I think we’re missing the important point, here.
Bisexuals are clearly the best parents of all. 
Do you know this somehow, or are you just thinking outloud?
My initial statement can be amended to read: "Conservatives in our society opposing SSM and same-sex couple child-rearing often/ frequently/sometimes/have been known to (take your pick Tom) advance the apparently humanitarian faux-liberal argument that while many same-sex couples can no doubt make excellent parents, it is best for the child to be raised in a traditional male-female couple if only because it stands out less, is more mainstream, gives the child the security of being like the traditional families we see on old TV programs and movies, and does not expose the child to homophobic bigotry.
My argument is that gays and supporters of same-sex parenting rights should not pretend that that this argument is completely invalid. They should say, *“Yes, that’s probably true, (becoming less so every day but still true) but in determining the suitability of a couple to parent, it counts as one tiny factor that can easily be compensated by dozens of other factors.” *
And in support of my argument, I gave the example of the VERY REAL gay men I know who have adopted a Latino orphan from a poverty-stricken orphanage in Central America. He is now a US Citizen living in a luxury home, loved and adored by his two daddies, with a wonderful life of financial security, first-rate education and opportunity spreading before him. He is now about 5, so he is too young to know about homophobic prejudice. Somewhere in the next 10 years, my guess is the poor little kid may be teased, perhaps even beaten up, because he has two daddies. He may come home in tears a couple of times. I am not blaming the victim. I wish the world were not like that. But then, considering where this child was originally, considering all he has gained, I say that this disadvantage of same-sex parenting IS a disadvantage, but it is one of so many factors that it can easily be outweighed by other factors.
THIS is how we should answer the conservative argument on this score, in my opinion.
I never said they were doing something wrong, or even implying it. I KNOW society is to blame for anti-semitism and for homophobia, not the victims.
I was just givin a fictional analogy (Dr. and Mrs. Goldberg adopting the poor WASP orphan and raising him as a Jew) to compare to the real-life gay couple adopting the Latino kid and raising him as the son of two daddies.
On the negative side of the scale, both kids are being potentially exposed to a form of prejudice they would not have been exposed to if the adoption had not occurred. On the positive side of the scale, they are being blessed with untold advantages they never would have enjoyed if the adoption had not occurred. It is a no-brainer. Only an idiot or a die-hard conservative would consider the antisemitism/homophobia aspect important enough to condemn the adoption.
As our Moderator Tomndebb has kindly pointed out in posting no. 38 above, the meandering exhibited by this thread is largely due to my incompetentce in the field of argument. One of my worst sins was using the word “a lot”. I foolishly believed it designated a very general, non-numeric concept that is highly relative to the situation and depends a great deal on the individual’s personal assessment. In MY opinion Henry the VIII had a “lot of” wives (He had 6). “Henry the VIII did not have a lot of wives” said oriental potentate. “He had only 6”. The teacher said she did not have “a lot” of students in her class (She had 6). “I have a lot of students this year” said the private tutor. “I have six”.
I seem to remember that enough opponents of SSM and same-sex child-rearing over the years have expressed the argument on these message boards (that innocent children would be exposed to homophobia) often enough for me to use the term “a lot”. My excuses if I am mistaken.
However, as long as I am mainly resposible for the train wreck of my own thread, I might as well add a complete non-sequitur. In point of fact, same-sex couples not uncommonly use the biological method of having children. How, you may ask?
-
Two males, one of whom has a willing sister. The sister receives the sperm of the partner who is not her brother and bears the child as a surrogate. The resulting child has a blood bond with one parent who is the child’s father and with the other who is the child’s uncle. If my partner and I were not in our 60s and 50s and my sister past menopause, we would consider this.
-
Two females, one of whom receives sperm from the brother of her lesbian partner. The child has a blood link with a mother and an aunt.
-
A paid surrogate mother, who receives sperm from one of the male partners. Blood link with one partner only. Or perhaps, if the two male partners look relatively similar, the surrogate receives the sperm of both, and both agree to live with the possibility that either could be the father. No DNA testing allowed.
In this case, telling a same-sex couple they cannot bring a child into the world because it might suffer prejudice is as ridiculous as telling blacks, Jews, Muslims, Asians or any other minority they should not have children for that reason.
Sorry - it’s just something I saw on a TV programme once, which made sense to me. Therefore, it’s now part of my opinion, offered up for debate, in the same line as the OP - I’m not saying it’s absolutely right. We are not in GQ.
I’ll take issue with you on this one. Chinese and Japanese parents are the most ideal. They can get their kids to do their homework, and succeed in school better than any other ethnic group. Not only that, but their kids have the lowest unemployment rate in America. They may be subject to racism, yet they seem to thrive regardless.
As for opposite sex parents, I’ll agree that opposite sex parents are desirable, but not neccessary. Ballance is important in life.
I sae a program once where a playground interaction was observed between dad, mom and a yound kid on the monkey bars. Dad on top urging the kid on to overcome his fear, and mom below, arms outstretched urging caution. That kid was stimulated to find his limit. Stimulation is a good thing.
And somehow, that scene was so predictable to me.
It is always possible that a little boy being raised by two daddies may come under the kindly attention of a school nurse/counsellor who is also a homophobic fundamentalist Christian fanatic. She is made aware that Johnny has two daddies.
Lifelike doll in hand, she asks little Johnny, who is five, if his daddies ever “put anything” in there (pointing to the anus). Confused and wanting to please an adult with a positive answer, Johnny vaguely remembers the time his two daddies had to deworm him with rectal injections of liquid, and how one held him down and said to “Be a brave little soldier, and take it like a man.”
How long do you think it would take the fundamentlist nutjob to implant the answers she wants into Johnny, record his testimony, and then go after the same-sex couple with criminal charges? You think I am exagerating? Being paranoid? See the MacMartin pre-school trial of the 1980s at McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia
“Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990.” Six years of living hell, based on practically nothing. And these people were heterosexuals.
A gay parent friend of mine was warned by his lawyer (he has custody of his son from a former heterosexual marriage) that he could be in trouble just because he pulled it out an peed against a tree when they were on a camping trip and his son came around the corner and saw him.
Did the Freudian Slip have any bows on it?
IMO the ‘ideal’ would probably be an extended family including members of both sexes.
Children whose parents are two individuals in a romantic relationship are more likely to have to deal with the difficult effects of divorce or marital trouble.
Good point!
So for the sake of the children, conservatives should argue against the marriage rights of straight people who do not have close-knit extended families to take up the slack and cushion the effects of a divorce (or death of one of the spouses).
The five or six couples in America who end up with the right raise children because their union is 100% free of any possible negative aspects for the kids could make a few extra bucks by going on a reality show called America’s Families (literally).
Forty years ago this September, began the first major civil rights movement got the GLBT community. The Stonewall riots were the catalyst to a quickly changing public perception of homosexuality. Four years after that, the DSM-IV updated the previous position that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Fastforward 20 years and in 1993, I come out of the closet. In the past sixteen years I saw the acceptance move by leaps and bounds. Lawrence v Texas, Will and Grace and Ellen, Massachusetts, and more changed the landscape.
Last month, my partner and I were at our 3rd grader’s elementary school tribute concert to the history of Saint Paul. We were sitting in our seats, camcorder ready, and a woman approached us and asked my partner his name. He told her and she said “Congratulations, I heard you’re getting married!” I turned and gave my partner that umm-is-there-something-I-should-know look. She continued, “my son said that your son said you’re getting married…”. The looks on our face must have given something away as she continued “…I know some great places down in Iowa, they’ve been so supportive and welcoming to letting gays marry.” It’s not like we’re in the closet, we don’t advertise it either though.
Our kids have been very upfront about who parents them and have never had a problem with others about it. Neither in the elementary school or the high school (where kids can be worse). Maybe we’ve been lucky so far, but I think the times have change considerably. Of course, that didn’t stop me from posting this thread asking if there should be opposite sex role models for children of same sex parents.
There are always going to be nutjobs out there. Such is life. I guess I don’t see a need to concede to their…nuttiness.
Yeah.
Who would you pick as your parents is a whole different topic than who should be permitted to parent.
My daughter has run home in tears because her mother works. Should I not have adopted a child because of that?
Kids are cruel, and they will pick on you for anything - the wrong clothes, where your father works, if your mother works, the fact that your little sister is autistic or your older sister is a star athlete.
Yeah. I mean, otherwise they just hate America/The West/Jesus Christ (ultimate extended family).
But seriously, I think that it does show how unrealistic trying to design the ‘perfect family’ is as a goal. People often get a kid through fucking which may or may not be accompanied by romantic love. Both these things come with baggage which may have an effect on the kid. So the ‘natural’ way might not be the best way…:smack:
I don’t see how opposite sex parents are more likely to guarantee balance, if that’s what you’re saying. It’s not as though, as per your example, we would expect all fathers and mothers to fulfil those same roles in a child’s life.
The scene was predictable to you because these are male and female roles into which men and women are generally indoctrinated. The male is the daring, adventerous and brave one who challenges the kid. The mother is the voice of reason and caution. Women are trained to be passive and cautious, men to be active and devil-may-care.
Men who act cautious and sympathetic are called wimps and worse. Women who are active and daring are called bitch dykes and worse.
As a child, I would have received BOTH challenge and caution at the playground from my father, while my neurotic, paranoid mother sat there at a picnic table wondering if that woman 50 yards away was criticizing her hair style.
If my partner and I had been parents (that ship has sailed because of our ages) I would probably be challenging the kid on the monkey bars and my partner would be urging caution. NOT because I am masculine or he is feminine, but because that is the kind of persons we are. Opposites attract because they often work well together, hand-in-glove.
Contrawise, my mom would be at home, sewing, my dad would be at work, and I’d be thrown out of the house and told to go to the park. (mile and a half away.)
Amazing how that works out.
I doubt most conservatives who are against gay parents have the willingness to look at the issue beyond the ‘gayness is icky’ factor.
Sure, all other factors being the same, two parents are better than one. But three parents are better than two. Four are better than three, etc. “It take a village”. I definitely think kids in general have lost a little bit from the idealization of the nuclear family and isolationism/stranger-danger by not having access to a larger extended family to spend time with and other community adults.
Sure, having male and female guardians / role models is good. But the more diversity the better. Having guardians / role models of various ages, sexes, sexual orientations, races, etc is even better.
Hell, having money is better.
But I doubt the conservatives are going to mandate that all kids must be raised by large extended and diverse rich families. Which proves that their actual reasons/motivations are full of shit.
There are no guarantees in life. Non smokers can get lung cancer and smokers do avoid it.
You can position for the ideal situation though.
In order of preference for the raising of children
-
Two opposite sex parents
-
Two same sex parents
-
Single parent mom
-
Single parent father
-
Two opposite sex non-biological parents
-
Two same sex non-biological parents
-
Single non-biological mom
-
Single non-biological dad
-
orphan
Even so, given we are talking about the ideal situation, there’s nothing to prevent the parent/parents of less ideal situations to overcome the disadvantages and provide a superior upbringing for their children.