I’m not quite sure which forum is apropriate for this, but since it will most likely be slightly incoherent I figured IMHO to be best.
In the gay marriage debate (which has been “current” for a while in Scandinavia, though never quite as venomous as the American counterpart seems to be), a common counterargument seems to be that since married couples will most likely want to raise children, and children whose parents are “different” will be harrassed my other children, it is best for the children if gay couples are not allowed to raise them, and, by extension, to marry.
Now, I was raised in a typical, ideal, two parent, mother/father family. I was a planned and wanted child, I was born after my parents achieved relative financial stability, lived all my life in the same, large, confortable house on a blind road with plenty of other families with children. I went to good public shcool, had neat clothes, good grades, a reasonable amount of the newest toys and fads, in fact I never lacked anything. The only thing “different” about me was that I was an only child.
I was still picked on and harrassed by my “peers”. Among a plethora of other things, I was harrassed after my mother managed to get into a car-accident involving a buss (no serious harm done, other than a totalled car). I also was harrassed whenever my father or mother (both academics) got involved in some sort of public debate (small town). I was picked on because of my parents, even though my parents were ideal, according to the folks who don’t want to allow gay marriage.
So, since I was picked on because of my parents, should my parents not have been alowed to raise me?
The simple fact is this: children will get picked on, no matter their parents. Why should the judgement of the anti-social amoebas that other people choose to call children be a valid argument against letting a loving couple raise a real child? Am I missing something?
)