Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
The_Mexican
New member
Good post, what can I say? Youre totally right.
Strongman gay post
- Thread starter The_Mexican
- Start date
Good post, what can I say? Youre totally right.
MrMuscle
New member
we are in the 21th century now people..this isnt back in the dark ages when anything that wasnt done by the majority was something evil. if two men/women love each other and want children, why cant they adopt? i seriously think thats a better way of doing it for most people...look at the world we live it..wouldnt it be more human to adopt a allready born child than to bring another one into this fucked up world?
The_Mexican
New member
okay, so are you saying that youd have no problem if you were adopted by a same sex couple? Cause I sure would.
Fuck them, the kids are what's important here. Im sure same sex couple can make fine parents... but can you imaging how fucked up that would be for the kids?
Fuck them, the kids are what's important here. Im sure same sex couple can make fine parents... but can you imaging how fucked up that would be for the kids?
MrMuscle
New member
honestly i cannot. as long as the child gets loved by two parents what is so wrong with that? and i dont think todays children WOULD get problems from it. because now being gay is considered quite normal. its just a few bad seeds that makes life hard for them. same as with race aissues, people with handicapp and so on. there are always someone that belive themself to be better than people that are different. most people are strong enough to endure this.
The_Mexican
New member
fair enough...
just of of curiousity...
are you gay or what?
just of of curiousity...
are you gay or what?
I'm straight and I have been debating this topic in my head, where the world is perferct, for a few weeks now. I have to say that I have no problems with gay adoption, I do not think that this woul in any way influence the childs sexual nature.
There are strong points and weak points for each side of the argument. The bottom line though should be is the child in a loving home that nutures their development as a caring human being. That's should be everyones main concern.
There are strong points and weak points for each side of the argument. The bottom line though should be is the child in a loving home that nutures their development as a caring human being. That's should be everyones main concern.
havoc said:
I understand this. My wife tells me daily how the children interact with us in different fashions and how bored my son is whenever I am not there because she interacts with him differently than I do. I do however see no harm and that is the key, no harm, in a child growing up in a same sex relationship.
The only thing I see lacking is the social interaction from a constant male or female presance and that interaction does need to be consistant and from the same source. And for a child to lack only one facet of development as compared to being an orphan is a small facet of life.
musclebrains
New member
Why doesn't someone just design a bot to insert this issue into chat every five days, along with the predictable hosannas and the predictable objections?
It is nothing but wishful thinking and amateur armchair psychology, to say nothing of disregard for actual social conditions, to say that a child has to have a mother and father in the home to be well socialized. You ignore the extended family, the network of friends, the schools, even the frequent effort of gay men and lesbians to engage a member of the other gender in an adopted child's upbringing.
The reality is that a huge number of children are being raised in single-parent households. If you want to forbid gay adoptions on the basis that two mixed-gender parents are necessary, then why not extend that social rule to the entire society?
The "baggage" of being raised by gay parents is no greater than that of being brought up by deaf parents, mixed-race parents, etc. I posed the same question a thousand times last time this came up and not one of you answered: Would you also have argued that black children should not have been sent to white schools to desegregate them because of the "baggage," the torment they suffered at the cruel hands of other children?
Finally, I remind you that reviews of literature have turned up no evidence that children raised by gay parents suffer more than other children.
That someone with the handle "Mexican" -- one of the most despised minorities in America right now -- engages in this posturing about another minority is astonishing.
It is nothing but wishful thinking and amateur armchair psychology, to say nothing of disregard for actual social conditions, to say that a child has to have a mother and father in the home to be well socialized. You ignore the extended family, the network of friends, the schools, even the frequent effort of gay men and lesbians to engage a member of the other gender in an adopted child's upbringing.
The reality is that a huge number of children are being raised in single-parent households. If you want to forbid gay adoptions on the basis that two mixed-gender parents are necessary, then why not extend that social rule to the entire society?
The "baggage" of being raised by gay parents is no greater than that of being brought up by deaf parents, mixed-race parents, etc. I posed the same question a thousand times last time this came up and not one of you answered: Would you also have argued that black children should not have been sent to white schools to desegregate them because of the "baggage," the torment they suffered at the cruel hands of other children?
Finally, I remind you that reviews of literature have turned up no evidence that children raised by gay parents suffer more than other children.
That someone with the handle "Mexican" -- one of the most despised minorities in America right now -- engages in this posturing about another minority is astonishing.
The_Mexican
New member
musclebrains said:
What the hell...
I think I should let you know that the quote from strongman was from a thread that he made that was locked for no given reason... and wtf is wrong with making a thread on this topic... maybe next time Ill look in the archives and bump and old one
... that is if its not locked ...Its COMMON SENSE that a child would be better off with a mother and a father. Its absurd to even try to argue otherwise. Sure there are other factors that you mentioned that affect a child's upbringing... but obviously partents play the biggest role. I have nothing against same sex relationships... but the kids would be better off with a loving mother and father than with two loving carpet eaters.
It would be extremely difficult for a single parent to adopt a child. The reason there are so many single parent households is that the parents are biologically related to the kids. Like strongman had said "They live a lifestyle that prevents them from reproducing but they still want kids" you know what, thats tough shit for them. Because its about the kids.
I dont doubt that having a major disability would hurt your chances of ADOPTING a child. Because there is a good chance that the kid could have emotional "baggage" as a result. But of course they can have as many kids as they want if they're their own. And Ill quote again "They live a lifestyle that prevents them from reproducing but they still want kids." That is the difference.
And I flat out disagree that being brought up by mixed race parents would as emotionally hard on a child as same sex parents.
I find that hard to belive, does your definition of suffering not include harrasment at school? Wondering youre the only kid on the block that has 2 moms/dads. It would suck enough being an adopted kid, let alone being adopted by a same sex couple.
You cant compare hispanics to homosexuals... thats ridiculous. Oh yea, and my handles "the mexican" and im white, and im a biggot... does that "astonish" you?
Last edited:
the nature boy
New member
who cares? there's like 3000 + kids in Florida for example waiting to get adopted. Most of them are minorities, some of them have terminal diseases, and nobody wants to adopt them. So if some kind hearted gay couple wants to take care of them, who's that hurting? give me a break.
The_Mexican
New member
Thats exactly why they havnt been adopted. Of course I agree with you here... but that is an exceptional circumstance
the nature boy
New member
Days of the Tantric said:
I think you missed her point.
No, but I have thought about it. I'm not against gay adoptions though. Many of these kids just want a family, they couldn't care less. It's ashame to deny kids a home because of prejudices.
I often think about adopting a little girl from China. Their orphanages are full. When I get in a place where I could provide a home, etc I will look into it.
I often think about adopting a little girl from China. Their orphanages are full. When I get in a place where I could provide a home, etc I will look into it.
the nature boy
New member
true, I'd prefer that children have an ideal situation where there was a mother and a father. but if nobody else wants to adopt a child why shouldn't a homosexual couple be able to adopt?
Well, I just saw something about this the other night. A gay couple had adopted four minority, HIV positive babies that no one else wanted.. The kids are happy as clams now, would not trade their parents for the world. They are all ages in school too.
That is a heck of a lot more than most straight people would do.
That is a heck of a lot more than most straight people would do.
musclebrains
New member
Days of the Tantric said:
I don't disagree with this. HOwever, the teasing a child is subjected to in this circumstance is no worse than one who has parents who are different in other respects.
I'm not sure if your post is addressed to me, but pertinent to the citation of my naivete, I wonder how many gay parents with children you know.
musclebrains
New member
"""Its COMMON SENSE that a child would be better off with a mother and a father. Its absurd to even try to argue otherwise. Sure there are other factors that you mentioned that affect a child's upbringing... but obviously partents play the biggest role. I have nothing against same sex relationships... but the kids would be better off with a loving mother and father than with two loving carpet eaters.""
This says all that needs to be said by way of explanation. Ignore actual reality in favor of "common sense" -- which just happens to be your sense of things, unsupported by reasonably objective research. Then, having made a claim purportedly based on (archaic) psychological principles from the middle of the last century, reveal your actual objections by insulting gay women.
You'll forgive me for not taking your "common sense" too seriously when it always seems to come down to a visceral objection to homosexuality itself. I suggest, if you are gay, you not adopt children. If you are straight, you have nothing to worry about, do you -- unless you happened to adopt a gay child.
By the way, yeah, I compare the situations of all minorities to one another. All minorities are marginalized by the dominant culture and their "pathologies" are the social consequences of the marginalization, not of those inherent qualities that separate them. By your logic, Mexicans are marginalized because they are lazy, have too many children and smell bad -- in the way gay people are marginalized for, um, not reproducing.
This says all that needs to be said by way of explanation. Ignore actual reality in favor of "common sense" -- which just happens to be your sense of things, unsupported by reasonably objective research. Then, having made a claim purportedly based on (archaic) psychological principles from the middle of the last century, reveal your actual objections by insulting gay women.
You'll forgive me for not taking your "common sense" too seriously when it always seems to come down to a visceral objection to homosexuality itself. I suggest, if you are gay, you not adopt children. If you are straight, you have nothing to worry about, do you -- unless you happened to adopt a gay child.
By the way, yeah, I compare the situations of all minorities to one another. All minorities are marginalized by the dominant culture and their "pathologies" are the social consequences of the marginalization, not of those inherent qualities that separate them. By your logic, Mexicans are marginalized because they are lazy, have too many children and smell bad -- in the way gay people are marginalized for, um, not reproducing.
musclebrains
New member
Days of the Tantric said:
My point, obviously, is that your own contention about the situation of adoptees of gay parents is naive in terms of personal experience.
YOu're generalizing your experience to others. I bet you would have a VERY difficult time finding anyone who didn't feel teased, even tormented, for a period in childhood.
mattcanning99
New member
we live in this world whether you want to accept it or not. we live in a world of harsh realities and scary truths.
no matter how "nice" it would be if everyone was politically correct and an idealist, the reality is - it's not a good thing to be at all - you can't turn an eye away from the realities that we're surrounded by.
could a woman ever hold the world record for the 100 metre run? more than likely: no...that's the sad truth and being politcally correct won't change that. women and men are built differently, handle problems differently, etc, they are a different species, with different hormone levels and brain structure, that's a fact, that's just how it is.
likewise, with the same sex couple raising children...im not a homophobe by any means, but is it honestly the same for a child to be raised by a same sex couple than one raised by an opposite sex couple? no, it isn't - that's the truth and no amount of debate can deny that. culturally, that child would know he or she is raised "differently" than the other children, and that would no doubt have an affect, as children will not be able to see the logic behind why things are as easily as an adult. as DOT mentioned, children will use ANY means to make fun of another child, and that child would more than likely be ostracized and tormented more than most. being politcally correct isn't going to change the playground bullies. that's a fact. accept it or not.
is the difference a guarantee of something bad? not necessarily...a child raised by an opposite sex couple could raise an unhealthy child, where a child raised by a same sex couple could turn out very happy and healthy.
all that i will point out is that there is a "difference", it is not "the same" and never will be. im not saying it's better or wose, but different for sure
no matter how "nice" it would be if everyone was politically correct and an idealist, the reality is - it's not a good thing to be at all - you can't turn an eye away from the realities that we're surrounded by.
could a woman ever hold the world record for the 100 metre run? more than likely: no...that's the sad truth and being politcally correct won't change that. women and men are built differently, handle problems differently, etc, they are a different species, with different hormone levels and brain structure, that's a fact, that's just how it is.
likewise, with the same sex couple raising children...im not a homophobe by any means, but is it honestly the same for a child to be raised by a same sex couple than one raised by an opposite sex couple? no, it isn't - that's the truth and no amount of debate can deny that. culturally, that child would know he or she is raised "differently" than the other children, and that would no doubt have an affect, as children will not be able to see the logic behind why things are as easily as an adult. as DOT mentioned, children will use ANY means to make fun of another child, and that child would more than likely be ostracized and tormented more than most. being politcally correct isn't going to change the playground bullies. that's a fact. accept it or not.
is the difference a guarantee of something bad? not necessarily...a child raised by an opposite sex couple could raise an unhealthy child, where a child raised by a same sex couple could turn out very happy and healthy.
all that i will point out is that there is a "difference", it is not "the same" and never will be. im not saying it's better or wose, but different for sure
mattcanning99
New member
also i think i should point out that we're in a transitional phase as a society. when i was growing up, most textbooks used "he" or "him", and "man / men", where most of the textbooks i now use are leaning towards using "her" or case studies involving female prime ministers, etc, more than they had before.
it's different to see this, after being so used to the way things were. in a few years, we will all be used to it...same way that same sex relationships experience a lot of prejudice these days. we are in a transitional time where it will become more accepted and respected to be a same sex couple / same sex couple w/ child(ren).
ever notice how a lot of people use "gay" or "fag" as an insult? that will probably decrease over time soon as well
it's different to see this, after being so used to the way things were. in a few years, we will all be used to it...same way that same sex relationships experience a lot of prejudice these days. we are in a transitional time where it will become more accepted and respected to be a same sex couple / same sex couple w/ child(ren).
ever notice how a lot of people use "gay" or "fag" as an insult? that will probably decrease over time soon as well
musclebrains
New member
mattcanning99 said:
Different from whom?
Different from people raised in two-parent mixed-gender households.
Yes, it's different. So what? Where is the evidence that it's any more significant than the "difference" of being raised black in a white neighborhood, of being the child of handicapped parents, of being the child of poor people on scholarship at a private school, of being the child of mixed-race parents, of being the child of old parents, of being the child of a convicted felon, of being the child of a preacher, of being short, of being fat, of being thin, of being mentally disabled, of being whatthefuckever?
Where is your evidence that it's any more traumatic to have two daddies than one mother or one father or a blind father who can't play ball with you?
Is it that this seems especially traumatic to YOU because of your own attitudes toward homosexuality and the attitudes of those in your immediate culture?
This perfect world you keep referring to doesn't exist and never has. I think any reasonable person can agree that two gay men, with good incomes and doting natures, will be better for a child than many alternatives. Yet we don't see posts every five days about the dangers of childrearing by child molesters and abusers.
mattcanning99
New member
im not saying it's in any way "worse" im just saying it's "different".
frankly, im tired of politically correct idealists who want everything to be the same. that's not how it is. remember, it's not worse but also not the same, so you can't just shrug it off and say it is.
frankly, im tired of politically correct idealists who want everything to be the same. that's not how it is. remember, it's not worse but also not the same, so you can't just shrug it off and say it is.
musclebrains
New member
mattcanning99 said:
How is granting minorities freedom to love one another and raise families making everything the same? In fact, it's just the opposite. It's encouraging the freedom to be different.
And considering how "different" everyone is, I will continue to maintain that the importance of the difference in this particular case relates to your own values -- not to anything demonstrably true. When you start fretting about the linguistic impact of life with deaf parents, I'll start worrying about the impact of having two daddies on a Chinese orphan.
To think kids would pick on other kids who have gay parents is not a good argument. Kids pick on kids period. They pick on each other as we all did when we where in school. I agree that a normal mom and dad can't be replaced by a gay couple but lets be serious how many normal mom and dads are out there? why are so many kids fucked up? simple parents. why not allow gays who would love and care for kids to adopt. I would and probaly will adopt and have the money to do it. i know I would be a great father as I know my fashions and values. Would I replace a mom and dad? nope but tell ya what my kids would be raised with values, morales, and be held responsible as many today are not. When I was a kid my mom died so I was raised by my dad. Did and do I miss my mom? yup to this day 30 years later greatly but I learned how important parents really are and I think most parents have no idea how kids look up to them.
mattcanning99
New member
musclebrains said:
i just want to see how much of an idealist you are. im sensing you are putting ideas over reality (no offense).
comment on this:
i dont think a woman could ever be the fastest at the 100m run.
SofaGeorge
New member
This whole debate is moot because everyone seems to be ignoring why gay parents are generally allowed to adopt in most states - Social Services suck! I don't know how many of you are familiar with the kind of people who generally sign up to be foster parents, what their motivations are, how long they keep the kids, what the life of a shuffled around foster kid is like, etc... It is a very sad situation in general. Period.
You will have a very hard time finding any social worker who doesn't support gay adoption. They would rather see those kids in ANY stable, loving home rather than being milled through the foster care system, and you will have an even harder time finding kids in the foster care system who don't want the stability of a permanent home with two caring parents.
The kids, the ones who matter, don't appear to care to much if the parents are gay. They just want parents, and they just want a home.
You will have a very hard time finding any social worker who doesn't support gay adoption. They would rather see those kids in ANY stable, loving home rather than being milled through the foster care system, and you will have an even harder time finding kids in the foster care system who don't want the stability of a permanent home with two caring parents.
The kids, the ones who matter, don't appear to care to much if the parents are gay. They just want parents, and they just want a home.
the nature boy
New member
SofaGeorge said:
well said.
musclebrains
New member
Mentally handicapped people can't have kids for a reason that reason being "they shouldn't raise them". No point in putting a child through a childhood of torment just because two mentally handicapped people decided to start a family.
IN CHINA ONRY CAN MAKE ONE BABY!!!
BIG BERRY SEAHORSES CAN MAKE BABIES.....MAN ONES CAN TOO!!!! ROOK:
The reproduction of seahorses is truly remarkable. The male seahorse has a pouch (a marsupium) into which the female seahorse lays her eggs. In White's Seahorse, the male fertilises the eggs and cares for them for about three weeks (depending upon several factors including the temperature). During this time, he aerates the pouch, and, most remarkably of all, nourishes the eggs through a capillary network in the pouch with his own "placental fluids". At the end of the "pregnancy", the male gives birth to 100-250 fully formed young seahorses of about 1cm in length which swim away to care for themselves. The male then "becomes pregnant" again almost straight away. White's Seahorses are monogamous (females and males form a permanent pair) and breed from October to April.
BIG BERRY SEAHORSES CAN MAKE BABIES.....MAN ONES CAN TOO!!!! ROOK:
The reproduction of seahorses is truly remarkable. The male seahorse has a pouch (a marsupium) into which the female seahorse lays her eggs. In White's Seahorse, the male fertilises the eggs and cares for them for about three weeks (depending upon several factors including the temperature). During this time, he aerates the pouch, and, most remarkably of all, nourishes the eggs through a capillary network in the pouch with his own "placental fluids". At the end of the "pregnancy", the male gives birth to 100-250 fully formed young seahorses of about 1cm in length which swim away to care for themselves. The male then "becomes pregnant" again almost straight away. White's Seahorses are monogamous (females and males form a permanent pair) and breed from October to April.
musclebrains
New member
EYEPEEE said:IN CHINA ONRY CAN MAKE ONE BABY!!!
BIG BERRY SEAHORSES CAN MAKE BABIES.....MAN ONES CAN TOO!!!! ROOK:
The reproduction of seahorses is truly remarkable. The male seahorse has a pouch (a marsupium) into which the female seahorse lays her eggs. In White's Seahorse, the male fertilises the eggs and cares for them for about three weeks (depending upon several factors including the temperature). During this time, he aerates the pouch, and, most remarkably of all, nourishes the eggs through a capillary network in the pouch with his own "placental fluids". At the end of the "pregnancy", the male gives birth to 100-250 fully formed young seahorses of about 1cm in length which swim away to care for themselves. The male then "becomes pregnant" again almost straight away. White's Seahorses are monogamous (females and males form a permanent pair) and breed from October to April.
LOL
