Thread: Are Gays Capable Of Raising Children?

This topic is and can beocme very complex.
In another Post "Conservative Rebuplican", I posted my basic thoughts on the issue.
Wombing. I think you have brought a lot to thre table to discuss. Well thought out!


This is a very touchy subject.

It seems evident to me but apparent that our society views gay/lesbian to be socially acceptable. I don't say it is wrong because I view being gay as a flaw in nature. No different than someone with any other mental or physical trait that is not anatomically correct in the animal kingdom.
I don't see how anyone can argue that it is not correct. The parts do not fit. You can not procreate. This tells me it is a defect.
You would not choose to NOT love someone if they were autistic. And it should be the same way for any gay person. It is who they are. But it is not recognized as a defect.
as far as gay marriage, again someone with a defect has limitations. There is a role for a father and a role for a mother to natural play that two same sex people can not provide.

The Big question is is it nurture or nature?
Gay marriage. If two people love each other then it should be recognized by the courts. It may sound a little contradictory that I feel gay marriage is OK but not for gays to have a family.
Take into consideration that I feel they can provide for each other's needs but a child should have what nature intended. IMO.

To answer the question though I do feel they are capable. Just not best suited.
You can get into the argument of foster homes and one parent over two gays and this is where all the variables come in.

I feel that gay couples are just as well equipped to raise children as any other couple. I mean, each family has different values, and how is that type of family any different? Alot of gay couples have the same values as regular straight couples, and promote them to their families. I think social stigma tries to push on us ideas that are not valid so that we follow the popular politics of the times..We shouldn't let ourselves be so ignorant. Gay couples are no less intellegent than straight couples, and can therefore raise a child capable of living in our societies.

I guess the most important question is "What defines a 'properly raised' child?"

I think gays are just as capable of raising a perfectly moral, respectful, confident, capable, intelligent child - not to mention a number of other positive adjectives that I'm a little too blazed to think of at the moment. However they are going to bring about the possibility of that child also being homosexual, which can be either a good or bad thing, depending on who is doing the judging.
I think, also, the child will have a high chance of going through a lot of social turmoil, the ratio of gays to straights being so (as far as I can tell) low. This, in turn, will bring into play the factor of how well the child is raised to deal with such inner conflict. If the child grows up gay, he will probably spend a lot of time wondering why it's ok to be so different, or even if it's ok to be so different, from the majority of society. This, though, with the proper guidance, could come to pass without being a major issue of confidence-in-self, so that part really depends on the competence of the gay couple as parents, which will have more to do with their ability to lead a troubled child than their sexual orientation.

I think, in short, yes, a gay couple is capable of raising children. It all comes down to the capability of the couple to help the child deal with the (relatively) abnormal nature of their possible sexual preference.

Oh, and to answer the second part:
I think masculinity and femininity have less to do with genitalia than they do with social upbringing and environment.
I know men that are more feminine than most of the women I know, and women who are more masculine than men I know. It all depends on how they grew up and the influences they've had along the way.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh, and to answer the second part:
I think masculinity and femininity have less to do with genitalia than they do with social upbringing and environment.
I know men that are more feminine than most of the women I know, and women who are more masculine than men I know. It all depends on how they grew up and the influences they've had along the way.
[/b]

Masculinity has everything to do with genitalia. It's called testosterone. it comes from yo nutz.

as for the question can they raise a child, i suppose they could. it would be tough for a male child being raised by two males thou, because they could have an influence on him to become gay, when hes not gay. But as for how well they would raise their child by moral standards, i think that u wouldnt be any less of a parent just because u watch a different kind of porn.

Originally Posted by mountain

Masculinity has everything to do with genitalia. It's called testosterone. it comes from yo nutz.
[/b]

Of course it does.

...to a point.

You're speaking as if psychology and sociality have nothing to do with the way a person acts. You have any lesbian friends? If not, then you have a little more of a case, subjective as it may be. I know enough lesbian women to know that a woman can act 100% manly, given she was brought up that way. If you can explain how a very butch woman's personality has something to do with her nutz, you've got my attention.

Originally Posted by mountain

it would be tough for a male child being raised by two males thou, because they could have an influence on him to become gay, when hes not gay.
[/b]

It's not like people just choose their sexuality based on what they see around them. Otherwise we'd never have any gay people arising from male/female parents. If a boy isn't gay, seeing that he has 2 dads is not going to make him more attracted to males. Although, according to Kinsey, we're all a little gay anyway - so seeing it as a socially accepted thing might make kids willing to experiment more. But it wont make heterosexual people suddenly become homosexual. Just as having heterosexual parents doesn't turn gay people straight.

Hell, lots of gay kids have to cope with insane amounts of resistance from their parents/society over their sexuality. Some even get sent to boot camps specifically designed to "make them straight again". Yet it never works, and has been openly acknowledged as harmful. I'd like to think that homosexual parents would be accepting of whatever sexuality their kid happened to be. They at least know pressuring them does nothing.

Oh, and women produce testosterone too. Masculinity is a socially accepted definition, not producing a hormone or a having a penis.

Edited to add: Oh and to answer the question. Homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals at raising kids. No-one blinks an eye at people living below the poverty line having children. Noone cares when someone without a highschool education pops one out. Why draw the line at a particular sexuality of all things.

I think I may be alone when I say.... straight couples are not capable of raising children all that well either.

I mean seriously, you see the messed of people that come out these days? Divorce is at an all time high, and i know the bitter arguments between my parents didn't help. I figure... if you required that gay couples raise children it probably wouldn't hurt.

I'm more aligned with Leo Volont, I say we bring on the communes when it comes to child raising at least.

Originally Posted by spoon

It's not like people just choose their sexuality based on what they see around them. Otherwise we'd never have any gay people arising from male/female parents. If a boy isn't gay, seeing that he has 2 dads is not going to make him more attracted to males. Although, according to Kinsey, we're all a little gay anyway - so seeing it as a socially accepted thing might make kids willing to experiment more. But it wont make heterosexual people suddenly become homosexual. Just as having heterosexual parents doesn't turn gay people straight.

Hell, lots of gay kids have to cope with insane amounts of resistance from their parents/society over their sexuality. Some even get sent to boot camps specifically designed to "make them straight again". Yet it never works, and has been openly acknowledged as harmful. I'd like to think that homosexual parents would be accepting of whatever sexuality their kid happened to be. They at least know pressuring them does nothing.

Oh, and women produce testosterone too. Masculinity is a socially accepted definition, not producing a hormone or a having a penis.

Edited to add: Oh and to answer the question. Homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals at raising kids. No-one blinks an eye at people living below the poverty line having children. Noone cares when someone without a highschool education pops one out. Why draw the line at a particular sexuality of all things.
[/b]

I think u may have misunderstood me... i think gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I just think that there may be an unfair amount of pressure on the child to become gay by the parents... im not saying that because of that we should keep gays from adopting. i still think they should be able to have a family just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Gwendolyn

I feel that gay couples are just as well equipped to raise children as any other couple. I mean, each family has different values, and how is that type of family any different? Alot of gay couples have the same values as regular straight couples, and promote them to their families. I think social stigma tries to push on us ideas that are not valid so that we follow the popular politics of the times..We shouldn't let ourselves be so ignorant. Gay couples are no less intellegent than straight couples, and can therefore raise a child capable of living in our societies.
[/b]

Sure they can be some of the loving couples. But does that make them BEST suited for the role. Values aside ( because we know they are capable of those) can a gay couple provide the family oriented environment that nature intended?
Do you see no ill side effects to two gay influences on a young impressionable mind? No male role model or no mother bonding.

...of course a gay couple can raise kids. id just feel damn sorry for the kids that have to live in the southern usa who would im guessing take a lot of shit for just happening to have gay parents, especially from those redneck types.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("mountain")</div>

I think u may have misunderstood me... i think gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I just think that there may be an unfair amount of pressure on the child to become gay by the parents...[/b]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.. but don&#39;t you think that gay couples would be less likely to pressure their kids into a particular sexuality - seeing as there is a very high probability that they (or someone they are close to) experienced that you just can&#39;t change a kids sexuality? I would think that gay people would be much more likely to accept notion that sexuality is not a choice.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Howetzer")</div>

Sure they can be some of the loving couples. But does that make them BEST suited for the role. Values aside ( because we know they are capable of those) can a gay couple provide the family oriented environment that nature intended?
Do you see no ill side effects to two gay influences on a young impressionable mind? No male role model or no mother bonding.[/b]

Why should the gender of the parents be the main factor in deciding if a couple is "best suited" for raising kids? I mean, heterosexuals can make horrible parents - there&#39;s nothing intrinsically in the heterosexual union that makes them better at raising kids. If a male/female couple can make horrible parents, then what are they doing wrong? I think you&#39;ve hit the nail on the head: loving (and committed) couples raise better children. Why bring gender into it?

You go on to say ask can a gay couple really provide the "family oriented environment that nature intended" but, what has nature intended? Monogamous heterosexual relationships are the exception not the rule in the animal world. Many species raise young collectively - should we look to nature and establish a polygamous society? Even if you ignore the animal kingdom as a whole and focus on our part in it, there is no reason to suspect that a heterosexual family unit is better suited to raising children than any other kind. The American Anthropological Association has come out with a statement in support of other familial units:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."[/b]

And if you look at the studies and statistics (not the recent hyperbole in the media) of current societies which allow homosexual unions (Scandinavia), you&#39;ll see that the empirical evidence supports the AAA&#39;s statement.

But, is there any ill side effects of having two gay influences? Not if you don&#39;t have a problem with homosexuality. Parents are not going to be able to force kids to change their sexuality - so the only impact could possibly be that more kids might come to terms with their sexuality sooner. And as for the role models - is there any rule that states that role models have to be parents? Or that a women can&#39;t be a male role model/vice versa?

Sorry for the misunderstanding.. but don&#39;t you think that gay couples would be less likely to pressure their kids into a particular sexuality - seeing as there is a very high probability that they (or someone they are close to) experienced that you just can&#39;t change a kids sexuality? I would think that gay people would be much more likely to accept notion that sexuality is not a choice. [/b]

this thought was tickling the back of my brain, but wouldn&#39;t solidify into verbal form...well put.

------

mother bonding seems to deserve special consideration though, as naturally, this influence is greatly biological during the formative years of infancy, whereas a male influence is completely psychological.

humans are both biological and social animals. we are a product of bio-cultural evolution.

biologically, it seems we should almost always trust nature. by this, i mean it seems arrogant and hasty to fail to breastfeed a child, as this is tried and tested by millions of years worth of human evolution.

socially, it seems there is no "proper" way to raise a child, as the raising of a child mainly refers to psychological growth anyways, and any number of social arrangements seem to produce healthy individuals, and can ensure balanced influence.

hence, two gay men cannot provide breastfeeding, whereas two lesbians can (if one of them gave birth).

the biological consideration is interesting to ponder...yet even this would seem to be relevant only during the first year or so of life. i really don&#39;t know enough to draw any conclusions.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

.... straight couples are not capable of raising children all that well either.
[/b]

Noooooooooo shit. Even just based on that fact alone, I can&#39;t believe people still debate this topic.

Originally Posted by kichu

Noooooooooo shit. Even just based on that fact alone, I can&#39;t believe people still debate this topic.
[/b]

Yes.
The minoity or exceptions can make bad rules. Which I feel is happening in this case.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

I think I may be alone when I say.... straight couples are not capable of raising children all that well either.
[/b]

Bingo&#33; How many times has this happened to you:

so you&#39;re in a nice public place where there are lots of families. Say, disney land. You&#39;re waiting in line and can&#39;t help but notice that there are certain families who are so wrapped up in themselves that they don&#39;t realize what a horrible example they&#39;re setting for their children. here are some examples:
- man is sick of waiting in this goddamn line just to go on a stupid goddamn ride. Woman is arguing that man is ruining the experience for kid, apparently not noticing that the vulgar shouting match between the parents is ruining much more than just the ride for said kid...
- either parent decides that drinking will make disney land much more tolerable, even fun.
- one parent invariably waits in line while another goes to fetch ice cream with the kid. The gender difference causes one parent to always be the boring &#39;wait-in-liner&#39; and the other to be the fun &#39;getter of icecream.&#39; This furthers gender roles in the child&#39;s head which are nonsensical and degrading.
- man wants to go on space mountain, woman wants to go on the peter pan ride, and rather than ask what the kid wants, they play a power game in which they try to make the kid choose which parent he likes better based on which ride he chooses.

while waiting in line for a certain disney land ride, I saw 3 different straight couples who couldn&#39;t even have a fun day at disney land without fucking up their kid for life. None of the gay people I know would engage in any of these petty squabbles mentioned above. In fact, if I took any two gay people I know and sent them to disney land with a child, I&#39;ll bet you that all three would have a great time.

What I dont get is how could having a gay couple for parents inherently be any worse than having one single parent? Plenty of people with single parents grow up to be absolutely fine. Now, if they had two parents of the same sex, they wouldn&#39;t have that touchy lack-of-father or lack-of-mother thing going on, and they&#39;d pretty much be guaranteed not to grow up with any prejudices. They&#39;d also have a pretty good understanding of the duality of human nature, the way people can be two things at once. Some people, like my dad, grew up in an environment where the woman had a very strict role and the man had a very strict role, and there was never any overlap or any nonsense. Is it a coincidence that my dad can only think in black and white now that he&#39;s an adult?

tangent: There was one episode of &#39;postcards from buster&#39; on PBS that was cancelled because buster was visiting a child who had two parents of the same sex. PBS also refused to fund said episode, and told the writers not to fuck up like that again. The truth is that the public isn&#39;t ready for this kind of situation, even though it&#39;s bound to happen. As my final opinion, I say that a child raised by a gay couple can grow up just as mentally healthy (perhaps even more) than a child raised by a straight couple. The only difficulties I can foresee are external, pressures from a society that views gay parenthood as just plain &#39;wierd.&#39;

How does comparing situations make this topic any more prudent?
Two wrongs don&#39;t make a right.
Of coarse single families are not a good environments to raise a family. Along with countless other situations we could compare this with.

So does that mean letting gay couple raise them make it any better?
You are just masking the problem and paralleling it with other bad situations for justification as I see it.
Exceptions can make for bad rule.

you&#39;re right, exceptions do make bad rules. But.

- I don&#39;t see how having gay parents invariably hurts a child because I haven&#39;t seen any evidence of that at all.
- I can&#39;t fathom how the whole situation affects me in any way or devalues my own way of life.
- I don&#39;t see how gay marriage or gay parenthood could negatively affect society at large.

while you might see homosexual parenthood as unnatural, I would submit that nature is the complete absence of rules in the first place. Those who procreate will grow and those who do not will die. That rule still governs the human race and I daresay it guarentees that homosexuality will always be isolated within a minority of the population. Still, homosexuality is a natural part of humanity, its only just recently come out of the public closet, so to speak. Homosexuals are humans just like everyone else. They are capable of any human capacity, and so they deserve, just like the rest of us, the civil right of liberty and they still ought to be protected by the old american ideal that a man should always be free to pursue happiness, and never be denied any right of his humanity.

imagine a child raised by mother and father who are sexuallly abusing him, fighting each other in front of him and teaching him to hate... in that case gays who love each other and love "their" child are better solution, i would myself be rather raised by 2 fathers or 2 mothers who love me and love theriselves

but i think that universal mission of each and everyone is to give life, to create a life and send their child on the journey called life... and that is thing that no gay or lesbian can do

but i think that universal mission of each and everyone is to give life, to create a life and send their child on the journey called life... and that is thing that no gay or lesbian can do[/b]

in this overpopulated world with millions of destitute orphans, "giving life" is not neccessarily a matter of biological procreation. it can be a matter of loving and nurturing a pre-existing child.

and a lesbian need not have sex with a man to become pregnant. two lesbians could hypothetically both be pregnant at the same time in which case they must be the supreme example of fulfilling life&#39;s "universal mission".

and if they got the semen off of a gay couple, kept one child, and entrusted the other to the men, the "natural" balance would be no different than if there were two heterosexual couples procreating.

except for a different social arrangement within which some children are raised.

hell, with in vitro fertilization, it would be possible for every man to be gay, and every woman lesbian, and still give life and love to an equal number of children.
-----

oh, and i&#39;d just like to mention that "each and everyone&#39;s universal mission is to give life, create a life and send their child on the journey called life" all too often is tainted by the outdated notion of "be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth".

um, we&#39;ve managed to do that already... we&#39;ve already got more people than we can comfortably handle wandering around this place. for people to denigrate the gay community simply because they cannot "naturally" create biological children seems strange.

if ever the human population is on the brink of extinction, or lacking in orphans or neglected children, perhaps then a case could be made for the superiority of heterosexuality.

but until then, one can spend one&#39;s life bearing an idea, which is a species of child...perhaps create a technological innovation which improves the quality of life for everyone, or a symphony, or a new medicine or surgery.

or perhaps just the idea that we are all fundamentally similar, even with different skin colours or social opinions or sexual preferences. and that as long as every child born is loved and respected and allowed to grow into who they truly are, the world is a wonderful and magical place.

the magic is love. and as long as it works, it is magic.

----

I hope no one minds if i jump in. I havent said anything for the debate as of yet, but i guess this is the cause for my introduction.


This is a really hard debate. Something, that would probably never come to any conclusion. Gays do tend to love their childeren more than most straight couples, but the fact still remains, is their are several varibles of life in which there is limited, or no control over. Its not whether your gay or straight, but its the personality, and I, tend to think that gays lack some personality aswell as those upity straight people that i saw were spoken of, not to mention, that not all or even most straight couples are like that beyond the stereotype seen on TV. A very small portion of people on the planet are ignorant, and dont relise what they do around their kid.

Lets go back to the varibles. Say you have a gay couple that is... alittle more open about their "gayness." They are neat, clean, and tidy. Borderline OCD. They take their adopted child into a nice resturaunt which the said child has never experienced before. The waiter gets to them and takes their order and all is well. It takes the waiter alittle more time than the couple is expecting to get the food out. The couple is rather... not rude, but "snippy." The child soaks all of this in, and since the couple is gay, and feels that since they are alittle more open about it, and are neat, clean and tidy, then probably dont notice this, and would tend to be thrown off it the child asked them anything about it at all.

There are too many situations like that for both gay and straight to argue who makes the better child bearers. If thats the case then we could break it down like this. Straight couples are best for providing the child both of the sexes information, and comfort. Example, I never grew up with a mother, so most of my adolescence, i felt bizzarrly uncomfortable around women. Not to mention that i didnt know two shits about the pregnentcy process or even the frazzling of hormones that make a woman feel so imbalanced. When my girlfriend got pregnent, then proceeded to loose the baby, she was devestated. I didnt understand why. But people arnt perfect. Some will be more vested in themselves, but certainly not all.

Then we could also say, that a gay couple provide more interaction and love and being more involved with their child. This is always a good thing, but since they only act like women (not all but deffenatly some) then they only fulfill half of the equation. Whats going to happen if the child is uncomfortable around women? Would the couple hold their pride and just suggest that the child is gay, and not push it?

Then we could go EVEN FURTHER to say that lesbian couple provide both qualities of men and women, and would even beable to teach the female anatomy, but lack of experience would prove to make this a challenge aswell. It may be uncomfortable for the parents since the only experience they got of child birth was from their mother. So even though they get the love, devotion, the traits of men and women, and even some info on what women go through once a month, and what women go through for 9 months, when they are ready, you still miss out on some of the equation, even if its just a faction of it.

In reality the child will probably be alright living with a gay couple. As long as they are supporting and loving parents, they dont care. They probably wont even think twice about the fact that they are alittle uncomfortable around guys/girls. But you know why people way back-then, before television was invented, wernt bored? Because they never knew of it in the first place.

Some great arguments for both sides. As I said before I think it ultimately comes down to a persons belief in nurture or nature.
Unless there is irrefutable evidence towards one or the other, then there will always be this debate.

I can state that science has come to realize that children mimic what they see at much earlier ages that ever realized. Also at a staggering rate that they take in information and are ..? programmed, at an early age as well. Take that as you will.

good topic wombing

Originally Posted by wombing

i often hear people say that gays should not be able to raise children, because the child wont have "both male and female influences"[/b]

Yeah I always hated it when I hear that as a MAIN excuse for not allowing gay couples to raise children. What about single parents? Granted, the way our society is now, there&#39;s nothing better for a child than to be raised by a nice, stable mom and dad. But that doesn&#39;t mean single-gender parenting is wrong and should be abolished. If so, then a mom + grandma raising a child should be illegal, or a dad and a male cousin raising a child...you get my drift. While the first example may be optimal from a biological standpoint, it doesn&#39;t suggest that any other combination of adults would be &#39;bad&#39; in raising a child. In some cases, I&#39;ve even heard that the more loving adults around, the better. Kids hardly get enough attention these days as it is.

"it&#39;s not fair to the children, as they will be ridiculed mercilessly"[/b]

Hrmmm....I wonder if you compared 2 children in two different situations: one child being raised by an interracial gay couple, vs a child being raised by a same race straight couple, yet the straight couple is homophobic and racist. Which child would end up being a more balanced, open-minded accepting-of-others adult? Granted, the optimal choice would be being raised by a nice, openminded straight, same race couple. But does that invalidate all the other options? And hey, what about building character, and that which does not kill us etc etc.

"they will try to force the children to be gay".[/b]

Heh, nope again. Most gays would prefer their children NOT to have to go through what they did growing up. That said, a gay couple would also be an excellent couple to raise a child that was, say, going to be gay anyway (if you believe the whole &#39;born gay&#39; philosophy, which I believe to be true in some cases). Or what if a gay couple adopted a teenager who&#39;s already out of the closet. Wow....what a lucky kid huh?

My main point is this: if a kid is raised by 1 loving person or 10, the details don&#39;t matter enough to make laws one way or another against it. Kids get ridiculed for all types of reasons, the dad is a janitor, mom&#39;s an amputee, grandma farts in public. Are we going to make laws against that? A homosexual couple is a generally more openminded people, because they have already had to transcend typical social norms. In some ways they are stronger, given what they have had to face. And think how much they would cherish a child, given the opportunity to adopt or hire a surrogate, knowing that they can&#39;t just &#39;make another one&#39; so easily. Now add all that together with a flawless sense of style&#33;

Personally I can&#39;t think of a luckier child.

note: if one of the couple in question is dying of AIDS, then it&#39;s a whole new ball game. But I would feel the same way about a person with cancer, or an extreme case of diabetes, or some other fatal illness adopting a child as well, mainly because the parent could die too soon. But I think it would depend on the seriousness of the illness, and what medical advancements are in place at the time.

Originally posted by &#39;howie&#39;+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(&#39;howie&#39</div>

To answer the question though I do feel they are capable. Just not best suited.
You can get into the argument of foster homes and one parent over two gays and this is where all the variables come in.[/b]

Well said. In today&#39;s society, it may not be the BEST answer biologically speaking, true. But still better than foster homes, and maybe even better than single parents. Again, I&#39;m with the whole the-more-adults-the-better philosophy. Which is kinda interesting, because you think then that a kid has more chances to learn bad things from each adult, but you&#39;d be surprised at how kids pick up a little of the good from each adult. A very enriching way to grow up.

Oh, and I can&#39;t remember where I read this, or possibly I heard it from my folks (who are shrinks), but a child of a gay couple has no mroe or less chance of becoming gay if their parents are gay. I know it sounds unbelievable, but I promise you, environment isn&#39;t what makes a child grow up to be gay (with the exception of some kind of gay sexual abuse, but I&#39;m assuming we&#39;re talking about gay couples who AREN&#39;T rapists).

Originally posted by &#39;DoomedOne&#39;+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(&#39;DoomedOne&#39</div>

I mean seriously, you see the messed of people that come out these days? Divorce is at an all time high, and i know the bitter arguments between my parents didn&#39;t help.[/b]

You know, it would be interesting to see how many gay couples divorce as a percentage, compared to straight couples.

Originally posted by &#39;spoon&#39;
but don&#39;t you think that gay couples would be less likely to pressure their kids into a particular sexuality - seeing as there is a very high probability that they (or someone they are close to) experienced that you just can&#39;t change a kids sexuality? I would think that gay people would be much more likely to accept notion that sexuality is not a choice.

bingo

<!--QuoteBegin-&#39;spoon&#39;@
there&#39;s nothing intrinsically in the heterosexual union that makes them better at raising kids. If a male/female couple can make horrible parents, then what are they doing wrong? I think you&#39;ve hit the nail on the head: loving (and committed) couples raise better children. Why bring gender into it?

bingo again...and to everything else you said heh.

<!--QuoteBegin-&#39;howie&#39;
I can state that science has come to realize that children mimic what they see at much earlier ages that ever realized. Also at a staggering rate that they take in information and are ..? programmed, at an early age as well. Take that as you will.

Also a good point, children do mimic at a young age. But you could hardly call it &#39;programming&#39;, since eventually they transcend from merely mimicing what they see, to developing their own habits based on their own choices and free will. And remember rebellion too folks&#33; "My dad and dad are gay, so I&#39;m gonna be soooooooo straight DAMNIT /emo teen"

Originally posted by &#39;howie&#39;
can a gay couple provide the family oriented environment that nature intended?
Do you see no ill side effects to two gay influences on a young impressionable mind? No male role model or no mother bonding.

Good point, and to answer your question, who knows for sure? But one thing I do know is this: we as a species have transcended so much of what we are &#39;naturally&#39;, that I don&#39;t think the fact that a couple is gay would make them lacking. Maybe in the breat-feeding department like wombing pointed out with the stuff about being products of bio-cultural evolution. Plus the positive unique attributes to being a gay couple raising a child might just outweigh that of the average straight couple. Maybe Think about it from a cultural standpoint. There just might be some room for social evolution there. But who knows for sure yet? And we won&#39;t ever know if we make laws against it.

Originally Posted by wombing

the magic is love. and as long as it works, it is magic.

----
[/b]

i agree with you, love is the magic, but sex isnt necesserily love, and many gay people (just like many straight people) are just consuming their sexual needs so i dont see much love in it

i believe that gay people are capable of raising children, but i think that giving birth to a child is uncomparable with in vitro fertilization... we often underestimate power of our own blood, power of our DNA and power of having deeper connection with someone than love itself. blood connection is core

despite that, everyone born in last 20 years are part of new, special generations so i think that they (we) carry all the answers that we need to survive as a race, and it is up to us to seek dem and find dem

do you remember your first memories ? i mean, like really really first memories, i asked that question many people i met and 90 % of dem remeber it connected with some sexually conotations (like touch and other things), so this calling for procreation is really strong if it is things that we first remeber and have memories on to it... so by this theory our mission is to procreate, and i think that despite the statistics that earth is already too crowded, our main mission is to survive and it is beautiful. our race is fighting for survival like monkeys, like sea shells and everything that lives. certain species live hardly enough to give life and then die. it is their meaning. ours is bigger, but in the root, everything live is the same

Originally Posted by jahwarrior

we often underestimate power of our own blood, power of our DNA and power of having deeper connection with someone than love itself. blood connection is core[/b]

So a straight couple that adopts a child from birth can&#39;t develop a connection that&#39;s as strong?

Remember, humans have transcended our biologies and instinct ALOT, which is one of the reasons we have survived: we care for and raise young that we didn&#39;t give birth to...so think about that, and then reevaluate the importance of &#39;blood connection&#39;.