Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should Danish lesbians have children?

103 replies to this topic
BenMillard
  • BenMillard

    aka Cerbera

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2002
  • United-Kingdom

#91

Posted 15 April 2005 - 09:36 PM Edited by Cerbera, 15 April 2005 - 09:38 PM.

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 15 2005, 21:44)
QUOTE (Cerbera @ Apr 15 2005, 09:47)
QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 15 2005, 03:11)
I think when it comes down to it, every person has a mother and a father, and that's how they should be raised whenever possible.
You forgot to post the part with the reasons. In fact, you seem to have forgotten that you are posting in the D&D area, much like many other contributors to this thread. As Stilton said: "Pretty much any topic is exceptable, as long as you can fairly support your arguement."

I have given the side which says homosexuals adopting children is not a problem, citing historical examples of homosexuality and how they were of no detriment to society. Furthermore, I pointed out that actual homosexuals simply do not match the labels being pressed upon them in this thread. I'm sure folks like Mortukai could be more specific and current with their own evidence showing why homosexuality is of no detriment to anybody and why they are no less able when it comes to raising a child.
Erm, first of all, please refrain from taking that condescending "tone" with me. I ran this forum for longer than you. I'm well aware of the requirements for good debate. My stance isn't a very complicated one.

Since all people were born of a mother and a father, the natural thing to do would be to be raised by both if at all possible. If not, substitutes would be the next best thing. A substitute for the father and the mother which should happen to be of the corresponding gender.

Now you, on the other hand, have not given reasons why homosexuals should be able to adopt children. You've stated that homosexuals are not a detriment to society. I'm not arguing that. But then again, that has nothing to do with whether or not they should raise children. By themselves, they have no negative impact on society. You've said that through your historical references. I challenge you, now, since historical references seem to be key to your argument - find a historical reference from any time of any creature being raised by two parents of the same sex. I highly doubt you'll find it.

Why would you toy with millions of years of genetic development, social patterns, and evolution in such a dramatic way?
Have you heard of "genetically modified" food and how it improves the yield of crops and the health of herds? Genetic muations are a natural process which drive evolution. This has given humans the ability to devise ways to alter genetic material and live in unconventional ways. Since this ability has come about from the natural process of evolution, our ability to fiddle with genetics and do things which are uncommon or non-existant amongst other known species is an entirely natural phenomenon. Indeed, since humans (and all other animals) are just a product of the natural world (matter, energy in structures) nothing humans can do can be deemed "unnatural" in any meaningful sense.

The historical reference of "any creature" being raised by two parents of the same gender has already been shown when I pointed out that the adoption of children by homosexual parents has been legal in the UK, USA and elsewhere for some time now. Additionally, the offspring from many species are solely raised by females, especially amongst feline varieties. It is also common amongst pack animals for groups of females to look after the young whilst males protect the territory in which the pack exists. So, not only is it easy to find existing examples amongst humans, we find it widespread throught the animal kingdom.

I am unclear about why you place hetrosexual parenthood as being "better" than homosexual parenthood. Could you clarify this aspect of your argument?

desert_eagle
  • desert_eagle

    I like beer

  • Awaiting Authorization
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2001

#92

Posted 15 April 2005 - 09:46 PM

QUOTE (makeshyft @ Apr 15 2005, 15:29)
QUOTE (desert_eagle @ Apr 15 2005, 07:11)
I do not like the idea of same sex couples adopting children, I don't think it is healthy for the child's emotional development. Same reason why I do not like the idea of women who choose to have a baby alone.

I was raised by a single mother, and not only was it not detrimental to my development, it was actually a positive. I have had some contact with my father, and I can assure you that if he had been present I would be a headcase.

Growing up in the industry I have, I have been surrounded by members of the gay community since the age of 8. And, something I found was that they are some of the warmest, loving and caring people I have ever met.

Granted, this doesn't apply all gay people, just like if I were to say that all straight people acted a certain way. But from my experience (and that's mostly what we have to base our opinions on) the gay people I know and have been friends with would make teriffic parents.

There are a heap of heterosexual couples I don't think should have children. I don't think I should, not yet anyhow. It should come down to whether you have it in you to nurture and care for a childs development, not your sexual preference.

So have I, I am not saying it will be harmfull per se, I just think it should be avoided if possible. I am a secondary school English teacher and from experience and study, pupils with problems more often than not come from a broken home. With same sex families I just think it will cause imbalnce in the emotional development of the child, not to mention the negative effects the controversy over their parents brings to the children.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#93

Posted 15 April 2005 - 11:00 PM

Maybe you really do need a lesson on how to debate.

QUOTE
The historical reference of "any creature" being raised by two parents of the same gender has already been shown when I pointed out that the adoption of children by homosexual parents has been legal in the UK, USA and elsewhere for some time now. Additionally, the offspring from many species are solely raised by females, especially amongst feline varieties. It is also common amongst pack animals for groups of females to look after the young whilst males protect the territory in which the pack exists. So, not only is it easy to find existing examples amongst humans, we find it widespread throught the animal kingdom.


Rule number one, thou shalt not use the subject of the current debate as an example to justify yourself. Human homosexual parenting does not justify human homosexual parenting.

With the example of these "animal packs," I highly HIGHLY doubt you'll ever find an example of an expert claiming that the females in any way shape or form take the place of the male in its natural parenting. We're talking about parents, not babysitters.

QUOTE
I am unclear about why you place hetrosexual parenthood as being "better" than homosexual parenthood. Could you clarify this aspect of your argument?


Let's say there's this couple. They have a baby. The mother decides that being raised by a single mother would be better for the child than being raised by a mother and a father. On these grounds she requests that her husband have no part in raising the child. Would you object?


I'm not really sure why you're talking about genetically altered crops, though. When I was talking about development I was referring to the development from asexual cells to sexual humans, namely heterosexual humans. Traits only survive if they are the right ones. Heterosexual parents seem to have survived.

AllDoItTheSame
  • AllDoItTheSame

    Marching Ant

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2005

#94

Posted 16 April 2005 - 02:33 AM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 15 2005, 23:00)
With the example of these "animal packs," I highly HIGHLY doubt you'll ever find an example of an expert claiming that the females in any way shape or form take the place of the male in its natural parenting.


Actually the virgin whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus) have evolved out of needing a male to mate or raise their young.
http://members.aol.c...ofDay/whip.html
see example #3 on this page> http://boards.histor...art=15&start=-1

and heres one on parthenogenesis, the process you could not believe to have existed
http://www.answers.c...parthenogenesis

strangely enough, ONLY females can replace males in this way
your high high doubts are not high enough it seems

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#95

Posted 16 April 2005 - 04:03 PM

"in it's natural parenting." Not in giving birth.

Besides, a-sexual reproduction isn't anything to base parenting on since we are sexual beings.

AllDoItTheSame
  • AllDoItTheSame

    Marching Ant

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2005

#96

Posted 16 April 2005 - 04:09 PM

Well, you asked
and its not asexual, its just self fertilization
and when you say in its natural parenting, not birth, what exactly do you mean, because there are NO males in that genus to help with the raising of the young

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#97

Posted 17 April 2005 - 03:13 AM

Which is precisely my point. If there are no males to begin with, no males are replaced.

AllDoItTheSame
  • AllDoItTheSame

    Marching Ant

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2005

#98

Posted 17 April 2005 - 03:43 AM

no, there were males before.

Its an example of a vestigial feature, the genus evolved out of the need of a male, therefor, the female takes its place

all evolutionary

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#99

Posted 17 April 2005 - 02:11 PM

I'm not talking about organs or chemical processes, I'm talking about parenting.

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#100

Posted 17 April 2005 - 04:38 PM

Ok, this topic is really sliding down the crapper.

Yes other many (most) animals can be raised by only one gender. Most of them are also raised entirely underwater. Does this justify raising humans entirely underwater? Some animals eat live snakes, and some are very violent with their young, and some have young that eat the weaker young. We can't generalize across species unless there is a damn good logical reason to do so, and in the case of homosexual parenting, there really isn't.

So let's look at humans now, huh?

I'm not going to cite sources. Two reasons: One, I couldn't be assed hunting papers right now; and Two, I've since finished my degree at uni so I've lost my access to their excellent research databases, and quite frankly, I don't trust internet articles as far as I can throw them, even when they do agree with me.

But I am going to argue from my knowledge, which originated in reading peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

Of all the factors that can negatively influence a child's psychological development, abuse is the most powerful. After that, comes, in no particular order: nutrition, environmental stimuli (stuff to explore and play with), access to education, SES (socio-economic status), extended family and/or stable and close significant others, environmental stability, etc etc.

But presence of abuse within the family pretty much outweighs them all combined when considering "normal" psychological development. Abuse can include: neglect, sexual abuse, physical/emotional/verbal violence against the child, physical/emotional/verbal violence between the parents, etc. Abuse between the parents can be very damaging, but abuse against the child is the most damaging. 90% of all child abuse in all family types is perpetrated by mothers. The most common is neglect, followed by verbal, then emotional, then physical, then sexual.

It stands to reason, then, that in a family where there is no mother, there is a drastically reduced chance of any type of child abuse. Indeed, this is born out by research into abuse among straight, lesbian, and gay couples. Gay male couples are nearly always much less violent and abusive than straight or lesbian couples. Lesbian couples tend to be the most abusive, though the difference isn't that big between lesbian couples and straight couples (sometimes the difference isn't statistically significant).

So when considering gay males raising a child, in the context of child abuse and spousal abuse, the child seems to be better off than they would be with straight parents. If abuse were the only factor, this would be a good enough argument. But it isn't. Another fact is that gay male couples tend to bring in significantly higher combined salaries, and thus the child is brought up in a higher SES, with better nutrition, better access to education, and more environmental stimuli and stability. The only thing they *might* miss out on is extended family or stable close significant others, but this would be due primarily to social stigmas and intolerant families.

In short, children would be much better off being raised by gay male parents than by any other gender combination. The issue about their resultant sexuality is mute because anyone with half a brain knows that homosexuality is genetic and no study has ever found that children raised by gay parents are any more likely than children raised by straight parents to turn out gay. In fact, in the few major studies that I have seen, children raised by gay parents were actually less likely to be gay, but this is most sensibly attributed to sampling bias as in most cases gay couples have a limited selection of sources for their children. However, one thing that children raised by gay parents nearly always show is a very high tolerance for people of varying sexualities, which shouldn't be in the least bit surprising.

Now, this has all been talking about gay males raising kids, which, for some reason, seems to be the biggest issue of contention among posters over the last 4 pages of this topic. It seems that as soon as people think "homosexual" they immediately think "men fvcking each other in the ass". It's like lesbians slip completely under the radar.

Well, the topic title, if you read it, specifically says: "Should Danish lesbians have children?" Notice how it makes no reference to male homosexuals.

Now, I can't speak for the situation in Danishland, only in the US and Australia, because that's where I've read research from. But if it's anything like in the US, I'd be cautious about letting lesbians have children. The reason is twofold: lesbian couples tend to be slightly more abusive than straight couples; and lesbian couples typically earn much less money than straight couples. The reasons for either one of these facts are irrelevant, but these facts alone make the issue of letting them raise kids a more serious one, because statistically, the children would be being raised in a lower standard of living and would be much more likely to recieve and/or witness various types of domestic abuse. Outside of research, I've witnessed this sort of thing first hand, when a lesbian neighbour of mine came home in a foul temper and saw her son playing on the driveway (which he was prohibited from doing for some reason), so she actually ran over him with her car, then reversed back over him, got out, and screamed at him for being on the driveway, while his ribs were showing through his grazed skin and he was bleeding everywhere. Her partner then came out, was filled in on what an idiot the child was, called the ambulance, and then the kid had to put up with both of them beratting him angrily for getting ran over. I know (at least, I hope) this is an extreme example, but I've seen this first-hand, and I've never seen anything like this from any other family structure.

However, when it comes down to it, this is an issue of rights, and we can't punish the majority for the acts of the minority, nor can we use statistics to discriminate against any particular group. Otherwise, a statistical argument could be put forward to discriminate and prevent straight couples from having children! Or anyone from Alabama and Texas! No. This is about equal rights, and as such, I think it's plain to see that in the interest of equality, Danish lesbians should be allowed to have children, much like lesbians of any country, much like gays or straights from any country, much like all human adults all over the world.

In the end, we allow, and even purposefully perpetrate far greater wrongs and atrocities, with nary a second thought. What do you think the effects on a child's development would be if they witnessed their family blown to pieces as their home town is bombed to the ground? Or seeing their sister screaming and burning to death as they tremble in wide-eyed terror and hide from the enemy soldiers firing steel projectiles of death past what remains of your house? Or the girl hiding in her mother's skirt, peeking through to see enemy soldiers beat her father senseless before taking him away all the while yelling in another language and her mother begs and sobs and prays, leaving her with her last memory of seeing her father? Oh, we humans do far greater things to fvck up children than most of us are willing to be aware of. And then we get hung up about what would happen if two people who loved each other, who just happen to be the same gender, raised a child the best they could, in a caring, loving family. As spoof raised in his excellent topic: are we truly hypocritical? I say we don't need to look very far for the answer, and that the answer may very well be the one we don't want to hear.

BenMillard
  • BenMillard

    aka Cerbera

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2002
  • United-Kingdom

#101

Posted 17 April 2005 - 05:55 PM Edited by Cerbera, 17 April 2005 - 06:09 PM.

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 16 2005, 00:00)
Maybe you really do need a lesson on how to debate.

QUOTE (Cerbera @ Apr 15 2005, 22:36)
The historical reference of "any creature" being raised by two parents of the same gender has already been shown when I pointed out that the adoption of children by homosexual parents has been legal in the UK, USA and elsewhere for some time now. Additionally, the offspring from many species are solely raised by females, especially amongst feline varieties. It is also common amongst pack animals for groups of females to look after the young whilst males protect the territory in which the pack exists. So, not only is it easy to find existing examples amongst humans, we find it widespread throught the animal kingdom.
Rule number one, thou shalt not use the subject of the current debate as an example to justify yourself. Human homosexual parenting does not justify human homosexual parenting.
Whoever said it did? Here is what you said:
QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 15 2005, 21:44)
Now you, on the other hand, have not given reasons why homosexuals should be able to adopt children. You've stated that homosexuals are not a detriment to society. I'm not arguing that. But then again, that has nothing to do with whether or not they should raise children. By themselves, they have no negative impact on society. You've said that through your historical references. I challenge you, now, since historical references seem to be key to your argument - find a historical reference from any time of any creature being raised by two parents of the same sex. I highly doubt you'll find it.
You requested the references and predicted that none would exist. I supplied the references. I pointed out what you asked to see; creatures being raised by two parents of the same gender. You didn't even request them to be homosexual, simply to be the same gender. I also threw in singlular parents and multiple parents of the same gender to give you an idea of the natural diversity of parenting. Isn't that what you wanted?

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 16 2005, 00:00)
With the example of these "animal packs," I highly HIGHLY doubt you'll ever find an example of an expert claiming that the females in any way shape or form take the place of the male in its natural parenting.  We're talking about parents, not babysitters.
I'm not clear what the "place of the male in its natural parenting" is. What parental responsibilities and tasks are always unique to the male?

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 16 2005, 00:00)
QUOTE (Cerbera @ Apr 15 2005, 22:36)
I am unclear about why you place hetrosexual parenthood as being "better" than homosexual parenthood. Could you clarify this aspect of your argument?
Let's say there's this couple. They have a baby. The mother decides that being raised by a single mother would be better for the child than being raised by a mother and a father. On these grounds she requests that her husband have no part in raising the child. Would you object?
Without more detail I wouldn't be able to say. Whatever does it have to do with you thinking that heterosexual parents are better/healthier/superior to homosexual ones?

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 16 2005, 00:00)
I'm not really sure why you're talking about genetically altered crops, though.  When I was talking about development I was referring to the development from asexual cells to sexual humans, namely heterosexual humans.  Traits only survive if they are the right ones.  Heterosexual parents seem to have survived.
I wrote about genetically modified crops because you seemed unaware that there were reasons for altering default genetic behavior. Here is what you said:
QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 15 2005, 21:44)
Why would you toy with millions of years of genetic development, social patterns, and evolution in such a dramatic way?
This was my response:
QUOTE (Cerbera @ Apr 15 2005, 22:36)
Have you heard of "genetically modified" food and how it improves the yield of crops and the health of herds? Genetic muations are a natural process which drive evolution. This has given humans the ability to devise ways to alter genetic material and live in unconventional ways. Since this ability has come about from the natural process of evolution, our ability to fiddle with genetics and do things which are uncommon or non-existant amongst other known species is an entirely natural phenomenon. Indeed, since humans (and all other animals) are just a product of the natural world (matter, energy in structures) nothing humans can do can be deemed "unnatural" in any meaningful sense.
Since you also seem unaware that altering "social patterns" I would point out that the changes made during things like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution were radical, abrupt and extremely beneficial. These deviations from the "norm" raised the standard of living immenesly, increased life expectancy and allowed people to live fuller lives. For example, the transport infrastructures built during the Industrial Revolution (especially railways) allowed people to travel, giving rise to tourism. Tourism is the largest industry in the world, employing millions of people and generating huge revenues for governments.

As pointed out by several people in this thread, homosexuality itself is not "toying" with genetics since it is (apparently) genetic. Homosexual parenting requires one or more parents not genetically related to the child to act as a parent, which could be seen as contradictive to nature. If you were really ignorant. Heterosexual adoption also requires one or more parents not genetically related to the child to act as parents. Since you havn't explicitly said so, are we to conclude that you oppose all forms of adoption? If this is so, is the sexuality of the parents at all relevant to your argument?


(EDIT) Mortukai made a post at the end of the previous page which is well worth reading to everyone using this thread.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#102

Posted 17 April 2005 - 09:44 PM

Some convincing arguments by both Cerbera and Mortukai. You asked and answered the right questions. I think I'll have to reverse my opinion and agree that it wouldn't be much of an atrocity to allow them to raise children. I feel enlightened smile.gif

BenMillard
  • BenMillard

    aka Cerbera

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2002
  • United-Kingdom

#103

Posted 19 April 2005 - 05:07 PM

QUOTE (Eviscero @ Apr 17 2005, 22:44)
Some convincing arguments by both Cerbera and Mortukai.  You asked and answered the right questions.  I think I'll have to reverse my opinion and agree that it wouldn't be much of an atrocity to allow them to raise children.  I feel enlightened smile.gif
This is exactly the reason why I take so much care over my posts. I'm just trying to share my knowledge and build upon the knowledge of others so that all participants - including myself - become more informed from the excercise. If only it could improve my spelling as well! tounge.gif

Krelian
  • Krelian

    Sacrilicious

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2005

#104

Posted 19 April 2005 - 06:19 PM

It's an atrocity to let quite a few heterosexual parents raise children hehe. You'll have to excuse me if this has been voiced already, but the only issue I see with homosexual parenting is that they might transmit a skewed/one-sided view of sexuality to their children. But people seem to have no problem with parents who skew their childrens' views in the other direction.

If there's a problem with parents warping a child's view of things, why are racists allowed to raise children? Why is anyone?

As for child development, children tend to develop better with a mother and father figure in their lives (one to be the nurturer and the other the disciplinarian, among other things) but those roles aren't gender-specific. Actually, they aren't even specific to parents. Often times children find other role models if their parents don't fill the roles... say a grandmother replacing the 'mother', or perhaps a stay-at-home dad.

All in all, there are far too many sh*tty parents in the world. Sexual orientation is a small factor, if it's a factor at all, compared to things like love and responsibility. If a homosexual couple will take good care of a child, they're more deserving than many straight couples. The issue here is more social bias than parental ability... as most people are still somewhat biased against gays, whether they realize it or not.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users