Y’know, I can’t be sure if your qualms are being expressed seriously or ironically or mockingly or what. Do you actually have a serious concern about hetero children raised by gay parents? Do the actual genders matter, i.e. straight boy with gay male parents, straight boy with gay female parents, straight girl with gay male parents, straight girl with gay female parents? Is one of these combinations particularly troubling?
If you’re just kidding around, though, that’s another matter.
Well, there is always The Homosexual Agenda, along with other tripe, (note some of the claims made by the proponents of some of this nonsense).
Okay, you’re being serious. Well, “Mom and Dad” have been dealing with gay sons… forever, really. In some cases there was acceptance, in others there was denial, and (most often, I expect) violent refusal. Are you assuming gay parents will be as hurtful as straight parents often are? I’m guess some will - not everyone should be a parent in the first place - but this doesn’t strike me as a compelling argument. “Dad and Dad” or “Mom and Mom” can do what “Mom and Dad” have been known to do when their child starts developing sexuality - muddle through, buy the kid a book, have a “birds and bees” talk… It’s only a big deal if they insist on making it into one.
I’m not kidding around.
Is it even possible to choose a child with a pre-set sexual orientation? 
If it were possible, wold gay couples choose to adopt gay or straight kids? Which one would make for an easier family life?
Piffle. The notion that a homosexual couple would be shocked to discover their child was heterosexual sounds like the sort of nonsense that some of the Religious Right would spout that all homosexuals support NAMBLA. Recall that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals will have grown up in families with heterosexual parents and have heterosexual siblings. Heterosexuality is the predominant mode of sexual expression.
Heterosexual parents may be concerned to discover their child is homosexual for a variety of reasons ranging from fear that the child will suffer life-long discrimination to a simple expression of homophobia, but there is no reciprocal fear for homosexual parents of heterosexual children.
Not to derail the thread, but it was the very-real Homosexual Agenda that got the television program Glee beamed into our living rooms.
Nonsense. There was a movement among a number of people to secure and ensure rights for a group who suffered discrimination. One of the methods used to ensure those rights was to present the group as neither threatenting nor offensive. That is not an “agenda,” it is simply the way that people strove to seek a reduction of discrimination. (Unless, of course, you routinely refer to the Civil Rights movement of the 1940s-1960s as the Negro Agenda or the Women’s Liberation Movement as the Women’s Agenda.)
It was the fact that it was a major ratings hit that keeps it there. *Ugly Betty *was dealing with adolescent gayness a couple of years before GLEE got there (and far more realistically), and My So Called Life more than a decade before (also more realistically) but both were from the Fall lineup untimely ripped due to low viewership. Entertainment TV is driven by ratings, not agendas.
Though I will say the fact Glee airs on a Rupert Murdoch owned network shows just how much Rupert really gives a damn about gays as threats. I can’t imagine Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell letting a gay themed program air on a network they had an interest in. If Murdoch were a true fanatic he’d kill that show in a heartbeat, but I think he just sees the Homosexual Agenda as a boogie man that lets his anchors on his news network scare Fundy morons who are incapable of understanding complex issues worked up into voting for Republicans.
So you hate the family. You can say it. Just say it.
Actually, that is the source of degradation in a society. Since the family is the building-block, it all radiates outward. Family is important to human beings and a lot of other warm-blooded creatures. What nightmare future are you from?
There’s another way to phrase this issue: The Collapse of Civilisation will lead to unacceptance of homosexuality. The forms of cultures and civilisations – historic and current – that render the level of acceptance towards homosexuality that modern western civilisation does are few and rare, and as such the Western model that does should be approached with respect and deference by anyone who treasure such acceptance. And it is a good idea to approach delicate subjects with care and finesse and not as an elephant in a teahouse, because nobody really knows what makes or breaks, or how to construct a new culture, or what could propel it in a wholly unwanted direction, and in any case there’s no need to force the matter. We have a history that goes back three or four millennia, so what’s a century or two plus or minus. What the sudden rush all of a sudden? We can digest on it a few decades, let things settle down a bit.
Agendas are not bad or inherently evil. They can represent the good. Why is it so shameful to admit that there is/was a Gay Agenda? Why do you keep resisting this?
Not with current technology, as far as I know, but I don’t understand the relevance of the question. I was asking you if, among the four permutations of gay parents and straight kid, one was particularly troubling, with planned follow-up questions being “why” and “how so”.
I don’t know, but it’s not necessary to adopt. A male homosexual couple can hire a surrogate, have a donor egg inseminated with a donation from one of them and implanted, and the resultant child will be biologically related to one of the men, and have a legal parental relationship with the other. For a lesbian couple, one of the partners can be impregnated with donor sperm, for the same result.
This is not without longstanding analog in straight marriages: wives get impregnated with donor sperm if the husband is sterile (or, less pleasantly, the wife is impregnated in an extramarital affair without the husband’s knowledge), and though he lacks a genetic connection to the baby, he’s still its legal father and his name will appear on its birth certificate. Similarly if the wife cannot produce ova or carry a pregnancy and a surrogate is hired, the child may be the product of the husband’s sperm and a donor egg. He is the biological father, and she will be the legal mother.
In fact, I expect this to become more common when gay marriage is generally approved in the U.S. Legal marriage establishes permanence and offers financial advantage, insurance benefits, etc. making producing a new baby more financially feasible.
Anyway, gay parenting is alive and well in Canada. No ill-effects that I’m aware of have resulted.
I like the way you think! And I very much agree!
If I may venture a comment, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use the phrase “Gay Agenda” to describe it in neutral or positive terms. Rather, there’s always been a suggestion of furtiveness, sneakiness and deception, for a goal that will be destructive to others.
If it has to be labeled, why not “gay platform” for a set of intended political goals, in the way “platform” is currently (and neutrally) used in politics in general?
Have fun! Don’t stay out too late!
A word like “platform” certainly lacks all the negative innuendo of “agenda.”
Sure.
Of course, you haven’t established that a “gay platform” even exists, let alone is responsible for Glee, but baby steps…
I don’t “hate” them. But a lot of them have “habits” that would grate on my nerves after awhile.
I’ve only posted on it once. That is hardly an example that I “keep resisting.” As to why I do object to the phrase, (unless you are going to begin speaking of the Negro Agenda or the Women’s Agenda–which I have not seen): it echoes the phrase used by unconscionable homophobes who have pretended that it includes support for NAMBLA, the destruction of the family, and the outlawing of all religion under its banner. To perpetuate that phrase is to associate oneself with the Far Right Wing Agenda™ to outlaw homosexuality, force women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen, abandon the teaching of Evolution in science classes, and mandate corporal punishment for children as young as two years old. (See how that works.)
If you wished to indicate that groups supporting basic rights for homosexuals in this country had an agenda, I would not have a problem with its use. Parroting bigots with the capitalized use of “Gay Agenda” places your claim into their realm.