quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear jake, describe "60's gender stereotypes" please. we might have another thing to argue about

Men who go out to support the family financially by working while women stay at home, clean the house, and "raise" the children. It can be a very equitable relationship, but social mores and folkways made it almost a necessity to adhere to these conditions when in reality male-female relationships can be more equal.

Why are you up so late? Thinking about me? I know right.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz You mean would I rather leave a child with a dysfunctional mother and father who will most likely cause more damage, instead of giving them to a same sex couple who have far better parenting skills? Definitely not, but that's not really that common. I wasn't aware child abuse that warranted removal of the child was so prevalent, though I may be mistaken. Oh and no, having stupid parents does not qualify as a good reason to remove a child.

Ok not all children put up for adoption have crappy parents, but ill-fit yes. That's why they are put up for adoption. Wouldn't you rather them live with two parents though than be in these big foster care places?

Personally I wished I was raised by gay parents. I would have come out earlier and not have to deal with this sexual orientation identity bullshit.

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

Sure, I agree with you but can you see why many people would want a male/female couple to have preference over a same sex couple?

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Sure, I agree with you but can you see why many people would want a male/female couple to have preference over a same sex couple?

Homosexual couples don't have this heterophobic attitude as heterosexual couples commonly have homophobic attitudes, so I don't see the problem. Unless of course you can show me an instance where a homo couple get upset when they find out their child is straight and go to their religious leader to find out how to "cure" their kid.

My point wasn't that I want to be raised by two same sex people, but by parents who are open towards sexual orientation, which gay couples pretty much are by default (they expect their kids to be straight statistically).

___________________
www.facebook.com/DigitalSixable
www.soundcloud.com/DigitalSixable

What I don't get is that if we're operating under the presumption that children somehow "need" a 2-parent household to grow up functionally, why isn't divorce considered as much of a disservice to the child as having same-sex parents would be? I think that's an awfully blatant double standard.

I do understand that there may exist some statistical correlation that has established household composition as the determinant factor in a child's outcome, but I think it should definitely be kept in mind that statistics would like to make the most normal, average person possible to support its conclusions and biases. Perhaps a relative sense of normality should be the directive of adoption agencies - for mostly obvious reasons - but does being completely average really cut it? People of character and above-average qualities are those who have learned to cope with their lot in life; to face the challenges of their below-average demography with the lessons that life has armed them with. I know this is returning to an earlier argument, but children are going to face adversity no matter who their parents are, and they shall grow all the much stronger for it. Am I saying we should stick orphans into a pit and let them fight their way out to see who is strongest?

Yes.

But not this time.

A couple should be allowed to adopt completely regardless of sex or gender, so long as they are evaluated as committed to supporting their child and raising them to be outstanding members of their given society. It's a lofty promise, but is also one made quite wantonly betwixt the blooded, floppy nethers of heterosexual mammals each and every day without the scrutiny of socio-moral traditions - why are things suddenly different when they confirm some sort of outlying prejudice?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Last edited by Halcyon+On+On on Jan-31-2010 at 13:28

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Why are you up so late? Thinking about me? I know right.

because of the +2 time zone don't get excited

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On A couple should be allowed to adopt completely regardless of sex or gender, so long as they are evaluated as committed to supporting their child and raising them to be outstanding members of their given society.

you forgot about role models and sexual self-identification. again..
how is a child going to be able to learn his role as a man and how to behave with women and express his feelings towards them if he doesn't have a proper role model? i child learns that shit from what he personally observes, not from what he is told or read. man, this shit has been determined by psychologists a hundred billion times in a variety of studies since jesus christ. you are really arguing against the forces of gravity here.

a common theory says:
bad heterosexual parents - DEFECTIVE ROLE MODEL
single parent raising child - INCOMPLETE ROLE MODEL
leaving a child without parents - ROLE MODEL ABSENT
a child being raised by a same-sex couple - INCORRECT ROLE MODEL

key word here is "INCORRECT ROLE MODEL". i may have failed proving that n.3 is better than n.1. i'm really not that qualified to answer, now that i've come to think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear you forgot about role models and sexual self-identification. again..

I think it is you who has disastrously failed to address these points. You've merely stated that role models and sexual self-identification are important for children... that's all well and good, but is there ANY actual causation between homosexuality and being a bad role model beyond boris_the_bear's own, *limited* perspective? Why are you automatically assuming that kids raised by a gay couple would lack a proper role model in either figure any more than they would with any given heterosexual couple? Why would you assume that children raised in same-sex households lack proper direction in forming their own sexual self-identification? Would it be because your own retentive notions have lead you to believe that gay people only raise gay children? Why have you not overcome this blaring irrationality?

quote:

how is a child going to be able to learn his role as a man and how to behave with women and express his feelings towards them if he doesn't have a proper role model?

Well now I am curious - what does boris_the_bear consider to be a 'proper' role model? Give some very specific examples of very specific, unalienable instances that could not possibly be transposed with a homosexual man or woman with the right mindset and organization.

quote:

i child learns that shit from what he personally observes, not from what he is told or read. man, this shit has been determined by psychologists a hundred billion times in a variety of studies since jesus christ. you are really arguing against the forces of gravity here. a common theory says: bad heterosexual parents - DEFECTIVE ROLE MODEL single parent raising child - INCOMPLETE ROLE MODEL leaving a child without parents - ROLE MODEL ABSENT a child being raised by a same-sex couple - INCORRECT ROLE MODEL key word here is "INCORRECT ROLE MODEL". i may have failed proving that n.3 is better than n.1. i'm really not that qualified to answer, now that i've come to think about it.

I love how your list has automatically omitted the standard for a 'correct' role model. Would that be because it's an almost entirely subjective and situational thing, clear exceptions being when they violate some of boris' tradition-based arbitrations? Hmm?

Children up for adoption don't get the luxury of being ignorant to how uncaring the world is for a time. It's either be miraculously found by a loving couple who sought adoption, or growing up in the orphanage/foster home. I don't know what experience you have with those, and I certainly do not know what the differences would be between an orphanage in the US and one in Ukraine, but if you believe that children are in any way better off in those than they are in an actual home with a loving couple to learn from and grow with, you are dead wrong and are fortunate to have the luxury of taking your moral scruples for granted.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I love how your list has automatically omitted the standard for a 'correct' role model. Would that be because it's an almost entirely subjective and situational thing?

subjective.... right. lol ignorance is bliss. gravity is subjective or non-existent. newton was a stupid conservative with limited views

Last edited by boris_the_bear on Jan-31-2010 at 19:53

It actually isn't subjective though. There has been much definitive research to show that children fare better with both male and female bonding partners, especially with the presence of a MOTHER in the first few years of life.

.