Gay couples and adoption!!!!! How much do the kids get to say in that??

I think it would be bad to have kids learn gender roles threw pop culture. Pop culture is disturbing: Britney spears, Micheal Jackson bleeh :eek:

Whos the one that asks the other person for a date? Its the guys, if they don't know this they probably won't have much of chance. Who are the one that have to entice the question? The girls, if they learn diffrently they could have a bit of a problem later on.

I suspect that on average a heterosexual relationship are more of the same then the average gay one.

Yeah you can break thest gender roles all day but its so much easier to just go with the flow.

Ofcourse if its a big family it wouldn't matter because there would be some straight couples but alas there arent many of those left. I guess also if the kid turned out to be gay then he would have an easier time becuase he has learned how a gay couple interacts.
 
Last edited:
thaug, are you implying that kids learn how to romance people of the oppocite gender from the way thier parents interact with each other? oh man what kind of household did you grow up in? My parents bairly speak to eachother let alone try to attract eachothers romantic attention.
 
I grew up where my mom and dad loved each other. You mean you never saw any love inbetween your father and mother at all?
 
Thaug:
I second what SpyMoose said - if I learned how a couple interacts by watching my parents, I'd be totally fucked.

Or not fucked, as the case may be.

There's something really creepy in the idea of learning "romance" from your parents.

Gender roles do exist and you sorta have to learn them.
Click to expand...

Why? I change my own oil, can barely cook, would rather read a book than make myself pretty, can ask a man out if I want him, and I'm perfectly happy.
Sure, the average man wouldn't want me for more than a five minute fuck, but I don't happen to want the average man anyways.
I'm not a slave to my culture and I wouldn't raise my child to be one either.
 
A larger percentage of Americans are gay than Muslim. And if you held a popularity contest right now, gays and Muslims would probably be tied for last place. And it's politically correct for everybody, not just schoolkids, to make fun of them. Does that mean that Muslims should not be allowed to adopt either?

How about deaf people? What a handicap it must be for a hearing child to grow up with parents who can't help him develop his oral skills. We'd better not let deaf people adopt any children except deaf ones.

How about midgets? They can't possibly control a child once he gets bigger than they are. And his schoolmates will surely make fun of them. No adoptions for midgets.

Albinos. Everybody makes fun of them. They'll never be able to go watch their kids play in a daylight sporting event. Cross them off the list.

Mimes! America hates mimes. Sure they can talk, but their "lifestyle" of choosing not to is way off the end of the normal curve. No adoptive children for mimes.

How about fat people? Bad role models, poor health prospects, everybody makes fun of them. No kids for fat people.

Shall I go on?

I have a better idea. What if we could make it as difficult for people to have children naturally as it is to adopt? Every kid must have stable parents who don't abuse drugs or get violent, his own private bedroom, a front and back yard, a middle class income, a government bureaucrat checking his progress.

Now THAT would solve the population problem!
 
gays and Muslims would probably be tied for last place. And it's politically correct for everybody, not just schoolkids, to make fun of them. Does that mean that Muslims should not be allowed to adopt either?
[/B]
Click to expand...


im in favor of gay aoption and i agreed with some of your post, but that statement i quoted there is missing something there. That being that muslums have kids all the time so folks wouldnt mind letting them get more through adoption. Some folks might see the biological inability of homosexual couples to have children as an indication that they are not naturaly intended to raise them... hmm although barren females or sterile males will adopt wont they?

never mind i agree with your post.
 
Originally posted by SpyMoose
Some folks might see the biological inability of homosexual couples to have children as an indication that they are not naturally intended to raise them.
Click to expand...
Your devil's advocacy raises a good point. I would counter by saying that "natural intention" does not automatically translate into "ability," or at least into "inclination." Just look at all the heterosexual couples who are perfectly wretched parents!

Quick, a poll here. How many of you people have/had heterosexual parents who did an absolutely crappy job on you? I'll start -- ME ME ME!
Never mind, I agree with your post.
Click to expand...
Same here. The new kinder gentler Sciforums. :)

I give up. How do I insert one of those "smilies" listed in the "Message Icon" row into my text?
 
Re: Re: discrimination

Originally posted by Mystech
Very well put. The question is: what is the qualitative difference that makes homosexuals less able to be good parents than heterosexuals? It's a missing factor in the argument, and I for one can't find it.
Click to expand...

There just might not be one. Besides biases there isn't any pertienent factor really that is really crucial that favors one group over the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top