In your last post, you seemed to be endorsing literally confiscating children from their parents and redistributing them to other parents. Now, if you were kidding or being figurative, OK, fine. If you were serious, then that’s a little bit insane.
You mean this?
It’s wishful thinking. Like saying I wish I could beat all of the homophobes to death with a phallic-shaped club. You can remark on how bad that is if you want, but I wish could do that. The world would be a much better place. Though I think that most people just get overly excited because I suggested stealing kids. Yeah, so what? I wish it was illegal for KKK members to have kids. If I were king, I’d have them sterilized.
OK. That’s a little bit insane, and we have no real basis for further discussion, in spite of the fact that we agree on the crux of the matter. Odd.
We all have things we wish we could do, legal or not. Some people are just more willing to admit it.
Ideally, but it’s not like we test heterosexual couples for making sure they represent their gender enough. If dad is a typical man’s man who lives for sports and is fairly outgoing and assertive, and mom is more butch and equally assertive, but both of them love and care for their kids, does it matter that neither parent is modeling “femininity”? Or if the father and mother are both sensitive introverts?
For local adoptions in Australia, the biological parent is given a choice of potential families and they choose one. Given photographs are supplied you wouldnt be able to hide it.
In practise I suspect they’d generally be pretty conservative. Obviously the choice should be available but in practise you wouldnt see much change I suspect.
The other issue is purely self interest based - waitlists for overseas adoption here are up to 5 years already last I checked. People will rationalise almost anything to not see their place in the queue getting longer, so some of the biggest opposition would probably be from heterosexual parents wanting to adopt.
This seems to be the core of your position. Does the fact that studies have indicated that this is not the case bother in influence you? Studies have not found that opposite-sex parents are superior to same-sex parents. Which I would think kind of hamstrings your position a little.
Yes, I realize that YogSosoth said that Couple A would give a more stabilizing childhood 'cause they’re more “normal”. It seems we’re disavowing him, though. 
Well, sure, I guess that’s true. I just don’t think “stealing kids from their parents and giving them to other parents” or “forcibly sterilizing people with views I hate” is on the list of the majority.
Oh, you mean gaybies?
That’s one of the (many, many) things that burns me about the bigotry against homosexuality when it comes to families. It’s almost always in the context of gay couples starting families – that their love isn’t real, that they can’t be part of ‘real’ families or parents – but extend this and you’re saying that they can’t be ‘true’ children, siblings, aunts and uncles.
I’ve also always hated the pro-choice retort to pro-lifers, ‘You want me to have this kid? You adopt it!’ I don’t want pro-lifers adopting children and spreading their crap!
Gay people are having and raising children regardless of what homophobes want. Legalizing it is just ensuring that they get to visit their own kid in the hospital, or keep raising their children if their partner dies. As for adopting from an agency – I don’t think it quite works as this couple vs. this couple, right? Each is judged on their own merits. Being gay shouldn’t be a strike against them.
I do not, in fact, have some burning desire to do illegal things (although you probably just think that I won’t admit it to myself).
Ever wanted to kill someone or wish someone was dead? How’s that any worse than what I want? At least mine has to do with civil rights, and not any worse than what the Little Rock Nine lived through
The question was: If gays can legally marry and two couples, one heterosexual and one homosexual, wish to adopt and both of them fullfil all the legal requisites are equally good for the child. It is wrong to prefer the heterosexual to the homosexual one?
So far, IMHO, this one covers it:
Unfortunately somebody “traincrashed” this post with his argument for the abudction of babies.
Again, no, I have not.
Anyway: in theory, no, I don’t think it’s wrong. However, I think this ideal situation is quite irrelevant, simply because there will always be more relevant factors than hetero/homo.
It’s like asking, “If all other things are equal, would you prefer a couple with red hair or black hair to raise this child?”. It doesn’t really matter, because things will never be that equal.
Yes, the reason why antis are against gay people/ gay adoption is b/c it fucks up their theory that hetronormative gender roles are THE BEST.
My girlfriend and I don’t have kids yet. But when we do…we’re not raising them with all that crap about gender roles.
All gender roles do is limit people. Why should a woman be limited to nurturing and cooking? Why should a dad’s only role be coaching football and acting tough?
why can’t we just have HUMAN roles?
Although my girlfriend and I are the same gender, we’ll still offer different perspectives to our kids.
I am Deaf, she is hearing. I was mainstreamed, she was unschooled, I’m from a Stepford suburb, she is a farm kid and so on.
I hope you don’t have kids until you understand that boys are not identical to girls. I have a friend whose neighbors pretty much describe your attitude, although they are hetero. The mom is not “girly” at all. Never wears make-up, is an engineer (maybe architect), very rarely wears dresses, etc. They had a little girl. They gave her trucks, games, a doll or two, etc. It turns out that she is super-girly. The parents have no idea where it came from, because they did not encourage it in the least. She laughs now as she goes out with her little girl dressed in pink princess outfits and she’s has her brown skull cap on.
Boys and girls are different. Please digest that before you decide to raise a kid. He or she will be a human being who is dependent on you to help them navigate the world—they’re not a device for you to try to prove some political point.
so mom isn’t a girl?
Not till she completes gender reidentification 101.
But yeah, I’m wondering why we’re supposed to take “Boys and girls are different” from that story and not just people are different. The daughter was girly/feminine. The mother was less so. Isn’t that a good example of how you can belong to one gender and not necessarily have it dictate your behavior–you can be girly or you can be less interested in fashion and the like. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re female.
As has been pointed out, you just provided a very strong argument that your position is incorrect.
It’s like you wrote down the andecdote, and then completely forgot about it when writing down your (apparently fact-immune) opinion of the way the world works.
Biological and anatomical differences to one side (and I know you weren’t meaning them at all, but saying that prevents wiseass hijack #38), I think you’re partially right in practice and totally wrong in principle.
Young people develop interests, on the basis of what is personally appealing to them, what their friends are interested in, what matches theirimage of what they are and what they want to become, etc. To a very real rate, this perpetuates sex roles. But they are not totally arbitrary social constructs, either. Heinlein in an essay demonstrates the biological, evolutionary logic of a male taking risks to protect his mate and their offspring. Likewise a breastfeeding female needs to know techniques for calming and caring for a baby or small child. These are thnigs learned in ‘sexist’ play/
But beyond that quite real psychological impetus, the idea that a child is obliged to conform to one set of behaviors and eschew another, having nothing to do with sex, because of the shape of its genitalia, is just as absurd as that description of it suggests. Saying “girls should do girly things, boys boyish things” doesn’t make it any more reasonable, it just disguises the logical fallacy. There may be specific behaviors that tend to be favored for good psychosocial reasons associated with successful reproductive strategies in the biologicl behavior sense. But in general, what a child ‘should’ do is be itself, the unique individual that he or she is. If Heather is the sister of the team’s star linebacker and can take him down two times our of three, suggesting that her possession of labia and a clitoris rahter than a penis and testicles omehow implies she should be studying embroidery and playing badminton is bsurd. And Billy Elliott has a right to become what he wants to be.
I think magellan01 is making the case that a child may on their own decide to act out in ways that are traditionally connected to their own sex, and a parent who says “we’re not raising them with all that crap about gender roles” shouldn’t prevent the child from doing so. A parent who refuses to buy pink frilly clothes for their daughter who asks for them is just as bad as a parent who requires their daughter to wear pink frilly clothes when she doesn’t want to.
And if that isn’t the point he was making, then I want to make it.