Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


How is he a victim???

Originally posted by daggyz
It's not about this kid being raised succesfully. That is not the issue.

The issue is two women who have 0% possibility of having their 'own' children. Without male help this proves two things....

- Homosexuality isn't biologically normal
- Homosexuals crave for what fully healthy heterosexuals can do biologically 100% of the time - have children
- Homosexuals cannot be satisfied with being different as they have chosen, as they find the biologically natural urge as an individual to have children but they need something their partner cannot ever give...

Ok 3 things....

It's both sad and amusing.

And what does this mean for heterosexual couples who can't have children?

If you want to use the natural arguement, what animals actually copulate with babies in mind? Humans are the only animals who plan childbirth.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Why should this be any different to any other statute? Everything in our society was once passed for approval somewhere. Whether you care to admit it or not. This is the system that has been in the making for as long as there have been people. We choose to have someone lead us. We elect someone to govern us and make our decisions for us.

That said, I do not think that this particular vote is unjust. We have put much more trivial things to vote throughout history. So why is everyone now foaming at the mouth? It can be argued that it is not a gay couple's birthright to procreate...together. Otherwise we would be hermaphrodites! Therefore, from a purely philosophical standpoint it MUST be evaluated to what extent such a couple is capable of raising a family.
Granted though, I think every couple (not just gay couples) should be evaluated for their capacity to raise children seeing how many people are so unfit for the task

The OP's vid is great though. That kid is a great speaker. Well presented. But his experience alone is not enough to form the basis for any decision in favour of the case for same sex couples raising kids. There is much to consider from a psychological standpoint primarily.

All the best

"Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got". I'm still waiting for the punch line?

reply to post by Alexandra9


seeing now that the OP was about the vote for gay marriage rights and not their right to raise children...sorry...but, anyway, part of the point remains as stated previously.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It's that easy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it should be ok for two women or two men to raise children, that's not our business it's theres.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Actually, if it is our business (society) to intervene when children are neglected or abused or maladjusted etc. then, logically, it IS our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children.

Within a social structure some control is necessary to prevent devolution. We either quit the system altogether and let everyone do whatever they want...WHATEVER they want, or we allow the intervention/directives/control to be superimposed for the (ideally) greatest common benefit as it is perceived at a given time and under certain circumstances.
This is just how societies work. I am not taking sides here btw Remember that every change in the system was always considered negative/outrageous until people grew accustomed to it. It will not be different for either of these two issues...gay marriage and their right/ability for parenthood.

Originally posted by Alexandra9

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It's that easy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it should be ok for two women or two men to raise children, that's not our business it's theres.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Actually, if it is our business (society) to intervene when children are neglected or abused or maladjusted etc. then, logically, it IS our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children.

I agree that if we see children are neglected or abused that we should intervene. But if we see well-adjusted, happy children, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of the parents are. It is NOT our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children, anymore than it is our business to evaluate if interracial couples should raise children, or if two non-educated people should raise children, or if two atheist people should raise children, etc. etc.

reply to post by Alexandra9


I disagree entirely unfortunetly. So long as those people are infringing upon the rights of others, or causing others harm, then it's none of our business what they do.

This whole nanny state idea that the general collective make up the rules is utter rubish. Majority rule always end up oppressing the minority. If it doesnt' affect you personally, then it should be none of your business.

~Keeper

w/e, this kid is just good at speeches. i don't support gay couples raising kids. It' a dangerous trend

Originally posted by wlord
w/e, this kid is just good at speeches. i don't support gay couples raising kids. It' a dangerous trend

Dangerous trend? Care to explain why it is so dangerous?

BTW, gay parents have existed for a very long time.. they've just been secret about it because people used to be murdered for being gay. So I wouldn't call it a trend beyond them just wanting to be upfront with society.

reply to post by wlord


You really want to know what's dangerous? Idiots raising children. Maybe we should have mandatory IQ tests. If you get a score that's lower than a certain number, then you don't get to raise children, period.

It's also dangerous for prejudiced people to raise children. You should have to fill out a survey to see if you are prejudiced. If you fail the survey, you don't get to raise children.

Mean people should also not be allowed to raise children. And if you've ever cheated or lied, then you don't get to raise children. It's dangerous, because you might raise children who are just like you.

And how about ugly people? They'll just raise ugly children, who needs that? It just brings our society down.

Get my sarcasm here?

Response to post by kaylaluv
"It is NOT our business to evaluate if two men or two women could/should raise children, anymore than it is our business to evaluate if interracial couples should raise children, or if two non-educated people should raise children, or if two atheist people should raise children, etc. etc."

I hear you but I am not sure how that works out in practice. Here we frown upon the idea of evaluating/assessing an arguably unnatural base that is same-sex marriage in terms of potential effect on the children resulting therefrom.

And the suggested examples above have all been subject to some kind of debate - particularly interracial marriage, which was once not an accepted 'norm' right? But this is not related in essence. We are designed able to procreate interracially, mixed - intellect, opposing-circumstance, opposing religions...these are social constructs and not fundamental, natural issues.

My point is that people were not designed to be able to procreate with same sex partners. No mammals are! Meaning that, beyond the issue of fertilisation there is a host of hormonal, instinctive and bodily responses that are required for the union to facilitate the base for growing this new life and the child's development further on. The problem of not having a direct father figure in a female only parentage arguably proves less of a problem in this respect than lack of a mother in a male-male union. This has the potential for far reaching psychological implications for the child. (Please note that I am not excluding the possibility of it working out perfectly well in some cases. But the potential for damage is more likely precisely because it is unnatural)

If we were meant to be doing this we would be equipped for it! That's my only concern with this. I am a naturalist who feels that everything was made to be (or evolved to be) for a certain reason. This is not about social implications of such a marriage but the biological (and resulting or causative, as the case may be) psychological NATURE of it.

A sterile man and woman adopt a child. The child develops into an amazing being. The kid is loved, nurtured, guided. Another such couple turn out to be monsters and the kid ends up severely disturbed. Both scenarios can also happen in a same-sex marriage (or any marriage for that matter). But here is the thing - do you know how hard it is to be awarded a child to adopt? Do you know how harsh a scrutiny you have to undergo? Just because your body malfunctioned and you could not produce own child! I think it should be AT LEAST eqaually hard for same-sex marriage to be allowed to raise a child. Either that or remove all obstacles to having children in all cases. THEN we can talk about equality and human rights!

I personally don't care who raises children and if they raise them well. I usually concern myself with raising just my own child. I don't really care if same-sex marriage is legal or not because I think marriage in general is a social-legal convenience at best. My life with my partner was the same before and after the signature - Just harder to get out if someone has a change of heart
The debate above is purely philosophical - stemming from my psychology studies and fueled by curiosity as to the reason for all this fuss about same-sex marriage...something that I do not comprehend being rather confined by my naturalism.

All the best

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by daggyz

And what does this mean for heterosexual couples who can't have children?

It means they have to go through lengthy and harsh selection process to perhaps some day be considered FIT to adopt an abandoned/orphaned child. (See, that decision also comes from some external party). Beyond nature, as I said before, there is also the issue of equality. And it affects heterosexuals just as much as soon as they have to rely on the system. I don't see why it should be different or less rigorous for same-sex marriages!

Originally posted by REDCZAR
"Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got". I'm still waiting for the punch line?

Everybody got cake?

Also get government out of marriage.

I remember the thread about the lesbian couple that have a little boy and the little boy wants a sex change operation and the mothers want it for him too. I think instances like that is what gets peoples blood moving over homosexuals raising children.

The fact is, there are good people and bad people. The young man in the OP seems to have been raised by good people who happen to be gay. I think the case of the lesbian couple wanting their son to become a girl is a case of bad people.

Anyways, gay, bi-sexual or hetrosexual, there are good people and bad people. We should look at the young man (and children like him) as having parents, not gay parents but, just parents.

Could it be possible that a homosexual agenda exists and that it's purpose is population control through artificial insemination?

Gays or straight it doesn't really matter. As a long as you have two intelligent people who raise their children in the best interest of the children and who love and protect them you got a winning team. With that said, there are some really bad parents/people on both sides of the coin, but I think we can all agree that the parent's sexual persuasion does not equate to the child's so that is really not the issue whether you agree or disagree with it all.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Alexandra9

 

I disagree entirely unfortunetly. So long as those people are infringing upon the rights of others, or causing others harm, then it's none of our business what they do.

This whole nanny state idea that the general collective make up the rules is utter rubish. Majority rule always end up oppressing the minority. If it doesnt' affect you personally, then it should be none of your business.

~Keeper

I actually agree to some extent. But not entirely exactly because we are in fact part of the system that you describe. Majority will always oppress the minority because this is human nature. We have made the system what it is today through generations of trial and (mostly) error. We still elect those who will make such decisions for us. Democracy. And then we complain that the majority is squeezing the life out of the victim minority. Victim mentality. I find it a little irritating. We act like sheep but then expect to be taken seriously once in a blue moon when we try to defend our rights/or someone else's rights...usually after we have already been set over the fire to roast. What should and could be none of our business is different on a personal level and entirely different on a social level. BECAUSE we live in the set-up you describe. I am tired...not sure if that came out how I meant it

Originally posted by questforevidence
Could it be possible that a homosexual agenda exists and that it's purpose is population control through artificial insemination?

Not sure how it would be a "homosexual agenda" With their population at around 5% and homosexuality not being a genetic factor I don't see them breeding an army of homosexuals...lol

Most people want a family....about that simple, I would say....