there simply is no excuse not to

Seriously, that would psychologically damage a child? If it can't be good, can it be bad though? Introspection is a bad guide but I can not imagine being shocked by seeing a man shave his legs (or a girl being raised by a gay-men couple not seeing any leg-shaving).

Also, there are few cases where homosexual couples were allowed to have children and the children don't appear to have any problems. But its different to examine with the same scrutiny that those few couples were examined the hundreds of thousands of couples that might want to do the same if ti became legal everywhere.

Wait, there are few cases? Like 160k same sex parenting couples in the US, that is few? Moreover, why would these couples need scrutiny? Yes, you've voiced your suspicion on samesex couples but I've yet to see a single compelling argument or fact.

az: a goth couple might look a little or a little too much weird to some people (not by me by the way but that's irrelevant) but its still a man and a woman.

And here I wonder: goth = not normal, samesex = not normal but you chose one over the other. For what reason? I am getting the impression that a bit of homophobia is into play here.

[Brian Ellis]

I am arguing about same sex parents (and I am talking about loving and caring parents) not having children because I think the child would be far, FAR more likely to have psychological problems.

Please provide scientific evidence for this. This is opinion, not fact.

I repeat from a previous post:

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.