'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

reply to post by peacejet


Again wrong. because you still have to tell me why a mother can't advize, or why a father can't love.


You have to tell me. I'm a man, how is it possible to not love?


And if these values are so warped, where's the collapse of civilization? Oh right, that's happening in nations based on "morals" and "family matters" You know, nations like Honduras, nations like Iran. Nations based on cold hard morals.

BIG success there.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Gorman91]

The homosexual animal thread died because it was VERY long. It wasn't because you brought us to some understanding we didn't have before.

Now since "homosexuality is natural" can't be proven you try to attack how it's been said that having two parents of the same sex COULD cause developmental problems. Another attempt trying to show that homosexuality is ok/normal. One person saying this is by no means a scientific study or proof of anything.

Reproduction of your species is natural, not being able to reproduce isn't. Unless anyone can show me a species that doesn't reproduce itself? The argument that offspring doesn't matter is another example of ignoring the facts. Obviously, reproduction matters or how would you be here?

I don't think anyone should be treated differently because of race, sexual preference, etc. I wish homosexuals would stop trying to put in everyone's face that they are gay and it's ok. It's ok for you, not for everyone. The only thing this threads proves is your ignorance and, in light of the facts, your unwavering belief that it's homosexuality is ok.

I can see hunkahunka sobbing under his covers now "LEAVE DEAF ALIEN ALLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!".

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


Why is mankind bound to natural law?

reply to post by Gorman91


Its natural. Children are born to a mother and father. And both serve equal roles in the growth of the child. The absence of a mother can never be compensated by another father.

reply to post by peacejet

Trust me, though they say they love you and your partner. Deep in the heart, they will be sad that they dont have a mother. Your 18 old daughter will not know about family life without the guidance of her mother. And your 13 and 9 year old son will be sad deep at heart when they see other kids coming to school with their mother and not them. Children can be affected a lot emotionally.

Well PJ, alright, I told you I would explain to you in great detail, so I will.

First of all, they are not sad they do not have a mother, that is simply not true, and someone of your age, does not have the experience or the understanding of family life to make such a vague point.

Secondly, My daughter does know what family is because she was raised in a loving and nurturing environment. She had a mother, she had two, and she had two fathers. Me and my partner took on those roles. We provided the exact things that you state are necessary. Just because we are men does not mean we aren't capable of adapting to the situation.

We are sensitive human beings, more so than your average "Macho Man". We show love like any other couple would. They do not know what it is to have a mother, so they cannot miss it. And there is nothing to miss, since we provide all of the things that a mother would for a child, love, compassion advise, the whole thing.

And by young children aren't sad when they see kids with their mothers, because they know that they have two dads who love them more than anything in the world, that's something you can never take away, and is something far more powerful than the static mother/father roles we see in traditional families.

These standards you have for these things are there because you live in a society where these kinds of things are frowned upon. You are only 18 PJ, how many kids have you raised?

How many kids have you seen grow up without parents?

PJ if you wanna go down to the base biological/evolutionary ideal scenario, than yes, all children should have a mother and a father. However, IDEAL does not translate to necessary.

It does not mean that we don't do just as good of a job as a mother would with her kids, than what I do with mine.

Another thing, is my children are surrounded by females all the time. I have a very large family, 6 sisters, and my husband has 4. They are always around the children, talking to them, giving advice to them and spending quality time with them.

So you see, you do not NEED a mother for children to grow up properly, my children are at the top of all their classes, they are active in the community, they are all musicians, they are everything you would expect a healthy child to be, in mind, body and soul.

The reason is because all you need to have good children, to raise them properly, is a LOVING home, that NUTURES their interests and shows them how to treat other people with respect, how to treat themselves with respect and how to love one another.

That's it, it's an easy mix of things. I can't control what happens when they leave my door in the morning, and yes their environment outside of my home will shape them in some way.

But you are wrong about my children, and you are wrong about what is required to raise children properly. You will understand once you have children, and once you are old enough to travel and visit other societies, or when your's becomes accepting of homosexuals.

~Keeper







[edit on 6/28/2009 by tothetenthpower]

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another example of a Strawman! And no one is putting in your face. You chose to come to this thread and post.

What seems apparent is that you are a homophobe:

ho·mo·pho·bia- noun

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

dictionary.com

Yep I'm homophobic, thanks for telling me what I'm afraid of. Attack all you want but the point of this post was to show that children of a homosexual couple CAN grow up unaffected by it. I was pointing out the flaws in that arguments. The site motto is deny ignorance after all. If the OP didn't want me to comment he shouldn't have posted it on ATS.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

reply to post by peacejet


Extermination of those with weaker genes is also "natural". Leading a people with one centralized, unquestionable leader is also natural. It's natural for a virus to kill off millions. But we do not do it. We are not bound to what is natural.

Also, no. Because there's plenty of women who act like strong male influences and plenty of men who act like strong female influences.

You have to tell me, explain to me, why a dad cannot love and why a mother cannot advise?

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


How does having gays or straits as parents affect who you are or who you'll love?

I've been attracted to girls since before it was considered cool. And yet one of my early friends was always close to me. I met him again over Facebook some time ago. Turns out he was gay. he was close because he's genes told him to be closer to males. I like girls because my genes told me to be.

Sure, I'm affected in that a guy I didn't know was gay was attracted to me. But why do I care? Great for him, he's got a boyfriend now. I don't because I'm not gay.

Point is we both were innocent and did not realize what was good or bad. He's doing perfectly well, I'm doing perfectly well. Both our parents were normal straight couples. I'm strait, he's gay. Similar starting points, different end points.

So how is he affected any differently?. He had gender confusion as a 6 year old with straight parents! Did his parents influence him to be gay? no. He didn't know what gay meant and because gay was an insult, he was confused.

By making gay look abnormal, you created a gender confused kid. Oh irony.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


And you used a Strawman argument to do this, and I used the term homophobic due to your tone and the words you chose to use. You have no basis for your position other than speculation. If your argument held any water whatsoever, then single parents would lose custody of their children, as they lack the other gendered parent. I don't see one of you endorsing that position, so it's only gay people who this standard applies to.

The age-old argument as to whether or not Homosexuality is wrong, immoral, natural or what have you is entirely irrelevant.

The Federal Government has absolutely no right to tell us who we can and cannot marry, nor does the Government have any right to tell us who can and cannot have children. Nor can the Federal Government tell us what is morally acceptable. To learn morals from the knee of a politicians is akin to asking the devil for moral guidance.

The ignorant and the self righteous need to recognize the difference between personal opinion, and rights of government officials to tell us how to live.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


When did I ever say that a homosexual couple couldn't raise a child without the child being influenced by the choices of his parents? So why are you insinuating that?

What I said was that he's using this sole example to further his own agenda, not that it couldn't be done. I'm sorry if that's the way you interpreted my post.

All species on earth being able reproduce themselves is a just my crazy speculation.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by heyo
I think you're probably just oversensative, whereas the kids of same sex couple have much, much more on their plate.

Not nearly as much as a gay kid growing up with very religious straight parents. I speak from experience, and no, I'm not oversensitive. I was just making a point. Unless you're born with a last name like Hilton, growing up is tough no matter who your parents are.

Edit to add: My Dad being a cop may have made my life tougher, but it made me tougher as well, and that I am grateful for! It also taught me that intolerance is intolerable!

[edit on 28-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

my dad's a nurse, c'mon, it's not THAT hard, and if the chiristian parents are unable to raise children without causing that same guilt trip, then it is their fault as well.

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


I just reread your post, and you are correct, you did not imply that homosexuals could not raise a child (I think, your wording was confusing). You did imply, however, that homosexuality is not OK, thus that it must be wrong.

And since has when has the ability to reproduce been the basis on whether or not a couple can be good parents. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are sterile and make great parents. There are also plenty of heterosexual couples who make horrible parents!

[edit on 28-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

The people who have a problem with a child being raised by a gay couple need to rethink their argument about "traditional family".

Does that mean that no single parent is capable of raising a child? Does that mean that a child cannot be raised by an aunt and uncle? Does it mean that a child cannot be raised by a parent and a step-parent? If "traditional mom and dad" is the real argument, then why isn't anyone out their talking about these situations and how damaging they are...?

Right... because they aren't damaging at all! A child being raised by people who love them is always the right choice!! Always.

I never said that the ability to produce offspring has anything to do with good parenting.

What I implied is that the poster was making this argument to show that homosexuality is ok. I never said it wasn't ok, I said it wasn't natural. My basis for that opinion is that every creature on earth has the ability to reproduce itself.

I then went on to say that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of sexual preference. Meaning just because someone's gay, shouldn't keep them from having the same rights as everyone else.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


Science, produced by the evolution of our brain, has permitted gays to have biological kids.

What now?

Society has come a long way, and has so far to go.

Couples raising families? Adopting children, loving them, protecting them? Children who feel loved, cherished?

Where is the problem? Because they are raised by same-sex couples?

What a crock. I would not have loved my parents any less if I'd had two moms or two dads. Would anyone?

A person without someone to love is a sad person. A child without someone to love them is a very sad child.

The Beatles had it right; All we need is love. Especially children. Nothing else should matter.

reply to post by heyo


Well, this was during the Nixon Administration, and times were very different then. Everybody hated 'the man', and my Dad represented 'the man'. I don't see any correlation between that and a father who is a nurse. Apples and oranges, my friend.

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


I think that the fact that it can be found in multiple species proves your point is incorrect. Not only can you find it in seagulls, but they mate for life. Unnatural means that it does not occur in nature, and it has clearly been documented that indeed it does.

The OP has nothing to do with homosexuality being acceptable or not. It revolves soley around the issue of whether or not being raised by homosexuals is harmful to the child or children being raised by them.

And speaking of "natural".... most mammals do not mate for life. The female raises their offspring alone or with a group of females. The males are peripheral. If the argument is that humans should be more "natural", then why isn't every child raised by their single mom?