A country that does the right thing, finally.

Remove all ads!

No, I was probing for an explanation; which you provided. Yet more "they're not doing it right", which then goes to disturbed morals, which goes to being improper teachers. If all you're going to base your argument on is "That's not right", then we can never see eye to eye.

People for whom reproduction through sex is not even an option. With reproduction out of the picture, there's no other purpose for it than pleasure. And you needn't attack me.

Oh, for the record, I believe pleasure was added to reproduction to make it a desirable activity. Therefore the reproductive organs provide easy access to stimulatable flesh. For those who cannot procreate, it is a sensitive area and nothing more. If you've got a problem that they're using it for something other than "what God intended", that's a moral stance, not a scientific one.

I was still talking about the "barging in" issue. It'd be effectively removed if there was no sex anywhere near the children. Of course, segregating the genders probably wouldn't work quite so well now with homosexuality in the mix, but it worked well enough when it wasn't in the picture yet. Just ignore my wild ruminations.

De-regulation.

Of course it doesn't, because they're both dads. Dad and Mom, Pa and Ma, Sir and Mum, Mr. and Mrs.; these are all gender-specific words. Household tasks would be shared fairly, just as with any hetero couple.

Hoo boy, I can see another "Is oral really sex?" thread coming on.

Here's a modified version of one of Saber's questions:
Should hetero couples with fertility problems seek help reproducing, or simply accept it as God's will that they not have children? (Just curious.)

I agree that much too many people seek out sex only for pleasure though. There are other, simpler ways to set aside the urge if it's really that bad.

 

Reading so far, and a question posed towards anti-homosexuals: Do gay people love any less than heterosexuals?

I think not. They are human. Humans can all love. Just because they love different people or things doesn't mean that they can't love.

In adoption, it is about love. People have children, or adopt children, because they want that child to be loved. We are arguing about gay people adopting children, but I don't see how a gay person's love is any different than a straight person's love.


I know a very nice girl, who I am friends with (even though I haven't seen her in a while), who has two mothers. She is not screwed up, and her parents haven't messed up the upbringing (wc?) of her. We cannot say that homosexual people make worse parents, because they simply don't. I'm sure there are some that are bad, but then again, there are plenty of heterosexual parents that suck as well.


I'd have to say I'm with Fel on this matter.

 

And many of those people who have hobbies and talk also have sex without the intent to produce offspring. It doesn't mean they're slaves to their drives. It doesn't mean they're drooling bunnyrabits.

Does it have to be about trying? Or rather, if due to some medical condition one believes they can't have children, and sees no point in trying to, should they become celibate?

That's only with the view that sex has to result in procreation. With the view that it's about love and giving and receiving pleasure, it's not pretention of any kind.

No need to get all huffy and puffy, I've done no such thing.

If gay adoption means supporting their illusion of being able to have children and a normal family...What is regular adoption, if not supporting some infertile couple's illusion of being able to have children and a normal family?

They were mine. Mine mine mine!

 

I think I asked them in another forum about gay marriage. Of course, we do agree on alot of things, so they could be yours, and Fel is just giving me credit.

 

Sorry, my bad; it was Susi's question.

 

With any kind of penetration one could always say the one receiving is playing a female role. Specifically I was referring to lesbians, of whom many don't use any fallic devices.

However with two males, playing the "female role" doesn't necessarily mean anything more than doing something to the other guy's genitals, and it doesn't necessarily go beyond the bedroom. I think the horror scenario of a kid having a male dad and a she-male mom isn't as likely as some make it out to be.

Never mind, I'm just a sucker for credit.

 

Well then, how about straight couples where the woman is the dominant one - the louder, the more confrontational, the more decisive one? Are they mixing gender roles, pretending to be something they aren't, are they confusing the poor child?

If with a male couple one of them is more dominant than the other, unless the other calls his male friends "girlfriend" and walks like Peggy Bundy, I don't see what the fuss about gender roles is about.

 

Tal, I do see your point about not knowing the person fully, and I would have to change my mind and agree (only with that part, I am still on Fel and Susi's side overall, but I do see your point).

A few things, though:

So then it only appears those 4 people change gender roles, according to your second statement. Unless, of course, you live with all four. Perhaps they don't act the opposite gender when they are alone, and would, in fact, not confuse the child, if they were to have one.

And why are we even debating about gender roles? Don't we want people to break from gender roles, so that they aren't constricted to being a stereotype? I certainly am not a stereotypical male, so isn't that good? Just because one of the gay males doesn't act like a male doesn't make it a bad relationship, or make him a bad person.

 

How the picture of the stereotypical submissive, sensitive, emotional and quiet - in short: proper woman, as opposed to the loud, confrontational and decisive man, do find their ready uses to argue against the behaviour of homosexuals. Women with this supposedly dominant (male) kind of behaviour are apparently women "we all know about". Fortunately they are exceptions that confirm the rule.

There goes the myth of the woman and her successful emancipation from man.

Should I wonder that those same (antiquated?) gender roles, officially shunned, are now brought up to discredit homosexuals. "They dont behave in accordance with their gender." Would anyone here care to say that to a woman's face? I daresay no.

Seems like them women and homosexuals alike still have to struggle with a lot of stereotypes in the future. Unexpected as that may be...

I would really like to know what women think of all this. So far only men (surprise, surprise ) gave their opinion on what is right and wrong.

 

I'm disappointed.

So there's a preconceived mold that a woman has to fit, a predetermined idea of what is "proper" behavior for their gender, a set place in the family hierarchy? If the man is not the head of the household, the child is harmed?

Bring on the burkhas.

And how is a loud, confrontational and decisive woman still a woman and not actually switching genders, if a gay man with the opposite qualities *is* playing a female role and attempting to be a woman?

[ December 29, 2005, 21:46: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

Really? Because you're the one who put the idea forth in the first place...

/me accidentally summons Obviousman
"So basically, other people can be wrong but you're sure you aren't? Also, you didn't address whether or not you think children would be harmed by 'non-typical' hetero couple."

Hey! Bad lame-superhero premise; go sit in the corner. (That pest just keeps popping up at the worst times, I tell ya.) But I'm afraid he does have a point.

 

Now you're the one who's misread. The second quote was from a post of yours on the previous page; the two together (I would have thought the elipses would tip you off) seem quite contradictory. To prevent any further confusion, I'll try to lay it out as simply as I can. The first quote says that you don't think the 4 you know act different at home than in public. The second (earlier) quote says that nobody can know how they act at home based only on how they act in public, and even that frequently it's a far different story.

So what makes you think you're not being fooled too? Noone has more need to act than a minority so despised as the gay community.

That's a good one. There's no real answer to a question like that; it's like asking where I'm not standing (I'm sitting, BTW). But where you should have addressed it is in your post at the top of the page, between the lengthy (second to last) paragraph saying that what roles and duties a couple work out is fine (even 'non-typical' ones), and the next rather short one which referred back to your main point that a child would be damaged if it were raised with a gay couple.

 

But if he is raising the child in the same way as the voluntary stay-at-home mom (who you have no problem with), why does it matter?

 

Maybe this "loud, confrontational woman" -thing is going a little off track. I listed those qualities based on your previous post about gender roles, to represent "male-like" qualities. The issue was not so much about being raised by Norman Bates' mother, but by a couple that doesn't fit the (stereo)typical image of how men and women "should" be. Namely, a woman who could be considered "manly" and a man who's "feminine" - in terms of traditional family hierarchy at least.

While a dominant mother can result in the son getting a dominant girlfriend that pushes him around, this too has a flipside: a submissive mother can result in the son seeking a submissive girlfriend that he can push around.

Again, the "dominant mother" didn't refer to dominating the child; rather being the dominant member of the family as opposed to the father. If there is a dominant parent, I don't see why it would make a difference which one it is, or how one would be better than the other. I don't see how it is good at all for the child to see and learn that one gender lords over the other - that it's the "role" of a man to be the head of the household, and seeing a man who isn't would somehow be harmful.

And so is the gay man still of the male gender. Why the statement that "at least she's not actually switching genders?" Are gay men transsexuals now?

Of course it's possible, it's even likely. The problem is not that stay-at-home mothers exist. If they want to, that's what they should do and they have every right to. The problem is pushing that role on as the standard that has to be lived by, implying that those who don't are bad mothers or bad people. This still happens a lot.

[ December 30, 2005, 14:10: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

Okay Tal, you're just not getting it. The quotes weren't an attempt at a shot at you; I just wanted you to clear up what seemed (to me) to be a contradiction. Which you still haven't done, aside from a cliche which makes no sense without explanation. And quoting an entire paragraph is hardly taking it out of context.

That's just it: you don't know! You can't possibly know what reasons they might have for faking their public identity. They might think you'd react badly if they acted as "butch" as they do at home, and only act like sissies to fit what they think is your stereotype of gay people.

Oy. I'm saying you should have addressed it by your own implication. I suppose you could say that you yourself are the one who asked it by the sudden jump between 'non-typical' hetero couples being okay and gay couples damaging a child. One reads that and wonders what the connection is, and...

But if you're determined, I'll ask you straight out, instead of the roundabout method that I tried before. Do you think a child would be damaged by being raised by a 'non-typical' (aggressive mother and submissive father) hetero couple?

Come to think of it, HTF did we get onto this subject in a thread about gay marriage in the UK? Are they permitting them adoption rights too?