gays versus step-parents.

Disclaimer: I have no personal experience of step-parents. But that's because my father, who did have experience, swore after my mother died that he'd never 'inflict' a stepmother on sis or me...

That said: wicked stepmothers are a staple of popular fiction. Not surprising, really, given the mortality rate in childbirth, many children must have grown up under the care of a woman who had no genetic link to them and possibly resented their senior position to her own children.

In modern times, it's a sad fact that many of the worst cases of child abuse that come to the attention of the authorities involve a man who is raising a child he didn't father.

Again, without in any way attempting to disparage the many good step-parents out there, but acknowledging that in the animal kingdom, gay animals will care for orphans while new alpha males will do their damndest to kill any cubs that aren't their offspring, isn't it feasible that in our society, children are safer with gay adoptees than with step-parents?

Discuss

Interesting theory. I think the difference between gay adoptive parents and a step parent is statistically insignificant. One of the things that distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to reason past genetic coding. If we are hard coded in the fashion you suggest, we seem to have made our way past it. Though obviously there are some notorious counter examples, the fact of notoriety suggests to me that generally speaking, we are no longer in the business of clubbing orphans.

I thought gay animals were banished and killed by straight animals....and people should do the same!!


GOD



HATES




FAGS!!!

The premise is wrong IMHO. The issue is not the label the caregiver has, but the person and how they act and treat the child. I am against gay adoption so I am opposed to that. However, again the issue is one of character.

This doesn't really seem to be an either-or sort of thing; a kid with a step-parent generally also still has one biological parent who cares for them.

A more either-or proposition would be foster home/orphanage versus gay adoptive parents.

Something quite interesting I know from bird breeding, where monogamous male pairs aren't that uncommon, is that these homosexual couples are excellent 'adoptive' parents - frequently mother birds (especially first-time mothers) will abandon their clutch or fail to take care of them adequately due to inexperience and/or their hormones not quite in sync with the age of the eggs/chicks, so bird breeders will foster the eggs or chicks with the homosexual pair who become quite talented fathers and who don't experience inappropriately fluctuating hormones.

"One of these things is not like the other things
One of these things just doesn't belong..."​

Yeah, but the point I'm making is that, sadly, the biological parent is either in thrall to the step-parent or isn't invested enough in the child to put it first. The particular example I was thinking of was with lions, where if a new male comes along, the first thing he'll try to do is kill all the cubs so that the adult females are ready to breed with him. The females try to protect their cubs, but usually fail.

That would appear to support my hypothesis...

There just seems something very wrong with the words "gay child rearing"

Hmm, not seeing it. Can you give some more details?

Not to me, but then I have a gay second cousin* who has been helping her partner raise her children for the last 10 years, and they're all pretty well adjusted, to the point that my cousin, who did not exactly have a liberal upbringing, regards said children as her grandchildren...


*I'm prepared to be corrected on that: I've never been entirely sure if my cousins' children are my second cousins or my first cousins once removed...

I am just being honest. I put my position on gay adoption out there, but point out that it has nothing to do with the issue here.

Your position on gay adoption assumes a priori that all gay people are lacking in character and incapable of properly raising a child. I'd submit that colors your perspective.

Eh, you didn't get my horrible implication by the term "rearing" love. I was being mean. I really don't care as long as they are good people, but you never really know who that is any more. They just caught another pervert school teacher just today. http://www.wlos.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/wlos_vid_1566.shtml

And this is the point I wanted to make. People are people. There are going to be good step parents and abusive step parents, just as there are going to be good gay parents and abusive gay parents. There are going to be normal, well adjusted children coming from both situations and children who are not so well adjusted coming from both situations.

Edit - Although one could argue that the gay adoptive parents have to go through a more vigorous screening process.

What?

I miss Tracy Ullman's sketches about the 13-year-old girl living with her father and his gay lover. Especially when she and Sam McMurray broke into "Stand By Your Man"

NO, I don't assume that. I simply do not think children should be raised in such an environment. Many gay people have a fine character and would be very good parents.

So your objection is what? Emotional? Religious?

I do believe that the gay lifestyle is an aberration. From a biological and evolutionary approach it certainly is. From a religious approach it is. I believe children should not be raised where such is considered the norm and is a part of everyday life.

That's all you needed to say, and to be honest it's probably best if you just keep it short and don't try to justify it.

From a strict biological propagation of genes viewpoint yes for the individual homosexuality is a non-productive lifestyle. However from a evolutionary approach there is a fair bit of evidence that a percentage of homosexual individuals can actually give an advantage.

"From a religious approach" should read "From my personal religious approach" since there are plenty of religions that do not have a problem with it.

Also, you support lying to children? Because dislike it as you may, homosexuality is a normal part of society. It's a minority of the population to be sure, but statistically wherever you look you will tend to find that there is roughly the same percentage of gay people, regardless of their upbringing. More may be forced to hide it for fear of reprisal, but that doesn't change the fundamental numbers. That also means that homosexuals are a part of everyday life, just because you think they should remain hidden does not mean they are not there.

First of all the only thing a gay lifestyle can contribute is end of that genetic line.

What major religion today supports homosexuality?

No, I do not support lying to children, but neither do they have to be brought up immersed in it.

Eliminating the ignorant goddamn "gays are inherently immoral and unfit to raise a child" crowd as completely fucking unworthy of consideration, I think those of us who are left can probably agree that a stable, loving, monogamous same-sex couple will likely provide a better environment to grow up in than some government-run orphan warehouse.

How can this be?

If anything it will only confuse them.

Face it sir, homosexuality is NOT normal behavior. Just because two fruitcakes want to go around booty-juicing each other, doesn't mean that the children should have to suffer at the hands of these savages.

If anything, those children will only grow up to be just as fucked up in the head as their so called "loving parents" are. Next thing you know, people will be telling them that underage sex is "Normal" and its O.K for them to all children to engage in, regardless of their age.

Make the same argument for straight parents vis-a-vis a gay child. Go ahead. Try.

Any child that wants to be Gay should be "Immediately" sent to a Psyc ward for an extensive evaluation. My first guess would be that this "child" was exposed to a pair of ass-smooching Fruit loops that somhow poisoned his or her mind to the point where they wanted to experiment with it for themselves

I don't give a fuck.

Of course that is true. On a scale have same sex parents is far better than state or even private orphanages.

Unless you also champion removing children from and barring adoption by people who are divorced, has slept with more than one person exept in the cases of remarriage after death, single parents, liars, cheaters, felons and any person who has commited a sin then you are being a hypocrite to put special focus on the sin that you, personally, judge to be worse than the others.

It isn't your place to judge at all. As someone wiser than he knows he is said to me recently, God may think homosexuality is an aberration, but where did he command us to treat homosexuals as aberrations?

It is God's place to judge...not ours. Anyone who is willing and able and desires to give a home to a homeless child should be allowed to.

I'm not judging anyone. I just stated what I believed. I have never attempted to in any way impinge on anyone's legal rights etc. I treat everyone the same. There is a difference between an opinion and an action.