Heterosexuals are more widespread, though, and a heterosexual couple is more "proper", so I don't think it'd be good for a child to be raised by a homosexual couple. It's not a love thing; I'm sure homosexual couples can be just as loving and as caring as heterosexual couples. It's more of a culture thing.
Homosexaul Rights
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
Heterosexuals are more widespread, though, and a heterosexual couple is more "proper", so I don't think it'd be good for a child to be raised by a homosexual couple. It's not a love thing; I'm sure homosexual couples can be just as loving and as caring as heterosexual couples. It's more of a culture thing.
So in your mind it would be better to give a child to the worst possible male female couple than the best same sex couple?
I don't know why anyone would read that in to what he said. A preference is not an absolutely-every-time-nomatter-what situation. It's just a tendency to move in a given direction when there's nothing compelling you to do otherwise.
Having both genders as parents helps a child learn how to properly interact with the opposite sex. Also, a mother is usually more important to have than a father, so male gay partnerships might deserve to be treated differently than female gay partnerships.
An interesting question to ask would be: all other things being equal, would you prefer a gay couple over a single parent?
Which is why I'd give preference to heterosexual couples. But a homosexual couple would be superior to foster care, wouldn't it?
Well said.. I would also add that fathers and mothers generally have different strengths when it comes to parenting that very nicely compliment each other.
You sound like those people who say a white couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt a black child or vice versa. You're worried they'd feel out of place or something, not having a mother and a father like some of the other kids?
They'd be raised not taught the proper gender roles.
Which are what exactly? Gay people aren't forced to live under rocks are they? The child would not be exposed to television or books or other people? Eventually wouldn't they just learn that their family is different, learn to accept it and then just get over it? You know like everybody else does.
They would, but I don't know.......you need to be raised in a proper environment to come out right, don't you?
Propriety and health
As a basic, general answer, no. It helps, but there are plenty of exceptions moving in both directions.
To the other, what is "proper" and "right"? I've been considering this in another context, but, basically speaking, if I were to abide by all the assertions of right and proper that people have put forth in opposition to various things that I am, appreciate, or happen to be connected to, I'd be a bloodthirsty, bigoted jingo who listens to bad music, drinks cheap beer, drives a Chevrolet, and rants about the virtues of buying American even as I pick up my blue jeans from Wal-Mart.
And I probably would have found an excuse to shoot someone by now.
I live in a world where we seek to raise children in a healthy environment, in hopes of raising a healthy human being. Right and proper are labels people pursue in lieu of health. That is, there are many who would rather be "right", however they define that, than healthy.
When society evolves so that people so that they view such health as synonymous with propriety, your proposition will be closer to correct.
Norsefire said:
As a basic, general answer, no. It helps, but there are plenty of exceptions moving in both directions.
To the other, what is "proper" and "right"? I've been considering this in another context, but, basically speaking, if I were to abide by all the assertions of right and proper that people have put forth in opposition to various things that I am, appreciate, or happen to be connected to, I'd be a bloodthirsty, bigoted jingo who listens to bad music, drinks cheap beer, drives a Chevrolet, and rants about the virtues of buying American even as I pick up my blue jeans from Wal-Mart.
And I probably would have found an excuse to shoot someone by now.
I live in a world where we seek to raise children in a healthy environment, in hopes of raising a healthy human being. Right and proper are labels people pursue in lieu of health. That is, there are many who would rather be "right", however they define that, than healthy.
When society evolves so that people so that they view such health as synonymous with propriety, your proposition will be closer to correct.
What is the problem? I'm sure most people in the US can agree on what "family values" mean.
Proper gender roles
Gentlemanliness
No crude humor, profanity, or sexual explicitness
Of course, this should be voluntary, not through legislation. The solution to our pathetic culture isn't more laws, but rather proper upbringing for the next generation.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
I see no reason to believe that homosexuals would not restrict crude humor, profanity, and sexual explicitness around children in the same way heterosexual adults learn to, and they are gentlemen and gentlewomen too. Also, don't you think gender roles are a little antiquated..? I'm a male RN. What gender roles are you talking about, specifically..?
Last edited:
superstring01
Moderator
You've yet to support your claim that "proper gender roles" has any effect on society. I'd like to see you string the decline of the American family, social values, higher crime rates, poor education and whatnot, directly to gay parenting.
~String
its simple, there cant be any decline or incline from gay parenting...simple because the babies are contributed by heterosexuals to these other parents. The heterosexual couple, the proper gender role pave to the future of the next generation and thus influence their behavior.
um because he specifically said he wouldn't give the couple to gays unless their weren't any straight couples