In a world where it is increasingly no longer socially acceptable for a biological male to lead a nuclear family, the next best option over a child being raised by a single parent would be being raised by 2 gay parents.
Disagree?
The case for Gay parents.
Posts
Total:
20
-->
@coal
Thoughts?
-->
@Greyparrot
Should we argue in the type of good faith and appeal to intellectual honesty present in the first line of this post, or the second?
-->
@Greyparrot
Haven't you ever seen Modern Family?
-->
@FLRW
What about it?
-->
@Greyparrot
It is a good example of the life of 2 gay parents, Cameron and Mitchell.
-->
@FLRW
So you don't disagree? It's a preferable family arrangement for a child than a single parent?
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, child outcomes tend to improve with two cohabitating parents raising the kids as opposed to one.
-->
@Greyparrot
Factory farming is the way forwards.
Selectively breed to assure the best health and brains, and do away with all the unnecessary and unhealthy dross, and therefore remove the need for Gay parenting, or any parenting at all.
Monocultural mass education and child development, devoid of all unnecessary and distracting data transfer. (Religion etc.)
Castration and sterilization at birth, save for selected breeding stock.
Depopulation, good for the planet, and best brains will ensure technological advancement and a purposeful future.
This is what A.I will eventually do.
Sex....It's all a big con.
Thoughts?
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you disagree?
-->
@Greyparrot
Nope.
I honestly don't care.
I worry about my immediate family, and what the folks next door get up to, is for them to decide.
And my previous post was not a joke.
-->
@Greyparrot
In a world where it is increasingly no longer socially acceptable for a biological male to lead a nuclear family, the next best option over a child being raised by a single parent would be being raised by 2 gay parents.Disagree?
I disagree with the premise, sure. Of course it's acceptable for a biological male to lead a nuclear family, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous. Though I'd note there's no shortage of preposterousness from the woke-types who have developed an almost fattishistic obsession with bitching and moaning about "whiteness" and "maleness" as if those identity-claims were the sole proximate causes of all their --- mostly imagined --- grievances with the world.
Having moved the ball so far forward in the direction of achieving equality before the law and society, all that's left for the former-social justice warrior types is to invent new grievances for them to rectify. Yesterday (and today too, I guess) it was the so-called "patriarchy" but today, it's "whiteness" and "maleness." I can only await the coming "final solution" to both they'll start advocating for in the years to come.
But we likely won't get that far. The plague of that particularly American species of "woke" progressivism is bound to die out like any African hemorrhagic fever. Notably, the reason ebola doesn't ever really present a pandemic risk is because it kills its hosts too fast to spread. Sure, there's some spreading and the initially infected die off; but it doesn't last.
That all being said, I strongly support gay/lesbian parenting. For reasons that I think should be obvious.
-->
@coal
Of course it's acceptable for a biological male to lead a nuclear family, and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous.
You might have glossed over the word "increasingly" but it is a VERY important word in that premise. This is the future I see for most of the non-Islamic western world.
But we likely won't get that far.
After the past few years, I am not so sure. Certainly not within our lifetimes.
That all being said, I strongly support gay/lesbian parenting. For reasons that I think should be obvious
Please expound for the edification of everyone interested. I highly value your insights.
-->
@Greyparrot
That all being said, I strongly support gay/lesbian parenting. For reasons that I think should be obviousPlease expound for the edification of everyone interested. I highly value your insights.
If you're gay, and you want to have a kid, you have to try REALLY hard to make it happen. Whether through adoption, surrogacy or whatever else may be available. But it's not easy. There's a huge time and financial commitment just involved in making it happen, which is a barrier to entry heteros do not experience.
And the two-parent model is about as good as can be hoped for. But one will do, although frankly I couldn't imagine adopting a kid before I was married. I know what my work schedule is and I barely have time to take care of a dog much less a child. Although the time will come when I'll probably rearrange my priorities there.
Beyond that, for those kids who need to be adopted, couples that cannot biologically reproduce are prime adoption candidates. I should note that adoption is a kind of uniquely Western and really most commonly American thing (it just doesn't happen in non-Christian countries at even close to the same rate), but it is absolutely absurd to claim that being raised by the system is better than two dads or two moms. If not totally insane.
No case has to be made at all. Only bigots need defend their irrational bullshit.
Burden of proof is actually on the status quo here (worldwide status quo, not social democracy status quo).
-->
@coal
it is absolutely absurd to claim that being raised by the system is better than two dads or two moms. If not totally insane.
I am in fact furthermore certain that the kind of foster or adoptive parents who wind up being abusive and/or neglectful are heterosexual. This sounds like a huge assumption to be making but put yourself in the shoes of a homosexual couple adopting, they are already on edge to not make any mistakes and be good at it more so than the default heterosexual couple in the same spot, especially if the society has barely allowed it.
There is also an understanding amongst homosexuals of what it was like growing up as an outcast of some kind (though if they were very closested and taunted/abused they may themselves be toxic, however why would they then seek to adopt? Sounds like an extremely rare scenario since this type tends to simply never maintain any kind of relationship long enough).
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes I disagree
-->
@Tradesecret
Why are 2 gay parents a worse environment for a child than a single parent?
-->
@Greyparrot
Obviously it depends on the single parent. But assuming that they are a half decent person then at least they are biologically related. Gay parents can only have one biologically related person to the child. Again biology is not a guarantee of being a good or decent parent. Yet is still preferable to inflicting the child with either two dads or two mums. A gay couple commences with a unique worldview. This worldview should be restricted from children until the child is an adult.
I accept that there are many non gay Familes that are absolutely abusive and hateful and even evil. Many that do not demonstrate love in appropriate ways. These people should ideally not be parents either. And I also accept that many gay people would probably make great parents. Yet sadly they also have a worldview which is selfish. And this is inescapable. This is why I think that ordinarily a single person would be preferable to a gay couple.
I'm a little confused cuz there are biological males in gay couples.