I mean having parents. Any parents. We’ve all handled having parents (save for the unfortunate people who never had the opportunity to have parents).
You said "Having parents isn’t a burden that children can’t handle." I naturally thought that heterosexual parenting cannot be considered a burden because it is natural union, whereas, homosexual parents are not, so, they are more likely to be the burden to the childs well being. But my retort still applies, "Some may well be able to take it but why should they have to."
Why should they have to take having parents? Because we all do. There’s not a parent on this planet that is perfect. We don’t choose our heterosexual parents either.
Every parent on this planet is perfect to their children.
I said "Some may well be able to take it, but why should they have to? "It sounds a bit better in context. It was in response to your statement "Having parents isn’t a burden that children can’t handle.", therefore, it is clear that you are referring to parents that are a burden and I am saying that they shouldn't have to put up with parents that are a burden.
And it’s not like heterosexual couples have some leg up in parenting skills over anybody else.
Well if experience counts as a leg up I would argue that they do.
There’s no training required before people can make and raise children and there is very little skill or intelligence required to carry out the act of procreation.
Women, in the UK, who are having their first baby, attend a mother and baby learning class close to the end of their pregnancy.
Yet we trust people to raise their children on their own, as they see fit (unless they’re beating or neglecting the kids and even still, many people defend the act of hitting a child; it was even considered acceptable up until a few decades ago).
Again, in the UK midwives visit the new mum, every day at first. They then attend regularly each week for several weeks after. They stop when they consider that mum and baby are OK.
And I’ve already talked about how gay parents have to go through the same stringent vetting process than any heterosexual couples have to go through when they want to adopt children. They’re not just handing out kids on street corners next to the guy who sells poppers.
No, but they are allowing same sex couple to adopt, and how can we be sure that they pass any these stringent test on their own merit, it is not unusual for gas to bend the rules to help another gay, maybe the adoption agency are frightened of refusing an adoption through fear of repercussions.
There’s no reason for same sex couples not to raise children.
Well that is your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled to. There are many issues that should make adoption a taboo for same sex couples.
Study after study shows no risk to the well being of children raised by same sex couples. You are harbouring a fear that needn’t exist.
I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.
Well, according to a recent study there is plenty of reasons. Apparently children who are raised in a same sex home do not do as well as those who are raised in a heterosexual home. As the recent study states. This is what that study says about the studies you refer to. "Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies
also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.
It’s not any more of a selfish act than wanting to “perpetuate your seed” is a selfish act.
Perpetuating our seed is far from a selfish act. Indeed, it is quite the opposite to dedicate your life to nurturing and caring for children to insure that the planet is replenished, as well as bring the spirits to earth to be tried and tested.
I’ve yet to hear of a gay person say they want to adopt a child because “they have children so why can’t we.”
So, because you haven't heard it then they don't say it, right? "Then you live a sheltered life. Be patient, it will come. There was a program on TV, just a couple of weeks back, on which gays were demanding the same rights as straight people in raising children.
I don’t know why you would assume that would be the reason gay couples would want to raise children. I think you might be assuming the reasons are selfish because you are biased against them and therefore have to look at gay people in a negative light.
Well, that is simply not true. You are speculating incorrectl, I am saying it because that is my impression and experience with them, spoilt, neurotic and selfless. They wanted the right to be married and when they got it they rarely have monogamous relationships.
My cousin decided to have a child with her partner because she has always wanted to be a mother, for her entire life. Why should being gay have to take that away from her?
Because she is involving another human being in her bucket list. That put a completely different perspective on it. When you involve another life in your lifestyle then the child and their welfare comes first. Any chance that the child might suffer as a result of being raised properly is too much. Homosexuality is not a part of our societies norm. If it were a norm than why has it only really surfaced since the 1960s and Woodstock.
Except that is not the truth of it. I don’t know where you got “nearly 100% from.
Homosexual researchers Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen found that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples.”
In fact, another study concluded that 43 percent of male homosexuals have more than 500 partners in their lifetime. A smaller percentage had over 1000. Thus, the wonderful same-sex “family” image we are fed is largely a myth.
Oddly enough, if you look at the divorce rate among gay couples (the small amount of statistics that have been collected so far), they appear to be higher among marriages between two women than between two men. (Apparently gay women marry at higher rates than gay men do). And on average, divorce rates among heterosexual couples are far higher than that for gay couples. Let’s face it, the divorce rate has been quite high long before gay marriage was ever brought into the picture. If anybody is making a mockery of the institution of marriage, maybe it’s the heterosexuals.
I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.
I don't know why you keep using straw men to prove a point. You continually tell me every time that I make a point about gays that is negative, what heterosexuals do and how much worse they are than homosexuals are. The effect that you hope for is that you will take me away from the discussion to defend heterosexuals without debating the point that I raised in the first place. If heterosexuals are worse then homosexuals in sustaining their marriage then so what. You are just showing that marriages are not stable for anybody. The actual point is that gay couples have higher rates of failed marriages, not whether they are higher or lower then heterosexuals. It is not a competiton.
I still don’t know what monogamy has to do with parenting though.
Stability for the children instead of confusion.
Why would you assume that gay people are talking to their kids about what they do in the bedroom? Would you consider doing that?
I have not said that they do. Where did that come from
Another poster already pointed out that this is an example of 4 people out of tens of thousands. Attempting to generalize an entire population of people from a sample of four doesn’t make sense.
So, you think that because two posters have said it that it must be true. We can easily settle that theory. You are both wrong. Plus, you must think that I am still wet behind the ears. You are saying that these four are the only ones who have had these experiences when you say that only "4 people out of tens of thousands." Where did you get those statistics from, only I took it for granted that there is far more then that, if there is 4 then there could be 8, 16, 24, a 1000, and so on. I am sorry, but that is naivety and disingenuous.
You seriously want to cite this virulently hateful article?
Yes, because this guy is being genuine by expressing his opinion. You may call that virulent, however, you are pro-gay so you will excuse it in an way you can. It ties in nicely with your assertion that they are people who spread hate.
I see allusions to studies and some names but no actual citations or links to anything at all.
That is because he is expressing his own personal opinion and not writing a scientific paper. People tend not to post lies. Why waste time and effort to write lies? What is odd is that you expected it from a article.
So you get what you want but others can’t have what they want (even if it’s the same thing)
Not if it means that innocent children are going to suffer in the process. It is not the same thing. We have been raising children for thousands of years as mum and dads. Why do you deem something that has been with us, for a relatively short time as the same. If you said that a couple of decades ago people would think you are weird.
because you don’t like what people may or may not be doing in the bedroom (but only if they’re gay)?
I don't believe that it is normal and I know it is a sin, however, you are wrong in saying "I don't like it" when I am completely indifferent to it. You seem to think that you either love or hate homosexuals, with no gray scale in between. It is not a part of my conditioning. My world did not have this idea that homosexuality is normal. It was considered as disgusting and a unnatural.
How would you feel if someone told you that you are guaranteed to be a bad parent and shouldn’t be allowed to have kids because they think your religious beliefs are harmful to children? Would that be a good reason to ban you from having kids, in your opinion?
#
You are making me a straw man again, but worse then that you are making accusations that are untrue. No one is saying that homosexuals are guaranteed to be a bad parent and shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. What is being said is that their is a higher risk of the children being psychologically damaged and victimised when raised by same sex couples, so, for the sake of the children, leave it as it has always been, exclusive to heterosexuals. We know that it works, 7.4 billion members of the human race confirms it.
