'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

reply to post by Tadarida


Because that's not the human species....

None the less the point stands.

Natural is an argument with so many flaws it's just dead wrong.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Staringintoinfinity

 

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

What now?

Please post proof of this. I don't think I need to prove that everything on earth can reproduce itself. I'm being serious, please show me where only genes from a same sex creatures resulted in creation of an offspring, I'll gladly take a look. Even though that's by no means natural, I won't even bring that up if you can prove the above statement.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundiNevermind, I'll remind myself why: Religion.

Separation of church and state, people. Get this concept through your brainwashed minds.

These people have just as much right to marry the person they love as you do. Discriminating against someone's sexual orientation is no more morally right than discriminating against someone's skin color.

Leave these people alone, already. Jesus Christ. They are harming absolutely NO ONE! What this boils down to is one group trying to force their beliefs on another group. Just sit down, shut up, and let them live their lives the way they want to.

But isn't the state forcing the church to recognize marriage...a violation of the separation of church and state? If either of them do it, it's a breaking of that rule...I say just let the churches recognize marriage individually or within their denomination, and let the state just recognize unions for tax purposes. I don't think anyone has a problem with people doing what they want, what the issue is...exactly you said before, and then contradicted: the separation of church and state.

reply to post by yellowcard


No one, including the state, is forcing churches to recognize any marriage. If you are Catholic, for example, and you get married anywhere but a Catholic church, they do not recognize the marriage. No one is saying that a church must marry anyone. They already have the right to not conduct the marriage of anyone. So the separation of church and state was never in danger in the gay marriage issue. The only entity that would be required to recognize the marriage would be the government.

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


I'll give you two for the price of one!

www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.news.com.au...

may I ask what defines natural? because science is only something we evolved to do. So if we use what evolution gave us the right to do, how is it unnatural anymore?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well let's answer those questions shall we?
Thanks for the response and I wish you all the best. But....

Like the right to have a mother and a father?

"If they never know what having a mother is, then why is it required?"

What kind of logic is that? If you are born a slave does that mean you dont need to be free? If you are born blind does that make sight unnecessary? No offense, but you are using the logic of 1984,double speak,double think. It sounds more like indoctrination or brainwashing.

Should a pedophile be allowed to buy a baby because he can afford one?

"What does that have to do with anything? Another one of those, let's compare pedophiles to gays?"

Pedophiles arent always gay. Lets just say MJ is the Strawman in the Wizard of Oz. The point is are babies available to anyone who can buy them? Dont they have rights?

Can anyone or a group buy a baby or just adopt one because they feel like it?

"Why not? If those people love and provide a nurturing environment, what possibly could the problem be?"

You are creating a Utopian view of the world as a tribal society where there is no discrimination and we are all one big family. This doesnt exist.

Perhaps the nuclear family is a product of capitalism and therefore is a distortion of reality and should be done away with. Yet you are also at the same time trying to create a new nuclear family based on same sex couples, not groups.

Is it legal now for gays to buy babies because they cant make their own?

"Ahh, it's called adoption....."

Adoption being a form of acquisition sanctioned by the state. Surrogate buying is another.

Can a man ever be a real mother?

"Having raised my kids in a same sex marriage, yes, we can provide all the things a woman could, emotionally anyway."

Is a mother unnecessary?

"A mother figure is very necessary in the lives of any child, but it's not absolutely necessary. There are other ways of being a "mother" to a child".

Can a women ever be a real man?
Is a father now unnecessary?

"Same response as above, either can be subjective depending on the individuals involved."

~Keeper

My original point is that the child has a right (perhaps inalienable) to a mother and father. This is the natural order of things. Perhaps in an alternative reality people could live together in tribes and the homosexuals could thus participate in raising children if that is what they want.

The issue of how children turn out is not proof that gays can raise kids but that IMO it is genetics that determines most of how they turn out.

Lets just take a survey. Ask adults who they would prefer to be adopted by if they were a baby. Do you think straight people would really rather be raised by gay couples?

The issue being raised is whether having children and raising them is a right or a privilege. If it is simply a right of adults than anyone , single,pairs or groups should be allowed to buy babies and raise them.

I think it is in the child's best interests to be raised by a mother and a father (man and woman). It exposes children to a variety of traits and characteristics of the opposite sex, and guides them in the journey of their own sex as they grow up.

However, it is better for a child to be raised by two loving members of the same sex than a mum and dad that are not loving or supportive of their children. Also, some may find this view strange, but I believe two female parents would better at raising a child than two male parents. Just the mother's instinct I guess. It is all about balance and experience in my not so humble opinion.

Personally, I think it's still a social experiment and we won't know the full outcome for many years yet. The jury is out as far as I'm concerned. Before anyone flames me, I have no problem with gay people. None whatsoever! Many of my friends are. I simply have concerns for the children. I think if a child can be provided a mother and father, then this should always be the first priority for that child... instead of catering to the whims of adults.

IRM

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by yellowcard

 

No one, including the state, is forcing churches to recognize any marriage. If you are Catholic, for example, and you get married anywhere but a Catholic church, they do not recognize the marriage. No one is saying that a church must marry anyone. They already have the right to not conduct the marriage of anyone. So the separation of church and state was never in danger in the gay marriage issue. The only entity that would be required to recognize the marriage would be the government.

I'm sure that's why church's leaders have power invested in them by the state to legally "marry?" So if a church has the power invested in them to marry...by the state, then it must recognize the marriage done by another church. If the marriage law passes then someone could easily file charges against a church, because they are given the right by the state to marry. The state could strip the permit by citing civil rights, or otherwise enforce the definition. It is very much an issue of the separation of church and state. In fact the very system we have now involving marriage is a violation of such. To say otherwise is nonsense and illogical.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Hey now all, I wasn't categorically stating anything, I'm just saying one person is not a measure of all.

I really think that if gay couples produce children with emotional issues, it's likely from outside pressures rather than a lack of love. However, these still need to be considered, no?

reply to post by yellowcard


OK, then if you are not Catholic, go down to your local Catholic Church and ask the Priest if he will marry you without converting to Catholicism. Or if you are a Catholic, go to your local Kingdom Hall or Mormon Church and ask the same question. I can tell you right now what the answer will be. The reason that the line 'by the power vested in me' is used is that they must also be sanctioned by the state to officiate a marriage. The state will not strip a Church of it's ability to officiate marriages as this would violate the Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion. Do your research before you make such assumptions! To do otherwise is nonsense and illogical!

reply to post by Rockpuck


Thank you I haven't met to many non-religous conservatives. I disapprove of same-sex marriage but only in calling it a marriage. But I do approve of a union with the same benefits. Religion has been used as bludgeon in forcing some one else to do what it considers "right". No pun intended Man this country has so many religions practiced in it, imagine if they all pushed their beliefs on the American public! Right and wrong are not religous exclusive! Demonizing homosexuality is unenlightened and not all conservatives want them denied rights they are just as entitled to.

Originally posted by heyo
hi deaf.

Good for him. Self-proclaimed nice-guy. Either way, it's fine, but this article kind of shoots gay marriage in the foot a little bit, probably unintentionally. While outlining how strong these kids were, it inevitably seemed that the kids went through a lot of inner torment due to having homosexual parents. No birthday parties? Ashamed of being ashamed? These are the kinds of things that leave lasting impressions, and form future mannerisms.

Yeah, but WHY is it they have inner torment?

It's becauce unaccepting people cannot deal with these "kids of same-sex families", and immediately condemning them as "gay" and "weird". If they weren't shunned by their friends or insulted, they would have no problem in life otherwise. If his friends didn't ask him "Why are both your parents women?" and made fun of him "Are you gonna marry Billy?" he might have thought it was perfectly normal for two women to get married - and it IS.

He could have grown up not knowing any wiser until he was 11 and old enough to learn about sex.

But the stigma WAS existing - that made him and other children of gay couples feel tormented within.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by KarlG]

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Thank you I haven't met to many non-religous conservatives. I disapprove of same-sex marriage but only in calling it a marriage. But I do approve of a union with the same benefits. Religion has been used as bludgeon in forcing some one else to do what it considers "right". No pun intended

Man this country has so many religions practiced in it, imagine if they all pushed their beliefs on the American public! Right and wrong are not religous exclusive! Demonizing homosexuality is unenlightened and not all conservatives want them denied rights they are just as entitled to.

Well said.

I cannot stand people who use religion to condemn gay people.

I have an ACQUAINTANCE who, two years ago, proclaimed constantly that "God didn't create gays" and "God didn't MEAN to create gays" and "Gays will go straight to hell" and "Gays exist to prove there IS a hell".

It doesn't matter if you believe in same-sex marriage or not, what you HAVE to believe in ARE THE RIGHTS involved. Those rights should NOT be denied, conservative or not. It's so ironic how these conservatives want to hang on to "gun rights" and deny "marriage rights" or "associated rights THAT COME WITH marriage". And that is TRUE understanding of the underlying issue.

"Do not DARE bring religion into the issue", I always tell people who oppose gay people in general because of their religion. "If not, I will tear your religion apart." In this day and age, I know I'm supposed to be enlightened and TOLERABLE and stuff, but if THEY are not tolerable of people, why should I be of them?

They completely lack understanding - ironic, because they claim to have understood their Bible fully.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by KarlG]

Gay people are the kindest and most beautiful people on this planet.

I salute all gays, and all children adopted by gays.

Originally posted by spellbound
Gay people are the kindest and most beautiful people on this planet.

I salute all gays, and all children adopted by gays.

Really? I've met plenty of gays who were insecure, bitchy and a general pain in the arse, and every lesbian I've ever met has been incredibly fat and generally unattractive.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but not everyone lives in California...

I just want to take this chance to say not all religious people are anti-gay.

I am Christian and entirely pro-gay, any one who uses religion to 'prove' gay people are wrong is damaging their religion.

Love thy neighbor people, even if hes gay. Theres is not one little thing wrong with it.

I'm just curious - which would be harder on children in the long run?

Being raised by same-sex parents, or growing up parentless, and possibly in an orphanage?

Seriously. I know there are more options than the two, but that's pretty cut and dry.

So, there are lots of people who want to have kids and can't, and thousands of kids who want to be wanted, and loved, and have no one.

Wait. There's a simple connecting logic here that's escaped me.

reply to post by The Last Man on Earth


LOL, yes the queens are bitchy, and the lezzies are nuts, but I have had a lot of gay male friends, and I have observed that they are gentle and kind.

reply to post by spellbound


But I suspect that this is more to do with them being of a good and kind nature, and nothing at all to do with their sexual orientation.