Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/15/05 05:02 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n126_v32/ai_19619406
http://psychology.about.com/cs/childth/ht/genderrole.htm

All these two articles imply is that gender roles in children are taught by strong role models, nothing more. I've seen butch lesbians that were just as masculine as any other straight man, and drag queens that were just as feminine as any straight woman. Seems like strong gender roles to me...

If you want to convince us that Gay adoption is bad for the kids, show us empirical evidence pointing to already existing situations as such. After all, there's currently nothing stopping homosexual couples from having their own children biologically.

Tersonally, i think we have more to worry about than a couple of homos or lesbians (not homophobic) adopting a kid, im against it, maus you should shutup, making fun of a car isn't gonna cause a another columbine, when they take the piss out of the parents, it is more personal. You may be gay (literally, you caim to love bouncing tits, and talked about lesbian relations so im pretty sure) and support it maus, so that you could adopt a kid, but it is a lot of torment for the kid. But we have mroe shit to worry about, i dont care, it shouldn't matter, its nothing, we should be mroe concerned baout the condition of the woorld than a couple of people adopting, it doesn't matter.

At 3/15/05 05:50 PM, metalhead676 wrote: ignorant blathering

Pardon my southern upbring, but you just ain't right bright, now are you?

The problem we should be addressing is not making all the kids the same so there is nothing to pick on each other about, but eliminating the predjudices and the kinds of beliefs that lead to picking on other kids.
If having gay parents was an accepted and tolerated thing then kids wouldn't pick on children of gay parents. The sad fact is, though, that sections of society condemn gay parents for no good reason and children suffer because of their predjudices.

At 3/15/05 04:07 PM, Maus wrote:

At 3/15/05 04:04 PM, bcdemon wrote:

I totally agree, gay couples getting married fine, but no gay adoption rights....

I want to see you advocating revoking all parental rights for single parents, with that reasoning.

Whoa there, I didn't say all parental rights, I said adoption rights.
But as for as advocating revoking single gay male or female adoptive rights, sure, where do I sign up? I figure nip it in the bud now.

What about single parents, period? You said they need BOTH genders as parents. Can't have that in a single parent household.

Any chemical imbalances (depression, thyroid, etc) would be default disqualification. A depressed parent isn't as good as a 'normal' parent, a fat parent isn't as good as a thin one.

Basically, what you're saying is that we should only let 'perfect' people adopt kids, right?

What? A topic on homosexuality and I didn't get to chime in before the opposition left?
I R TEH SAD

Anyway let me just state this for the record, even though others have already alluded to it, and that is that society plays a very large role in raising and socializing any child. For example, say a single mother has a little boy and raises him all by herself. Now does this mean that the boy had no male influences in his life? Heck no. What about relatives, neighbors, friends, teachers? Everyone that a child interacts with as they are growing up helps mold their understanding of reality and to varying degrees affects how that person will grow up. So my question is how is this any different with a homosexual couple?

At 3/15/05 05:02 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/15/05 04:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

Eh, quit whining. Someone needs to knock you off your high-horse, FLAGG;

Yes, and I'm sure that someone is you.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n126_v32/ai_19619406
http://psychology.about.com/cs/childth/ht/genderrole.htm

This simply argues the effects of traditional gender roles. And that's fine, if people want to do that. But people have a right to their own enviroment. And yes, that means the right to bring children into that enviroment.
A homosexual couple adopting children is not physically, emotionally, or mentally damaging to the child.

And that was Maus's point, or at least the jist of it. You can't just go aroun deciding what is and what isn't a 'healthy enough' enviroment for a child.
A child from rape is not always born into a healthy enviroment. A man gets his wife pregnant, and then he dies. That child won't be born into a healthy enviroment.
So the fuck what?

Like I said before, a heterosexual situation is clearly the best environment for a child because he/she gets the best of BOTH worlds.

And like I said before, so the fuck what? I could care less about the 'best' route.

We cannot "prevent" a lot of things from happening (such as divorce, rape, and death), but we CAN prevent this from happening... You don't believe that if we can, we should?

Nope. Not even a little bit. And, don't just ask the question for a third time, either. I'm not being sarcastic, and I'm not joking.
In some cases, even when something can be done to create a 'greater good', it should be avoided. Why? Because your 'best' only pleases people with the same mindset as you. And not everyone is like that. Some people have different standards of 'best'.

Funny how I didn't need either. You're a funny man/woman/both

At 3/15/05 09:05 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Yes, and I'm sure that someone is you.

Nah, not me. ~.^ I know that it is useless trying to convince an stuck-up bastard that his arrogance will be his downfall; I know that inside, you're completely insecure. Otherwise, you wouldn't wasteso much time insulting people online.

This simply argues the effects of traditional gender roles. And that's fine, if people want to do that. But people have a right to their own enviroment. And yes, that means the right to bring children into that enviroment.

That's a selfish attitude. Just because you feel that you "have the right" to bring a child into any atmosphere you want... doesn't mean that you are looking out for the best interests of the kid; and I honestly believe that you don't give a ditch-digger's damn about the welfare of children. You certainly don't act like you care about them; it would appear that you've given into political correctness. V_V

A homosexual couple adopting children is not physically, emotionally, or mentally damaging to the child.

That may be your opinion, but it certainly could be emotionally damaging. You apparently can't see this because you (and Maus) are speaking subjectively. I realize that you don't WANT to believe it can be harmful, but a child is a fragile, impressionable creation. The best situation for a child's welfare is a loving family situation with both a mother and a father. And whether you like this fact or not, it is the truth.

And like I said before, so the fuck what? I could care less about the 'best' route.

I can't believe that you are admitting that you don't care what is best for a child...

In some cases, even when something can be done to create a 'greater good', it should be avoided. Why? Because your 'best' only pleases people with the same mindset as you. And not everyone is like that. Some people have different standards of 'best'.

You can't please everyone, dude. No matter what stance you take, you will most assuredly offend someone. That is the biggest flaw in political correctness; you can't suck-up to everybody. People may have different standards, but that doesn't change the fact that all children have needs; it is the duty of parents to make sure that a child's needs are fulfilled. Considering there is no possible way for a homosexual couple to fill both male and female roles, they can never give that child everything he/she needs. Nothing is perfect, but denying a child the right to a mother or a father is just plain wrong.

At 3/15/05 09:59 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: The best situation for a child's welfare is a loving family situation with both a mother and a father. And whether you like this fact or not, it is the truth.

Ok, if you are going to ignore us and insist you are correct then prove it to us. I mean really lay your full reasoning on the line here. Also if you really want to be taken seriously by the rest of us, you should probably actually address the points that we have raised instead of just saying " that's not true." I challege you to make us have at least a shred of doubt in our stances because you were just that good in your explination.

At 3/15/05 09:59 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

Nah, not me. ~.^ I know that it is useless trying to convince an stuck-up bastard that his arrogance will be his downfall; I know that inside, you're completely insecure. Otherwise, you wouldn't wasteso much time insulting people online.

And attacking someone's security with themselves isn't insulting ?

The best situation for a child's welfare is a loving family situation with both a mother and a father. And whether you like this fact or not, it is the truth.

And what proof of this is there. It may be better for a child to have both a mother and a father growing up, but it is not 100% necessary for the child to mature into an adult.

At 3/15/05 09:59 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Considering there is no possible way for a homosexual couple to fill both male and female : roles, they can never give that child everything he/she needs. Nothing is perfect, but denying a : child the right to a mother or a father is just plain wrong.

Since you can't get this through your mind, I'm going to say this plainly.
A SINGLE HETEROSEXUAL PARENT GIVES NO MORE INFLUENCE FROM BOTH GENDERS THAN A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE.
With your "The children need both kind of parents" argument, a single heterosexual parent is just as bad as a homosexual couple.

At 3/15/05 10:26 PM, spa-z wrote: And what proof of this is there. It may be better for a child to have both a mother and a father growing up, but it is not 100% necessary for the child to mature into an adult.

Woah, first point I can agree with comes from a newbie. Guys, I'm so dissapointed of you.
Probably, and I'm just saying probably, if we narrow down all cases of adoption (and parenting in general) and dismember them into cold statistics, we'd see that kids grow somewhat better if they have both maternal and paternal figures, but that's still just somewhat better. Also, keep in mind that gay couples planning to adopt a child aren't idiotic enough to use the kid as an object and say "Hey, look, we're normal now." Maybe that could represent a few, isolated cases, but the majority of them will be highly prepared in order to give their child the best education/parenting possible. Point is, maybe gay couples could be handicapped on certain aspects of raising a child, but it doesn't seems to be enough to ban gay adoption.

And guys, yeah, you're far too defensive. :/

At 3/15/05 03:46 PM, Duffman74 wrote: I am against gay adoption. I think it is wrong because if two gay men or two lesbians adopt a child, that child may be made fun of and tormented at school. Do we need another Columbine? Do you think it is wrong or right? If so, why? Discuss.

just because your made fun of at school for having a small penis dosn't mean everyone is teased that bad, I have a gay uncle and no one teases me about that.

At 3/15/05 03:46 PM, Duffman74 wrote: I am against gay adoption. I think it is wrong because if two gay men or two lesbians adopt a child, that child may be made fun of and tormented at school. Do we need another Columbine? Do you think it is wrong or right? If so, why? Discuss.

That sure is a lot to deduce--
Gay parents = Columbine? Now that's a slippery slope.

I never recalled any gay parents for any of the past school shootings...

At 3/15/05 04:23 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: ...One parent "pretending" to fill the role of mother/father is not enough, and a child wouldn't understand why the other children have both a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers...

Okay, I've calmed myself before typing this.

But gay parents don't "pretend".
We parent, like most heterosexuals, give children loving homes, love them, raise them to be decent with other people.

We don't "pretend" to be anything.
Unfortunately, my son was not born alive.
But I was there, ready, very ready, to love him, care for him, and raise him to be a good person exactly how and my husband are. Neither one of us were going to do this "father" and "mother" thing, but be parents.

Parents--

At 3/15/05 11:52 PM, fli wrote: We don't "pretend" to be anything.

Mother = Female
Father = Male

A man can NEVER fill a mother's role, and a woman can NEVER fill a father's role.

At 3/16/05 12:04 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/15/05 11:52 PM, fli wrote: We don't "pretend" to be anything.

Mother = Female
Father = Male

A man can NEVER fill a mother's role, and a woman can NEVER fill a father's role.

You were saying we would 'pretend' to fill a role. We say we would not.

You want to talk about subjectivity, you're a shining example. Do you even know any gay parents? Have you talked to them about gender roles? Have you asked them about other influences, male and female, in their child's life?

At 3/16/05 12:04 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

Mother = Female
Father = Male

A man can NEVER fill a mother's role, and a woman can NEVER fill a father's role.

Who, besides you, is asking them to fill those roles?

At 3/15/05 09:59 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/15/05 09:05 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Yes, and I'm sure that someone is you.

Nah, not me. ~.^ I know that it is useless trying to convince an stuck-up bastard that his arrogance will be his downfall;

I only possess arrogance when dealing with the absolute lowest of lifeforms. Don't be pissed at me, just because you haven't got that whole evolution thing down yet.
It's naive, to assume that you're 'greater good' is any more important than mine, or the junkie's. "Best'' is just an opinion, like everything else.

I know that inside, you're completely insecure. Otherwise, you wouldn't wasteso much time insulting people online.

Even assuming I were insecure, what does that have to do with anything? Refute my points, or do nothing.

That's a selfish attitude.

So? There is no prerequisite to 'be a good person'. There is no obligation. I'll be selfish, or vain, or condescending all fucking day long, if that's what I want. Welcome to America.

Just because you feel that you "have the right" to bring a child into any atmosphere you want... doesn't mean that you are looking out for the best interests of the kid; and I honestly believe that you don't give a ditch-digger's damn about the welfare of children.

I don't give a ''ditch-digger's'' about children? And yet, you're the one telling me homosexuals aren't 'apt' to adopt children, and rear them properly?
How many children, verse? How many of those children that you claim to give a damn about go without quarter, and love, and a real home, every single day? And how many homosexual couples, willing to adopt a child, and love them, and shelter them, and give them a far better life than any found at an orphanage get denied? How many are sleeping in an institution, tonight, verse? How many children are denied a home because of your shallow, cultural-predispostion of gays being 'inapt' at child rearing?

I'm amazed YOU even have the audacity to tell me 'I don't care', while you sit there, advocating, with a straight face, a situation that leaves children in an unloving, uncaring institution.

You certainly don't act like you care about them; it would appear that you've given into political correctness. V_V

lol me? Given into political correctness? Yet, I'm the one advocating the allowance of adoption by gay couples...while you stand firmly against the 'inapt, icky gays'. Go fuck yourself.

That may be your opinion, but it certainly could be emotionally damaging. You apparently can't see this because you (and Maus) are speaking subjectively. I realize that you don't WANT to believe it can be harmful, but a child is a fragile, impressionable creation. The best situation for a child's welfare is a loving family situation with both a mother and a father. And whether you like this fact or not, it is the truth.

You've nothing to prove that. It's a fucking theory, like everything else.
It's not that I disagree with your opinion. If that's all it was, there wouldn't be a problem. Problem is, your sanctimonious, pretentious ass acts like you wrote the textbooks.
Does a dual-sex household present a better enviroment for a child? Maybe, maybe not. It's up in the air.
You want to compare opinions, and debate like human beings? I'm all for that. But if you keep acting like you speak some kind of incontrovertible axiom, and you'll get the same response from me, and many others, over and over.

And like I said before, so the fuck what? I could care less about the 'best' route.

I can't believe that you are admitting that you don't care what is best for a child...

lol.
"Damien doesn't agree with me. That must mean he hates children."
Again, your 'best' is nothing more than a subjective theory; an opinion. Yours is no better than mine, or Maus's, or Jerry Fallwell's.

In some cases, even when something can be done to create a 'greater good', it should be avoided. Why? Because your 'best' only pleases people with the same mindset as you. And not everyone is like that. Some people have different standards of 'best'.

You can't please everyone, dude.

I, actually, feel the same way.

That is the biggest flaw in political correctness; you can't suck-up to everybody.

Who the fuck is sucking up? And who's being politically correct, for that matter?
If I'm not mistaken, I told you to go fuck yourself...claimed that homosexuals would make just fine parents...and said the 'best' way isn't always the 'right' way. Which one of those things, that I said, were politically correct? Why don't you tell me, because I just can't seem to pinpoint it.

People may have different standards, but that doesn't change the fact that all children have needs; it is the duty of parents to make sure that a child's needs are fulfilled.

Exactly. And I'm saying the goddamn genitalia of the parent DOES NOT MATTER.

Considering there is no possible way for a homosexual couple to fill both male and female roles, they can never give that child everything he/she needs.

Prove it. Give me case examples, of tests that show children in homosexuals households grow up with 'icky, nasty diseases', and 'malfactors'. Prove it, or shut up about it.
You don't think gays would make good parents. Good for you, brother. More fucking power to you. But it's just your opinion. Again, you want to debate opinions, fine. But neither of us have incontrovertible axioms, on this topic.

Nothing is perfect, but denying a child the right to a mother or a father is just plain wrong.

Oh, and denying a child a home altogether is better? Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying that no home is better than a 'flawed' home. How the fuck does that even make sense?
How would a child be better off in a social institution, as oppossed to a nuturing home? Is that child getting 'proper male and female role models' in the goddamn ORPHANAGE?

At 3/16/05 12:04 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Mother = Female
Father = Male

A man can NEVER fill a mother's role, and a woman can NEVER fill a father's role.

I asked you to give a well thought out and intelligent response. Fli tried to empathize with you by spilling his heart out on the table as someone that wants to be a father.

And you... you shove it in his face that he must be wrong: no explination, no compassion, no nothing. VCV, I had alot of respect for you as someone with a good understanding of christianity and the bible. I would always listen to your arguments no matter how outlandish they seemed to me. Sorry to say but I have just lost ALL respect for you. Good day jackass.

Oh brother...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mother
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=father

Enough explanation for you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parent

This is one you can't fight.

At 3/16/05 12:10 AM, Maus wrote: You were saying we would 'pretend' to fill a role. We say we would not.

How is a woman trying to be a father or a man trying to be a mother NOT pretending to fill roles? It's obvious that they could never fill that void, so what is your reasoning?

You want to talk about subjectivity, you're a shining example.

How?

Do you even know any gay parents?

Yes.

Have you talked to them about gender roles?

I don't shove my beliefs in their face; but this is a debate.

Have you asked them about other influences, male and female, in their child's life?

I didn't have to, Maus. I've seen it personally. Even though they're trying to get the feminine/masculine thing down, they do not actually have a mother-child/father-child relationship. The lesbians ACT like two mothers, and the gay men ACT like two fathers.

At 3/16/05 12:33 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Oh brother...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mother
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=father

Enough explanation for you?

Actually, no it isn't...I can quote the dictionary too. Watch.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stubborn

Where was that whole quoting the dictionary thing going anyways? Surely not to prove a point.

#15 specifically

At 3/16/05 12:37 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parent

This is one you can't fight.

What's your point? I never said they weren't parents. :P

You say that all adopted kids should have a female and a male parent, no ifs ands or buts. That a straight abusive couple is a better adoptee than a loving gay couple. That a child should stay in the foster care system if no straight couple wants them.

Do you see the inanity in that? At all? Why would you deny a child a loving home simply because of your own prejudices and subjectivity?

At 3/16/05 12:41 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 3/16/05 12:37 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parent

This is one you can't fight.

What's your point? I never said they weren't parents. :P

My point? Gay couples have just as much credibility as straight couples when it comes to raising children who would otherwise be forced into foster care. This is issue is about giving kids a better start at life than group homes. If you believe denying the kids the chance to grow up in at least a stabler environment than foster care, you might as well start backing abortion.

At 3/16/05 12:40 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: How is a woman trying to be a father or a man trying to be a mother NOT pretending to fill roles? It's obvious that they could never fill that void, so what is your reasoning?

Where are you coming up with this tripe? Where did fli or myself say that we would try to act like the opposite gender to raise a child?

You want to talk about subjectivity, you're a shining example.

How

See below.

Do you even know any gay parents?

Yes.

What, like 2 couples?

Have you talked to them about gender roles?

I don't shove my beliefs in their face; but this is a debate.

I said 'talked to' not 'tried to change their ways.' You can have discussions about things, and not argue.

Have you asked them about other influences, male and female, in their child's life?

I didn't have to, Maus. I've seen it personally. Even though they're trying to get the feminine/masculine thing down, they do not actually have a mother-child/father-child relationship. The lesbians ACT like two mothers, and the gay men ACT like two fathers.

See, here's where it's getting sticky:

You are saying that parents should be a male and a female. Then you say that one half of a gay couple always tries to fill the opposite gender role. Several of us are saying that is not the case, we will act according to our gender. You are the only one that keeps coming back to the 'one tries to act.'

You've 'seen' it personally, but haven't talked to them about it. Has it occured to you that you're placing your own subjective view onto the situation?