Would You Have Been Delighted? Would Any Child? A Poll...

[TheOldSchool]

Who's forcing what, dude? You're the one forcing sexuality onto people.

Oh yea? What are gay people forcing on you? How have gay people affected your way of life? (well... besides their evident impact on your clearly limp wristed posting style)

Gay politics has infiltrated all institutions, d-bag.

It's hilarious to me that you hate gay people so much, despite being such a big ol' faggot

That must be hard to reconcile

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Oh yea? What are gay people forcing on you? How have gay people affected your way of life? (well... besides their evident impact on your clearly limp wristed posting style)

Gay politics has infiltrated all institutions, d-bag.

It's hilarious to me that you hate gay people so much, despite being such a big ol' faggot

That must be hard to reconcile

Is this the point where I'm supposed to defend that I actually like gay people? You can fuck off all the same.

 

[Peach]

It appears if a child's mother or father dies young, the child is doomed according to some posters. Odd, two men have raised children, as have two woman, since humans lived on earth. Mother, grandmother; father, grandfather.......having two parents that love a child is wonderful, and if the children of gay parents are told their birth caused:

1. _______
2. _______
3. _______

the retort of "I didn't ask to be born" will be really strong, the kid can add, "You sure did go to a lot trouble to have me!"

 

[Dana7360]

Perhaps the better question would have been, how do you think a child would feel learning that their biological mother and father gave them up for adoption to two men or two women? Because we know that it is impossible for two men to pro- create and give birth to give birth a child just as it is impossible for two women to pro-create and give birth to a child. I am totally against it because I believe it is wrong to subject the child to that type of an environment. A child should be raised by a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is my belief.

If that's your belief then don't marry someone of the same sex as you and have a child.

It's that easy.

Meanwhile you have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.

Why is it that conservatives believe they have the right to force their beliefs and lifestyle on everyone else? Why aren't you happy to be free to live as you choose and give everyone else the same respect?

Or do you hate freedom that much?

As a voter, he does have that right.

Please show me what part of our constitution or the amendments that gives anyone in America the right to force their religious beliefs on someone else?

Please tell me where in the constitution that gives anyone in America the right to force their beliefs and lifestyle on someone else?

I vote too. In fact I've never missed an election since 1978. Does that give me the right to force my religion on you or anyone else? Keep in mind I'm not christian or jewish or muslim. So I don't follow the same god those 3 faiths follow.

 

[Silhouette]

Nature: One man, one woman. You don't have to go to church and be a part of the so-called religious right to get that. All the same, I'm open to alternative relationships; but stop dragging children into them.

Children are a part of environments in which their parents live, a flat fact.

Nothing Sil argues can ever stop that.

The 4th district has now mandated that marriages all be allowed unless a stay is requested for the USSC.

Sotomayor's web of inevitable marriage equality is quite visible now.

And marriage is the qualifier in Utah in order to adopt children. Flat fact.

That's because the state has determined that a marriage is the best enviornment for adopted children. They consider the children first, adults "arrangments" second in priority for who gets protection. And the state's voters have constitutionally defined who may marry and who may not in order to reflect the best environment for children who wind up in them.

Order of preference given to civil rights generally, state and federally:

1. Children [because they cannot vote to protect themselves]

2. Adults [because they can]

 

[Silhouette]

It appears if a child's mother or father dies young, the child is doomed according to some posters. Odd, two men have raised children, as have two woman, since humans lived on earth. Mother, grandmother; father, grandfather.......having two parents that love a child is wonderful, and if the children of gay parents are told their birth caused:

1. _______
2. _______
3. _______

the retort of "I didn't ask to be born" will be really strong, the kid can add, "You sure did go to a lot trouble to have me!"

No issues there. Death is a natural part of life. So is reproduction. Familes long and extended by blood and marriage are all part of the child rearing process. Just not two people who pretend to be "mother and father" who are not and could not ever be. A child's mind is discerning enough to know that two men are not "mother and father".

So yes, I'm saying one mother or one father is better than two people mind fucking a child into believing they are somehow a substitute for "mother and father" when patently they could never be. The child will discover and know how wrong the lie is. And upon that point they may have an existential breakdown.

We as a soceity may name these behaviors "wrong" as part of our democratically-defined cultural heritage as Americans. It is not up to society to play along with games of pretend and lies to children in order so that certain people practicing certain behaviors may feel legitimized within themselves and so doing have access to children as fake "mothers and fathers".

 

[Peach]

Children are a part of environments in which their parents live, a flat fact.

Nothing Sil argues can ever stop that.

The 4th district has now mandated that marriages all be allowed unless a stay is requested for the USSC.

Sotomayor's web of inevitable marriage equality is quite visible now.

And marriage is the qualifier in Utah in order to adopt children. Flat fact.

That's because the state has determined that a marriage is the best enviornment for adopted children. They consider the children first, adults "arrangments" second in priority for who gets protection. And the state's voters have constitutionally defined who may marry and who may not in order to reflect the best environment for children who wind up in them.

Order of preference given to civil rights generally, state and federally:

1. Children [because they cannot vote to protect themselves]

2. Adults [because they can]

Florida not only allows single parent adoptions, Florida "persuades" foster parents to adopt....the monthly "stipend" is less. I know of one case personally, the single parent was 68 when DCF said "adopt or we move 'em to another home that will". This was after the two children had lived in the home 3 YEARS.

 

[Silhouette]

Children are a part of environments in which their parents live, a flat fact.

Nothing Sil argues can ever stop that.

The 4th district has now mandated that marriages all be allowed unless a stay is requested for the USSC.

Sotomayor's web of inevitable marriage equality is quite visible now.

And marriage is the qualifier in Utah in order to adopt children. Flat fact.

That's because the state has determined that a marriage is the best enviornment for adopted children. They consider the children first, adults "arrangments" second in priority for who gets protection. And the state's voters have constitutionally defined who may marry and who may not in order to reflect the best environment for children who wind up in them.

Order of preference given to civil rights generally, state and federally:

1. Children [because they cannot vote to protect themselves]

2. Adults [because they can]

Florida not only allows single parent adoptions, Florida "persuades" foster parents to adopt....the monthly "stipend" is less. I know of one case personally, the single parent was 68 when DCF said "adopt or we move 'em to another home that will". This was after the two children had lived in the home 3 YEARS.

Utah is different than Florida.

That's the whole point. The only thing I'd like to see the Fed make a constitutional provision as a civil right is for kids to have the most sane home that is closest to man/woman father/mother that is possible. That and totally availible birth control for any woman who wants it.

 

[September]

I am not open to alternate lifestyles but I agree with you on the matter of one man, one woman, raising children. Now I would like for you to consider something I once heard a famous minister say. What if all the roosters were homosexual and there were no more eggs? What if all the hogs became homosexual and there was no more bacon? What if the bulls all became homosexual and there was no more beef? What if the men and women all opted for this alternative lifestyle you speak of and mankind ceased to exist? What then? I believe all that was created as it was created was good. I also believe it was intended to remain that way but sin entered the heart of man and this is the result. Very sad day we are living in. Very sad.

Even though you agree with my argument; I still have to object to your means of argument. It's reductio ad absurdum. Everyone will not be defying nature and becoming homosexual. However, my point is that one man / one woman is obviously the most optimal way for a child to properly develop. All this 'a child loves unconditionally' stuff is not an argument against that reality either.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear on my reason for being against homosexual behavior / lesbian behavior - I am against it because the bible condemns it. I'm a Christian. I believe that Gods opinion is the only opinion that matters. I hope that clarifies it for you. I do believe that children love unconditionally. Absolutely I do. Which is why I feel they must be protected from this. They are innocent. They have no idea! You see?

So basically you are against it because you are indoctrinated that way.

​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Children are a part of environments in which their parents live, a flat fact.

Nothing Sil argues can ever stop that.

The 4th district has now mandated that marriages all be allowed unless a stay is requested for the USSC.

Sotomayor's web of inevitable marriage equality is quite visible now.

Yea, you keep having your judicial plants defy the Constitution. One day, the people will take back the power though.

Yes, you continue to sound like the SCOTUS opponent ever since 1803. All fury but only fluff.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I was adopted. Until my early teens I didn't udnerstand what that meant. My Mom was always up front with me about it, but relative to 'normal' families it never occured to me it was anything unusual. I don't think at 8, kids are going to have any appreciation of a homosexual parenting situation. But they will notice and respond to other people's feelings in that even children notice things when they're out of the ordinary routine. If people get hushed and quiet talking about ttheir two fathers/mothers, they'll notice that. But in their heads it wont likely be that they have any prejudicial feelings about gay parents and parenting.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's really a simple question and a simple poll.

But first it requires that you enter a meditative state and go back in your memory to when you were a child in the early years of elementary school.. As a child coming into awareness of his or her world at say between the age of 6-8, would you have been delighted [or would you be delighted] to have come to the awareness that instead of a mom and dad, you had two dads or two moms instead?

And if that situation would have been unthinkable for you then as it might be for you now; would you require that another child at that young point of awareness have to come to the realization that he has two dads or two moms?

The child would know the difference the moment they figured out that males and females make babies together. Or when a child watched how male and female animals [all but homo sapiens] abided by that rule overwhelmingly. At that point, a child's mind would begin a downward spiral when told to shut up when asking why just humans upheld homosexuality as a norm when all other mammals do not? As a child kept asking, what else would his or her gay parents have as an option besides just telling them to shut up? Because the end point of that questioning would have to be denial of reality. Or at the very least an extremely uncomfortable conversation about the mental stability of a person who rejects the opposite gender but embraces parenting... As the child ages to the teen years, this questioning and probing of an obvious mental issue would reach new heights and would be predicted to have devastating consequences in the adolescent's mind. They typically struggle as it is to make sense of the world and glaring inconsistencies they notice within it.. This struggle sometimes leads them to hurt themselves or others.

Your poll is a bullshit poll. It only allows for really ecstatic emotions or great shock. What a piece of drivel.

How about "it is what is it, and I am ok with it"?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Uh, what have men got to do with making babies? Haven't needed a man for quite some time, just their semen. Even that's falling out of 'needed' things. Many animals can reproduce with nothing from males whatsoever,

Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And even in humans, homosexual pairs will be able to reproduce eventually,
STUDY: Gay Men Could Reproduce Through Stem Cells, Without Egg Donor / Queerty

"A new discovery out of Japan has the potential to allow gay men to create an egg of their own stem cells, without the use of a female donor. Unlike surrogacy, the child would be born with the DNA of both parents."

As to "do children do ok with gay parents," that they're gay isn't a factor.
Reproduction in same sex couples: q... [Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

"RECENT FINDINGS:

The current literature on these families is limited by small sample sizes and a predominance of studies of lesbian mothers and their children, with few studies of gay fathers and their children. A recent study of adolescents living with same sex parents recruited from a large national sample supports the notion that adolescents raised by same sex couples are doing well psychologically and are not more likely to be homosexual. The authors concluded that it was the quality of parenting, not parental sexual orientation that accounted for developmental differences.
SUMMARY:

The literature supports the notion that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not more likely to become homosexual and are not measurably different from children raised by heterosexual parents in terms of personality development, psychological development, and gender identity. Larger longitudinal studies of same sex parents, particularly gay men, are needed, including those who choose to become parents through the use of assisted reproduction."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Onus is on you to prove your homophobic allegation!

Stating as fact that children grow up to notice lies and incosistencies has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is simply a stand-alone fact.

Besides, I'm thinking of changing the term "homophobic" to mean "a nicely decorated vase with gilded handles" in the urban dictionary.

Did you watch Southpark yesterday? One of their most clever and best yet. If gays want to change the meaning of marriage, Matt and Tray decided to change the meaning of the word "fag"..

There are no "lies and inconsistencies" that pertain only to a homosexual union so you have just admitted to having nothing but your own personal homophobic biased opinion with zero facts to support your ignorant allegation.

Oh, and just in case no one ever told you, the South Park creators are mocking homophobes like you!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Gotta love the stupidity of anyone trying to use South Park to support homophobia.

 

[Fang]

The OP's question is ridiculous. It depends on the parents and the situation. But at the end of the day as long as the I was treated well what does it matter?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Gotta love the stupidity of anyone trying to use South Park to support homophobia.

Yup, that level of stupidity rates as "special"!

 

[Silhouette]

I was adopted. Until my early teens I didn't udnerstand what that meant. My Mom was always up front with me about it, but relative to 'normal' families it never occured to me it was anything unusual. I don't think at 8, kids are going to have any appreciation of a homosexual parenting situation. But they will notice and respond to other people's feelings in that even children notice things when they're out of the ordinary routine. If people get hushed and quiet talking about ttheir two fathers/mothers, they'll notice that. But in their heads it wont likely be that they have any prejudicial feelings about gay parents and parenting.

When I was 8 we had seen puppies born and kittens. Also rabbits and other animals. We went to the zoo, farms and we saw where babies came from: males and females mating.

You ain't gonna fool any kid that two dudes are "mom and dad" or two chicks are "mom and dad" at age 8. And if you think you are, you either cannot access your own memories of what you were thinking and observing at 8 [in which case I suggest regressive therapy] or you're daft.

Kids minds are incredibly sharp and questioning. Much moreso than any adult you'll meet who generally by age 25 is essentially shut down and on their way to senility already. There are those rare adults who have never stopped individual thought and questioning but overwhelmingly, children are the keen observers, learners and questioners...

You're only going to mind fuck them with "gay parents". That's a fact.

That's why I started this thread: to force people back into their mind when they were 8 and all the things they were watching, seeing and learning from. From THAT perspective, vote in the poll... What child hasn't seen or learned of kittens or puppies being born and where they came from? A "mommy and daddy" cat! Not from "two daddy" or "two mommy" cats!

 

[Silhouette]

Onus is on you to prove your homophobic allegation!

Stating as fact that children grow up to notice lies and incosistencies has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is simply a stand-alone fact.

Besides, I'm thinking of changing the term "homophobic" to mean "a nicely decorated vase with gilded handles" in the urban dictionary.

Did you watch Southpark yesterday? One of their most clever and best yet. If gays want to change the meaning of marriage, Matt and Tray decided to change the meaning of the word "fag"..

There are no "lies and inconsistencies" that pertain only to a homosexual union so you have just admitted to having nothing but your own personal homophobic biased opinion with zero facts to support your ignorant allegation.

Oh, and just in case no one ever told you, the South Park creators are mocking homophobes like you!

Yeah, that's why Matt and Tray included the word "fag" like a hundred times in that episode...because they were mocking homophobes... The nuances of Southpark escape you my friend..

Meanwhile, notice all the vitrole in your post. That's often a substitute for substance when a person has no lucid rebuttal. Noted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Stating as fact that children grow up to notice lies and incosistencies has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is simply a stand-alone fact.

Besides, I'm thinking of changing the term "homophobic" to mean "a nicely decorated vase with gilded handles" in the urban dictionary.

Did you watch Southpark yesterday? One of their most clever and best yet. If gays want to change the meaning of marriage, Matt and Tray decided to change the meaning of the word "fag"..

There are no "lies and inconsistencies" that pertain only to a homosexual union so you have just admitted to having nothing but your own personal homophobic biased opinion with zero facts to support your ignorant allegation.

Oh, and just in case no one ever told you, the South Park creators are mocking homophobes like you!

Yeah, that's why Matt and Tray included the word "fag" like a hundred times in that episode...because they were mocking homophobes... The nuances of Southpark escape you my friend..

Meanwhile, notice all the vitrole in your post. That's often a substitute for substance when a person has no lucid rebuttal. Noted.

Also noted that you have just admitted to having the intellect of an 8 year old.