Gay/Lesbian Parents

[Sojourner]

Semalsia,
Can you explain why you think gender roles are meaningless? I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.

[White Knight]

[quote] by Semalsia Would you then be in favor of taking all the children away from homosexual parents?[/quote]

Yes I would honestly.

[picchick]

[quote]And so far you have been able to say that we should reinforce the gender roles in parents, because that's a good way to reinforce those gender roles in the children. But you see, the gender roles are arbitrary and meaningless. And frankly, I see them only doing harm.
[/quote]


Please explain why you find this harmful. I do not see it as harmful. The reason being is girls will naturally be girls and boys will naturally be boys. Why not reinforce this with the good example of a good husband and a good wife. Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her father cares for her mother. She will see these qualities in a man because she sees them from her father. A boy will want a girl like her mother. Someone caring and nuturing. Someone who will be able to care for children with compassion yet firmness. He will have the example of his father to show how he is to treat women. I see no harm in this. [b]Gender is important because women and men are not the same.[/b] They learn and see in different ways. A woman cannot just teach her daughter what good man to find. Visa versa for boys. Often to learn we need examples. Women cannot show anyone how to be a good father because they are not a man. Men cannot show how to be a good mother.

[quote]Would you then be in favor of taking all the children away from homosexual parents?
[/quote]

I am in favor of taking away children from ANY parents who poses a threat to their children be it emotional, physically, or mentally. Homosexuals tend to have more partners. This can be confusing for a child. They will then grow up to learn that this is acceptable. This is not acceptable. God wants man and wife and only one man for one wife. Does that make any sense?

[quote]This kind of thinking assumes that they can freely, subconsciously or in any way choose their sexual orientation, which goes against what we already know of the causes of homosexuality.
[/quote]

Although I suppose that some people might be homosexual naturally (I am not sure how this is or if it is true) I think that much of the homosexuality that we see is due to society's push towards it. If you are not dating anyone or you find no attraction to it then you are gay. If you have a certain mannerism a certain way to talk a certain way to walk then you are considered gay. People get into this rut and they think, "Hmm maybe I am." This is my thought on the issue.
[quote]Actually it might be because of gay parents hiding the fact that their children are gay in the fear that others will think that homosexuality is hereditary.
[/quote]

If gay parents are so open to being homosexual and they are so open and alright with the lifestyle why would they be afraid of it being hereditary?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='picchick']Please explain why you find this harmful.[/quote]

Because not everyone wants to live in these roles. But if they don't live in them, they might face ridicule and contempt. It puts limits on people and tells them how to act, what to wear, what to do, etc based on their sex. "Here is all the stuff you want to do, but you can't do them because you are not male. And here's some other stuff you have to do since you are female." ... Agh!

[quote]The reason being is girls will naturally be girls and boys will naturally be boys.[/quote]

Only because they live in a society where it is said to be unnatural to be anything else. But in reality it's just unusual.

And you are saying that gender roles have a basis in biology? Then perhaps you could explain the purpose of dress codes for the sexes. Why is cross-dressing ridiculed and considered not acceptable? Men wearing skirts could be considered the norm in other cultures. It is the culture that determines gender roles.

[quote]Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her father cares for her mother.
[/quote]

What is wrong with the following:
"Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her mother cares for her (other) mother."
?

Only in a society where it is expected for men and women to act differently, could the girl get an idea that those same qualities can't be found in a man.

[quote]Gender is important because women and men are not the same.
[/quote]

They aren't the same, but it's not like the differences matter anymore. We don't live in the stone age. Physically there are few differences, but mostly it's stuff where you can only see a statistical difference (on average... etc).

[quote]I am in favor of taking away children from ANY parents who poses a threat to their children be it emotional, physically, or mentally. Homosexuals tend to have more partners. This can be confusing for a child. They will then grow up to learn that this is acceptable.[/quote]

Half of all the marriages end in divorce and an average person will have something like 3-4 marriages in lifetime. And how many percentage have had affairs? When it comes to sexual life the heterosexuals are not really that monogamous either. Obviously some are monogamous, but then again some homosexuals are monogamous too. What's your point?

Hm, would you be in favor of taking away all the children away from those people who have had a divorce or an affair? It could also be argued that (assuming catholicism is correct) having parents of other religion than catholicism poses a threat to the child. Would you then be in favor of not letting anyone else but catholic couples have and keep children?

[quote]Although I suppose that some people might be homosexual naturally (I am not sure how this is or if it is true) I think that much of the homosexuality that we see is due to society's push towards it. If you are not dating anyone or you find no attraction to it then you are gay. If you have a certain mannerism a certain way to talk a certain way to walk then you are considered gay. People get into this rut and they think, "Hmm maybe I am." This is my thought on the issue.[/quote]

In a way I see your point, if someone is neither gay or straight. But people should know they don't have to do anything that they dislike, especially when it comes to sex. And if they do like it, then I don't see the problem with, for example, a straight woman having sex with another woman.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 3 2005, 05:46 PM']Only because they live in a society where it is said to be unnatural to be anything else. But in reality it's just unusual.

And you are saying that gender roles have a basis in biology? Then perhaps you could explain the purpose of dress codes for the sexes. Why is cross-dressing ridiculed and considered not acceptable? Men wearing skirts could be considered the norm in other cultures. It is the culture that determines gender roles.
What is wrong with the following:
"Then girls will want to date a man who respects her and cares for her like her mother cares for her (other) mother."
?

Only in a society where it is expected for men and women to act differently, could the girl get an idea that those same qualities can't be found in a man.
They aren't the same, but it's not like the differences matter anymore. We don't live in the stone age. Physically there are few differences, but mostly it's stuff where you can only see a statistical difference (on average... etc).
[right][snapback]709934[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The assertion that gender roles are "arbitrary and meaningless" is nonsense plain and simple. "Gender roles" have existed in all human cultures in all parts of the world through all history. While specifics vary, in many ways these roles are strikingly similar - men are the warriors, breadwinners, etc., while women are in charge of child-rearing, home, and hearth. Something so universal to the human experience cannot be dismissed as something arbitrarily set up by a particular society.

Only modern liberals in today's highly artifical society have tried to do away with gender roles. This is ideology, not nature.

Clothing differences as a symbol of these different roles is also pretty much universal. The fact that men or women wear different things in different cultures does nothing to undermine this reality. In each culture, what a woman wears is distinct from what a man wears, and these differences reflect the different sex roles. For instance, a traditional Scotsman does not wear a kilt to look like a woman, but kilts are considered masculine clothes, and are not women's clothes. Tell William Wallace he's a cross-dresser, and he'll cut off your head!

In most cultures it is considered shameful for a man to act like a woman.

I'm sure you'll start with some feminist babble about "patriarchal oppression" at this point, and argue that societies create gender-roles for political purposes, but the truth is "gender roles" are found even in animals. In most mammals, males and females perform differing roles and behavior. So it appears that gender roles are rooted in nature.

[quote]In a way I see your point, if someone is neither gay or straight. But people should know they don't have to do anything that they dislike, especially when it comes to sex[/quote]

This is an absurd non-argument. To live as lawful members of society, many people have to do things they don't like. There are people who like to murder, steal, or rape. Most people don't like paying taxes. Many may not like caring for their children, or fulfilling their legal obligations to others. "People should not have to do anything that they dislike" is a foolish principle to use for morality.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Socrates']The assertion that gender roles are "arbitrary and meaningless" is nonsense plain and simple. "Gender roles" have existed in all human cultures in all parts of the world through all history. While specifics vary, in many ways these roles are strikingly similar - men are the warriors, breadwinners, etc., while women are in charge of child-rearing, home, and hearth. Something so universal to the human experience cannot be dismissed as something arbitrarily set up by a particular society.[/quote]

Ok, perhaps not entirely arbitrary and meaningless. But useless and trivial nonetheless. They might have logically born from some need, but in modern days where such needs no longer exist they are most certainly maintained by society alone.

[quote]In each culture, what a woman wears is distinct from what a man wears, and these differences reflect the different sex roles.[/quote]

How does assigning specific clothing to men and women differ from assigning different clothing to different ethnic groups? How about what is appropriate for them to do? How is having a penis or a vagina any more significant than having different skin color? How does sexism differ from racism?

[quote]Clothing differences as a symbol of these different roles is also pretty much universal. The fact that men or women wear different things in different cultures does nothing to undermine this reality.[/quote]

It does not undermine the fact that there are gender roles, but it does undermine the rationale to follow them. Since culture determines what is masculine, two men considered masculine in their home countries could be each other's opposites in behavior. And ways of thinking too. Are you saying that different cultures are a product of spiritual and mental problems?

[quote]I'm sure you'll start with some feminist babble about "patriarchal oppression" at this point, and argue that societies create gender-roles for political purposes, but the truth is "gender roles" are found even in animals. In most mammals, males and females perform differing roles and behavior. So it appears that gender roles are rooted in nature.[/quote]

So you think we should act like animals, eh? Well, animals don't exactly behave as normatively as you claim: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior"]linky linky[/url]

Also, doesn't trying to behave like animals go against what the Church teaches? Since that would lead to immorality.

And if you are going to say that we shouldn't behave like animals, then biology and roots in nature become meaningless. Gender roles are based on social issues.

[quote]This is an absurd non-argument. To live as lawful members of society, many people have to do things they don't like. There are people who like to murder, steal, or rape. Most people don't like paying taxes. Many may not like caring for their children, or fulfilling their legal obligations to others. "People should not have to do anything that they dislike" is a foolish principle to use for morality.[/quote]

Well I wasn't thinking it that far. Obviously you are right. I was thinking about sex at the time and other somewhat trivial stuff.

Edit. Hm, since this post doesn't have anything on gay parenting maybe it should have been more appropriate in the other thread.

Edited September 5, 2005 by Semalsia

[IcePrincessKRS]

While I agree with everyone here who says that gender roles are important and children should have a mother and a father (one female parent and one male parent), I do think that there are the occasional rare exception where it might be necessary for a homosexual couple to adopt. Without going into all the sordid details (unless I have to) you may remember that our own dear Hyper (oh how I miss him) adopted his nephew and was raising little Pepin, and Jon's (and before someone goes off ranting about sin and evil and abomination, they were CELIBATE) daughter Ashley. They didn't adopt him for selfish reasons, no one else would take Pepin and raise him---though they wanted more children they wouldn't adopt more because of the Church's teaching, unless another scenario popped up like the one that gave them Pepin. Again, obviously not the ideal, but in some cases it may be the only choice.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Aug 31 2005, 04:36 PM']Meg --

Here's an article that may be helpful:
[url="http://www.narth.com/docs/researcher.html"]Researcher Surveys Studies on Gay Parenting and Children[/url]

At the bottom of that page, there are links to several other resources on this topic.

The link is off the home page for the [url="http://www.narth.com"]National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality[/url], which could provide a bunch of additional information for you on related topics.
[right][snapback]706751[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think the one by NARTH has got to be the most troubling. It's a good thing that it says there isn't ENOUGH evidence to come to a conclusion, but why are the other "studies" already making conclusions and stamping them out as the "official" statement? All articles I've ever read up upon are either "the study clearly shows" (with an agenda/bias) and the nuetral (authors who are either pro-ssa or hetero) and state that not enough evidence is present to make a statement that gay/lesbian parenting causes no real harm/harm. What I do find wierd is their definitions of "faithful" or "promiscuity" in these studies. Remember, as long as you define your term, you may use that word. So if "promiscuity" to society means more than 1 partner, and the term promiscuity in the study is defined as 15+ more partners, then isn't it a bit misleading?

And then, not every case is the same.

[quote]She admits that many of the current studies are skewed: "The majority of lesbian and gay parents and their children participating in studies have been recruited through advertising. In many contexts, it is still not safe for lesbians and gay men to be publicly 'out' about their sexuality, so a representative sample of lesbian and gay parents and their children probably constitutes an unattainable goal at present."

She concludes her survey by observing: "While there is no evidence that children experience difficulties because of being brought up by lesbian or gay parents, it is also important to remember the variation in their experiences."[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 5 2005, 09:09 AM']How does assigning specific clothing to men and women differ from assigning different clothing to different ethnic groups? How about what is appropriate for them to do? How is having a penis or a vagina any more significant than having different skin color? How does sexism differ from racism?[/quote]

It should be obvious that "having a penis or vagina" is more significant than differences in skin color. The male and female organs by their very nature have specific different functions, and males and females thus naturally play different roles in society.

Skin color is just skin color.

Playing the "race card" just won't work here.


[quote]It does not undermine the fact that there are gender roles, but it does undermine the rationale to follow them. Since culture determines what is masculine, two men considered masculine in their home countries could be each other's opposites in behavior. And ways of thinking too. Are you saying that different cultures are a product of spiritual and mental problems?[/quote]

I can't think of any two cultures in which the essential qualities of masculinity would be opposite.
(I am talking the basics here - not such peripherals as whether one wears a kilt or trousers, or length of hair, etc.)

Is there a single culture in which physical prowess, bravery, self-mastery, virility, and sense of honor would be considered effeminate?
Or one in which women are the warriors and men primarily tend for home and children? (Remember, the Amazons didn't exist.)

[quote]So you think we should act like animals, eh? Well, animals don't exactly behave as normatively as you claim: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior"]linky linky[/url]

Also, doesn't trying to behave like animals go against what the Church teaches? Since that would lead to  immorality.

And if you are going to say that we shouldn't behave like animals, then biology and roots in nature become meaningless. Gender roles are based on social issues.[/quote]

You are missing the point of my post. I do not claim that humans should behave like animals. My point was simply that the animal kingdom indicates that "gender roles" are based in nature, and not simply arbitrary constructs of society.

There is such a thing as human nature. Human nature is not the same as chimp nature or dog nature. We Catholics believe that humans are created higher than the other animals and are called to act according to reason and God's laws, not merely follow brute passions. But we are not to act contrary to our nature.

As Catholics, we believe that following morality fulfills our human nature as it was intended to be, not act contrary to it.
Obviously, as an atheist, you'd think differently about such things.

[quote]Well I wasn't thinking it that far. Obviously you are right. I was thinking about sex at the time and other somewhat trivial stuff.
[right][snapback]711728[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not consider sex "trivial." Sexual behavior has consequences, both for the individual and for society. This should be apparent at some level even to an atheist, but as long as I have a Catholic, theistic worldview, and yours is atheistic, we will disagree on many fundamental issues.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Semalsia']Can anyone give me any reason why both sexes are requires in good parenting? You are only saying that it is, without an explanation.

I already asked this in another thread, but the only answer I got was that men have penises.[/quote]
As everyone who's posted here for any length of time knows, I'm a heretic on the issue of human sexuality. I support gay and lesbian civil marriage and I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt children. This isn't a secret to anyone here who knows me. I don't apologize for it, though I admit that perhaps one day I will feel differently -- but right now I don't.

With that said, though, I've never understood people who claim that there is no evidence that children need parental influences from both genders in order to thrive. No offense, but that's just stupid. I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt, but they need to provide some kind of familial influence not provided by the gay or lesbian parents. In other words, a lesbian couple needs to provide a male familial influence for the child, and a gay couple needs to provide a female familial influence for the child. Where I differ from my friends here is that I don't believe that this absolutely must be another parent; I think this could be a grandparent, an uncle or aunt, or some other familial figure.

What's the evidence that children need the influence of both genders in their upbringing? That's easy -- the evidence is that, no matter how hard we try to make it otherwise, children need both genders in order to be created. It follows for anyone who believes that God is the Creator that he has a reason for making procreation possible only through male-female sexual relationships. This is true even today in our high-tech society, even with in-vitro fertilization -- even with that, reproduction cannot occur without male and female gametes.

The burden of proof is on those who say that children [i]don't[/i] need the influence of both men and women in their upbringing. If that's the case, then why does nature work differently?

[cappie]

Interesting article:

Mum v Mum: the new custody battle
By Adele Horin
September 7, 2005

Two Sydney women who had a long-term relationship have started a custody battle for a three-year-old boy conceived through donor insemination.

The non-biological mother claims she has been the psychological and emotional parent since the boy was born, and that he has spent more time with her in the years since the couple separated. The looming Family Court battle highlights a dilemma in lesbian relationships where both women may agree to have a child, and raise it together, but only one can give birth. Under NSW law the partner who does not bear the child has no legal rights as a parent.

Nici Clayhills, solicitor for the non-biological mother, said homosexuals had progressed since the 1970s from fighting for rights to recognise difference, to fighting to be accepted as normal.

"That involves wanting the mortgage, the dog, the child and the marriage," she said. "And it's extending to disputes in the Family Court."

Jenni Millbank, associate professor of law at the University of Sydney, said increasing numbers of lesbian couples were conceiving children through donor insemination. And the law needed to change to give the non-biological parent the same rights as men whose wives conceived through artificial insemination.

In the case involving the boy, the biological mother has filed an application in the Family Court for the boy to live with her full time and is prepared to give the other parent contact every second weekend. At present the estranged couple share the boy's care, and the non-biological mother intends to fight to retain the status quo.

The NSW Government is considering amendments to the Status of Children Act 1996 that would extend a "presumption of parenthood" to the female partner of a woman who has a child through artificial insemination. At present the act confers legal parental status only on heterosexuals while severing the parental rights of egg or sperm donors.

Under other proposed changes, the name of the non-biological lesbian parent could appear on the birth certificate. And the child could automatically inherit her property or superannuation at her death.

The non-biological parent would have authority in school



matters and medical care. Similar laws exist in Western Australia - where parents are listed on the birth certificate as parent 1 and parent 2 - the ACT and the Northern Territory, and the Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended equivalent changes to the Bracks Government.

Natalie Ross, principal solicitor at Sydney's Inner City Legal Centre, said: "The amendments would reflect the intentions of two women to have a child together and to both be parents even though one is bearing the child."

In the Family Court, the non-biological lesbian parent has the same status as grandparents, foster parents or any person concerned with the care, welfare and development of a child, and has a right to make applications for contact or residence. The court's decision is based on what is in the child's best interests.

"Biological parents may have an advantage in times of disputes," Professor Millbank said.

"But there is no formal barrier to a co-parent getting residence or shared care now.

"However, if state laws were amended, a co-parent would not just be just some other woman who cares about the child. She would be a legal parent. It might make a difference in the way co-mothers are viewed in the Family Court process."

According to Professor Millbank, increasing numbers of lesbian couples have applied to the Family Court for parental orders by consent. These confer some parental authority on the non-biological parent in matters of medical treatment and schooling.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby had expected the Government to move soon on amending the legislation - and to make it restrospective.

However, a spokesman for the Attorney-General, Bob Debus, said the minister was away, and he did not know what progress had been made.

[Carrie]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 3 2005, 01:35 PM']Yes I would honestly.
[right][snapback]709614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Saying [b]all[/b] children should be taken away from homosexual parents is too much of a sweeping statement for me.

Before making a statement like that, you need to consider a person's situation. Not everything is in black and white all the time.

As Iceprincess stated:
[quote]While I agree with everyone here who says that gender roles are important and children should have a mother and a father (one female parent and one male parent), I do think that there are the occasional rare exception where it might be necessary for a homosexual couple to adopt. Without going into all the sordid details (unless I have to) you may remember that our own dear Hyper (oh how I miss him) adopted his nephew and was raising little Pepin, and Jon's (and before someone goes off ranting about sin and evil and abomination, they were CELIBATE) daughter Ashley. They didn't adopt him for selfish reasons, no one else would take Pepin and raise him---though they wanted more children they wouldn't adopt more because of the Church's teaching, unless another scenario popped up like the one that gave them Pepin. Again, obviously not the ideal, but in some cases it may be the only choice.[/quote]

This is exactly what crossed my mind when reading this thread.

From what we knew of Hyper and his situation, Ashley and Pepin are much better off with him than with other family members.

Personally, I'd rather see a child with a parent like Hyper than with an abusive/neglectful heterosexual parent.

Ice, I miss Hyper too.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 6 2005, 10:32 PM'][snip]  This is true even today in our high-tech society, even with in-vitro fertilization -- even with that, reproduction cannot occur without male and female gametes.

The burden of proof is on those who say that children [i]don't[/i] need the influence of both men and women in their upbringing.  If that's the case, then why does nature work differently?
[right][snapback]713984[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Now I don't support your point of view, but I would like to bring a correction to your post.

It is possible to create a female human being with two female gametes in the laboratory. It is not howver, possible to produce a male human being with two male gametes.

If you look at any television you would come accross fantasy or science ficiton programs (Star Trek) who explore the possibility of the future being populated entirely of woman for that simple reason.

Don't want to sound too technical, now back to the discussion:

[quote]Something so universal to the human experience cannot be dismissed as something arbitrarily set up by a particular society.[/quote]

I think this is well said Socrates, I entirely agree.

Also, to the 'animal' argument I would add that even if animals, through their 'brute passions' might betray their natural order, we as human beings, with our intelligence and enlightement from knowing God, should know better and control our 'brute passions', rather than give in to them and worse, trying to justify them as normal or becuase 'it is trivial and feels right'.

Having sex is not a requirement to living a fulfilled and happy life. To think otherwise is to belittle the importance of the human being as a whole.

Gay parents should not adopt - why? Simply because it presents homosexuality as acceptable and normal; that is why. Because the mere union poses as rightcheous something that is perverted and thus leads the children within the household towards perversion. This is the real issue here, not 'gender roles' or having 'male and female' figures in the household. Those are consequential to the real issue: promulgating perversions as normal, and a life of sin as acceptable.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:43 AM']Saying [b]all[/b] children should be taken away from homosexual parents is too much of a sweeping statement for me.

Before making a statement like that, you need to consider a person's situation.  Not everything is in black and white all the time.

As Iceprincess stated:
This is exactly what crossed my mind when reading this thread.

From what we knew of Hyper and his situation, Ashley and Pepin are much better off with him than with other family members.

Personally, I'd rather see a child with a parent like Hyper than with an abusive/neglectful heterosexual parent. 

Ice, I miss Hyper too.
[right][snapback]714240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I also thought of Hyper when I read this thread. As an overarching principle, I'd say that it's best for a child to be raised by heterosexual parents. But there are definitely cases such as Hyper's where the best option for the particular child is not that.

I miss Hyper too ...

"My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard ..."

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Socrates']I do not consider sex "trivial." Sexual behavior has consequences, both for the individual and for society.
[/quote]

True, sex isn't trivial. I didn't mean to say otherwise. Bad sentence structure.

[quote name='Good Friday']What's the evidence that children need the influence of both genders in their upbringing? That's easy -- the evidence is that, no matter how hard we try to make it otherwise, children need both genders in order to be created[/quote]

Upbringing and creation are two different things.

Besides I havent seen anyone crying about the evils of single parenthood here. Following your logic, it should be worse than the same sex ones.

[quote name='Didacus']Also, to the 'animal' argument I would add that even if animals, through their 'brute passions' might betray their natural order, we as human beings, with our intelligence and enlightement from knowing God, should know better and control our 'brute passions', rather than give in to them and worse, trying to justify them as normal or becuase 'it is trivial and feels right'.[/quote]

How are feelings not part of our nature?