First Same-Sex Divorce?

[Pangloss]

No, they're not transient at all, many of them are permanent, YT. The sound of one's name, the appearance of their face or body, their race or nationality, their stature or speach impediments, those things aren't temporary or transient.

 

You're way out on a limb there, my friend. (chuckle)

[YT2095]

you`re STILL much less likely to have a whole School picking on you for having an odd name or being disfigured etc...

you`re Also more likely to come across Others with the same problems too.

[Severian]

Kids getting teased at school is so horrible that it outweighs that it justifies the profound psychological distress of telling gay couples that they cant be parents?

 

Definitely! Teasing a kid at school can give them profound pychological difficulties later in life because children are emotionally immature and easily damaged.

 

Gay adults on the other hand are adults - they should be able to deal with disappointment. Many many people cannot be parents (for one reason or another) and it doesn't leave them emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives. Anyone who can't deal with this is basically emotionally unstable in the first place.

 

However, that is no excuse for forbidding gay people from being parents. I would rather see children growing up in stable families with (two) hetrosexual parents. I believe that this is the optimal environment for children and frankly I see homosexual parents as a disadvantage, but it is less of a disadvantage than many other factors. For example, I would rather see children being brought up by two gay men than living in an ophanage, or living on the streets in poverty, or living with abusive parents etc.

 

In that light, I think suitability as parents is much more complicated than just asking for their sexual orientation. But the child's best interests must come first.

[Pangloss]

Sure, bullying is bad, but doesn't it make more sense to do something about the bullying than to stop gay adoption? Are we going to stop putting braces on children's teeth because they might be bullied? Are we going to cut Advanced Placement courses because they might be bullied? Come on.

 

Gay adoption has saved literally MILLIONS of children from foster and orphan care, and I think if the worst you can say about it is that they might get bullied -- just like most other children -- then I think most reasonable people would have to come down on the side of gay adoption.

 

If you're going to convince me that gay adoption is bad, you're going to have to come up with a much better argument than that!

[YT2095]

it wouldn`t BE "just like other children" though would it!

 

the Phys Ed changing room "what you looking at Fag?" but the difference is there would on This occasion be some Real Basis for this accusation (however incorrect it would most probably be).

 

Parents of these other pupils telling their kids to stay away from them in case of AIDs.

 

Protest groups of bigoted rednecks outside the school hurling abuse.

 

the School reputation being slammed.

 

it would more than likely be a perfect living Hell for that kid!

it`s all well and good saying things SHOULD be a certain way, but it`s Not an Ideal world, and this stuff does NOT "go away" because you want it to or because it`s the right thing to do.

it`s Reality!

[Pangloss]

1) I disagree, I think their situation is *exactly* like that of every other student. IMM made the point perfectly. You can't change your appearance or your name any more than you can change your parents. You've yet to contradict this point, guy -- just repeating yourself doesn't cut it.

 

2) I've never heard of a school's reputation being slammed because some of its students have one or more gay parent. Bear in mind that there are already *millions* of such students. Where's this slammage?

 

3) What do you propose to do about the millions of children already in school who have one or more gay parent? Are you going to roll back the clock and kick them out of school just because they might be bullied?

 

4) It's not what *I* want, it's what *is*. We've cited millions of examples, YT, right here in this thread. The ball's in your court to counter that -- you're the one who suggests that we step backwards into some kind of ideal rather than working with reality.

 

Sorry guy, this argument just isn't passing muster.

[Sisyphus]

Even if such bullying were as severe as YT says (anecdotally I haven't seen it to be that way at all, but then I've only lived in relatively liberal areas), I don't think that's a good enough reason. Not too long ago you could use the exact same logic against the de-segregation of schools, or interracial marriage. Yes, bigotry exists, but rolling over and appeasing it is hardly the way to fight it. And it can be fought, as we've seen with the radical diminishment of racism in the civilized world.

[YT2095]

1) there is NO logical way you can justify saying that it is EXACTLY like that for other kids, it isn`t. as for a name or a face, there would only be a FEW that would be cruel (I have experience of this).

 

2) so because you`ve never heard of it, makes it not possible?

 

3) the kids already there it`s done and dusted, although a Study of those kids made later regarding their experiences during, and a control group from the same school could certainly prove quite revealing.

 

4) a} don`t exagerate, you have NOT cited "Millions of examples" in this thread, there`s probably not even a million WORDS written in it so far!

b} I have suggested What? where? how?

what I HAVE sugested is that Bullying on a Grand Scale will be the case, and that is no fault of the kids. and so based upon that, I oppose Gays adopting children.

it`s Selfish & short sighted, there are MANY people that can`t have kids, there gay and so can`t, I`m sure there`s a good many Diabetics that would love to eat chocolate (but can`t) or alcoholics that would love a drink but can`t.

it`s the price you pay, why make the kids suffer the social stigma?

 

why, because they`re only Kids, they have no choice, they can`t see the whole picture, the "ADULTS" know best.

 

I`m sure there`s 10 hetro families willing to adopt and are fit for it for every 1 gay couple.

 

YES, Bigoty Should be fought! but don`t use the Kids as Pawns to do it with!

[Royston]

YES, Bigoty Should be fought! but don`t use the Kids as Pawns to do it with!

 

I couldn't agree more. Using kids as a means to enforce equal rights for adults is just plain wrong, whatever way you look at it. Also, society as a 'whole' is still not used to the idea of gay marriage, let alone adoption (if adults need time to adjust to such change, then kids doubly so.) I'm not saying it's right that society should need time, but that's the way it is. Adoption coming into force so soon is poor judgement IMO.

 

There maybe a point when it's perfectly acceptable, but it's not now, I live near the gay capital of Britain and I can tell you there's many people that really aren't liberal towards the gay community...at all. If it still isn't accepted wholly in a city where it's an integral part of the culture, then it certainly won't be accepted elsewhere. It's been rushed into, without any thought for the kids involved.

[Pangloss]

1) there is NO logical way you can justify saying that it is EXACTLY like that for other kids' date=' it isn`t. as for a name or a face, there would only be a FEW that would be cruel (I have experience of this).

[/quote']

 

I'm not going to go around and around on this, but you've yet to demonstrate any logical difference between a kid being ridiculed for one thing and a kid being ridiculed for another. Both are wrong, and if the kid can't do anything about either thing, then what's the difference?

 

2) so because you`ve never heard of it, makes it not possible?

 

(This was in reference to schools getting "slammed" for having children of gay parents.) You're smart enough to know that you can't prove a negative. We've given direct evidence that there are millions of cases of children of gay parents in this country. The onus is on you to give even one example of a school being "slammed" for having children of gay parents in the school. Not the AIDS issue either, it has to be an example of what you SAID -- a child of gay parents in the school.

 

3) the kids already there it`s done and dusted, although a Study of those kids made later regarding their experiences during, and a control group from the same school could certainly prove quite revealing.

 

Sure, I'll go along with that.

 

 

4) a} don`t exagerate, you have NOT cited "Millions of examples" in this thread, there`s probably not even a million WORDS written in it so far!

b} I have suggested What? where? how?

 

See earlier citation in the thread. (shrug)

 

what I HAVE sugested is that Bullying on a Grand Scale will be the case, and

 

A "grand scale", you say, and yet you cannot cite even a single example. As I said, you're failing to convince.

 

 

I`m sure there`s 10 hetro families willing to adopt and are fit for it for every 1 gay couple.

 

Uh, YT? There are far more orphans then there are homes available, guy. I thought everyone knew that.

[Pangloss]

This site has statistical information about adoption, including a typical and familiar number of 134,000 children unable to find a home.

 

http://statistics.adoption.com/

[Dak]

I`m sure there`s 10 hetro families willing to adopt and are fit for it for every 1 gay couple.

 

I suspect that i could be persuaded otherwize, but i'm all for prioritising heterosexual couples over homosexual; but, as pangaloss pretty much said, it's not a case of 'lets give the gays kids too, to make things fair' rather than 'man, there's alot of orphans, and not enough adopters to go around'.

 

YES, Bigoty Should be fought! but don`t use the Kids as Pawns to do it with!

 

As said, this isn't a case of doing something for the gays to make things fair, so it's not really using kids as pawns in an anti-bigotry war.

 

As long as there's no direct detremental effect of having gay parents, i'd stand by my previous comment: disallowing gay adoption because certain people don't like it, and would make their oppinions known through bullying, is just officialising bigotry.

 

If there's going to be a problem with bullying, efforts should be made to stop the bullying, not the gay adoption.

[Royston]

This site has statistical information about adoption' date=' including a typical and familiar number of 134,000 children unable to find a home.

 

http://statistics.adoption.com/[/quote']

 

Are there any statistics on the type of couple that adopt. Also they're statistics of America, I couldn't see any mention of adoption from other countries. I don't see why siting those statistics means anything, especially if it's a relatively small number from a huge country...295,734,134 people in total.

[Pangloss]

I don't see why siting those statistics means anything, especially if it's a relatively small number from a huge country...295,734,134 people in total.

 

Huh? It goes directly to my point that there are more adoptees than adopters. Hello, Earth to Snail, come in please....

[Edtharan]

All this talk about kids being teased because they had Gay parents is not as rampant as it is being made out to be. I have gont to school with kists with Gay pareant and other Kids that were Gays themselves. There was a few cases of teasing, but not many. In fact some of these kids were the bullies themselves.

 

From my experience, Gay children or children with Gay parents were no more likely to be teased than any other children (and scince my family moved armound a lot I have been to amny different schools).

 

This argument of teasing, from my experience, is completely false. Usually when kids were calling others "Fag" and "Gay" the children doing so had no real idea what it ment.

[silkworm]

Two gays getting divorced threatens the sanctity of two straights getting divorced! Oh nooos!

 

Hahahahaha.

 

Grow up anti-gays. They're people. It's who they are. It's not simply a behavioral thing - it's biological. They have a right to pursue their own happiness.

 

You'd think too, you'd get over your petty sandbox bullshit and support something that promotes monogamy. But rationality and logic is never a strong point for those against gay marriage.

[Severian]

You'd think too' date=' you'd get over your petty sandbox bullshit and support something that promotes monogamy.

[/quote']

 

Your judgement that monogamy is morally superior to polygamy and should be promoted is a moral judgement. Why should saying that gay relationships are wrong make someone a bad person, but saying polygamy is wrong be acceptable? Aren't you just discriminating against polygamists?

 

But then rationality and logic was never your strong point...

[Royston]

Huh? It goes directly to my point that there are more adoptees than adopters. Hello, Earth to Snail, come in please....

 

Sorry about that, I was on the sauce last night

[Sisyphus]

Are there any studies on the effects of being raised by a polygamous group-marriage?

[ecoli]

Are there any studies on the effects of being raised by a polygamous group-marriage?

 

I don't know about scientific studies, but I think there's a TV show about a Mormon guy with three wives. Obviously television tends to dramatize things, but it may still be interesting to see the character interaction, especially between the wives and between the children of the wives...

[Sisyphus]

I'm not interested in fiction. Robert Heinlein often portrays an extremely positive vision of polygamy in his novels. I was just curious if anyone had any idea about the reality. Ideally more than Mormomism, as well, since growing up Mormom has got to introduce all kinds of other crazy variables...

[YT2095]

Muslims do it, but on the condition that they can look after both (or more) wives equaly, there are strict guidelines that must be adhered to before this is allowed.

they seem to do ok with it

[silkworm]

Your judgement that monogamy is morally superior to polygamy and should be promoted is a moral judgement. Why should saying that gay relationships are wrong make someone a bad person' date=' but saying polygamy is wrong be acceptable? Aren't you just discriminating against polygamists?

 

But then rationality and logic was never your strong point...[/quote']

 

I don't know what you mean about a moral judgement. I'm just talking about the spread of STDs. This sounds weird, but a polygamous monogamous relationship would work as well (where sexual activity does not spread outside the group). I'm not a fan of polygamy, especially in a cult-like setting (you might know a bit about that), but as long as all parties agree - who the Hell am I (or you, almighty Severian) to tell them how to live?

 

Did you get it that time? Reading comprehension was never your strong point.

 

Why am I not still on your ignore list? Please put me back there so we don't have to converse in the future. You're a waste of my time.

[Mokele]

1) there is NO logical way you can justify saying that it is EXACTLY like that for other kids, it isn`t. as for a name or a face, there would only be a FEW that would be cruel (I have experience of this).

 

Actually, I can. Consider the level of bullying a kid adopted by gay parents would suffer. Now consider the level of bullying a kid who lives with gay parents (one of whom is their biological parent). Can you logically claim these levels would be different?

 

I`m sure there`s 10 hetro families willing to adopt and are fit for it for every 1 gay couple.

 

Wrong. The foster system in the US is horribly overloaded, and most kids who are eligible for adoption are never adopted. Is it right to deny these kids a stable home environment because there's a chance the school might not be able to control their own students?

 

As I said before, the foster system is *proven* to be a *very* bad place for kids. Can you really claim that the bullying is so extreme that it's worse than never having a family and being shuffled between homes constantly?

 

Yes, sometimes anti-gay bullying can be extreme. But the solution is to expell the bullies, not punish the target.

 

Also, society as a 'whole' is still not used to the idea of gay marriage, let alone adoption (if adults need time to adjust to such change, then kids doubly so.) I'm not saying it's right that society should need time, but that's the way it is. Adoption coming into force so soon is poor judgement IMO.

 

Why? People already have to deal with gay parents, so allowing adoption does not change the situation at all.

 

As said, this isn't a case of doing something for the gays to make things fair, so it's not really using kids as pawns in an anti-bigotry war.

 

Precisely. If I was dating another guy, I'd be openly affectionate with him in public, but my motives would be 'because I want to / feel like it' rather than purposefully using my relationship to bring about social change.

 

Your judgement that monogamy is morally superior to polygamy and should be promoted is a moral judgement. Why should saying that gay relationships are wrong make someone a bad person, but saying polygamy is wrong be acceptable? Aren't you just discriminating against polygamists?

 

Well, it depends. There's empirical evidence saying that children raised by gay parents do not have a statistically different level of psychopathology, thus, since there can be no empirical objection, it must be moral.

 

That's not necessarily the case with polyamory (which can mean multiple mates of any gender, depending on the relationship). While there are poly families raising kids, they're few and far between, and there's no empirical studies on the effect. Now, I have an overly cynical view, since my prior relationship was polyamorous and not exactly great, but it *is* possible that poly relationships may have deleterious effect. Or not. We won't know without studies.

 

Robert Heinlein often portrays an extremely positive vision of polygamy in his novels. I was just curious if anyone had any idea about the reality.

 

It's nowhere near as great as you'd think. Prior to meeting my fiancee, I was in a polyamorous relationship for close to 4 years before I got sick of it and left. Heinlein portrays an idealized version which seems to have more to do with his wishes/fantasies than anything else. IMHO, poly relationships that are open to new members tend to suffer problems due to growth. Any given relationship requires effort and communication to work. A couple has only 1 bond to maintain, but a triad has 3, and a group of 4 can have as many as 6 connections (though relationship geometry may simplify this). As things expand, it gets to the point when you're in a relationship with someone you barely know because they're your partner's partner's partner's partner (I'm not exagerating, I had precisely that many degrees of separation to one person).

 

Long story short, it sounds nice, but operational poly relationships are likely to be transient and require an excessive amount of work for the occaisional kinky sex (which can often be gotten better through other arangements like swinging).

 

This sounds weird, but a polygamous monogamous relationship would work as well (where sexual activity does not spread outside the group).

 

Polyfidelitous is the correct term. They tend to be a rarity in the poly community. More open relationships *do* often have complicated rules for bodily fluids.

 

Mokele

[YT2095]

some of you present very reasonable arguments

however it`s still not a risk I personaly would take.