Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

My opinion on the gay couples having children isn't completely formed yet. There are lots of people who in my opinion shouldn't have children, including teenagers, single women, and those that can't afford them. It seems that our creator (whoever or whatever that is...I don't believe in any commonly accepted concept of "God") designed us so that male and female individuals are required to produce a child for a reason. That reason is that male and female role models are necessary, or at least desirable, for proper child development. That said, I really do not have a problem with gay couples adopting children, because I have to believe that, although a two parent household with male and female role models is optimal, that two loving same sex parents are preferable to foster care or a single parent household.

On the other hand, lesbian couples conceiving with a turkey baster and some sperm (and couldn't Melissa Ethridge found a better donor than a short, fat, bald drug addict?) just doesn't feel right to me, but I can't say why. Maybe it's because there are so many two-sex couples who desparately want children, but can't have them.

Mark

In reply to:

---

It seems that our creator (whoever or whatever that is...I don't believe in any commonly accepted concept of "God") designed us so that male and female individuals are required to produce a child for a reason.

---

Required?

I think he means producing a child requires a male and a female. Naturally speaking of course.

I'm gonna nitpick here, even though I pretty much agree with what you're saying.

In reply to:

---

It seems that our creator (whoever or whatever that is...I don't believe in any commonly accepted concept of "God") designed us so that male and female individuals are required to produce a child for a reason. That reason is that male and female role models are necessary, or at least desirable, for proper child development.

---

I happen to believe in evolution -- and whether or not that evolution was influenced or set in motion by outside "powers" is immaterial. I think you're placing the cart before the horse here -- or maybe this is a chicken vs. egg thing.

I think that the "male and female role model" idea is completely dependent on the historical fact that it used to take a male and female and an act of coitus to produce a child. In this modern day of sperm donors and artificial / in vitro insemination, this is no longer the case.

In fact, because it's impossible for a gay couple to accidentally conceive, the ones who do decide to have children have gone through the lengthy thought process and are better prepared to be parents than many hetero couples who just give it the ol' college try.

To clarify: By "Our Creator" I could mean the summation of natural laws and forces that shaped human evolution. I also believe in evolution, and evolution designed us so that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child. Do children who grow up in a household with two parents of the same sex develop the same as children who have two different sex parents? I don't know the answer to that question. I do feel that children who grow up in single parent households without a male role model suffer from this lack. They may never learn how how men are supposed to relate to women without a father to learn from. Might then the lack of a female role model handicap a child being raised by 2 men? I do not know the answer to this question, but until I do, I am less than totally comfortable with same sex couples rearing children. If it could be shown that children of same sex couples were no different that children of two sex couples, then I would have no objection to the adoption of children by gay couples. My opinion is subject to change-if there is any research that sheds light on this question, I would be happy to look at it.

In reply to:

---

In fact, because it's impossible for a gay couple to accidentally conceive, the ones who do decide to have children have gone through the lengthy thought process and are better prepared to be parents than many hetero couples who just give it the ol' college try.

---

That is a good point. I readily concede that a gay couple, motivated enough to go through the process of adopting a child, will be better parents than many women and couples that have babies the old fashioned way. You can't stop them from having babies, so I guess we shouldn't stop gay couples from having babies. I just have lingering doubts that a household without role models of both sexes is as good as one that has both.

Mark

Y'all been at it while I was vacationing.

Can't argue with anything the doc says.

A flat income tax rate is fair. I don't see how it could get more fair than that. Sales taxes are not fair, it can be argued, because the poor and middle class end up paying a greater percentage of their income on the tax than do the wealthy.

All the class warfare, the loathing of the rich, is ugly.

Old money - families that do nothing to earn their riches but wait for dad to die - is a little discouraging to us commoners who must make our own ways in life. But what are you gonna do, steal the cash from them with inheritance taxes?

All the newly rich - people who got lucky, or struck it rich with a particular idea or skill, is what this country is all about. We all dream about hitting it big and telling the boss to f**k off, don't we? But remember, for every one of those success stories there are thousands of failures. People who invested everything they had in their little businesses, or in their athletic or performing arts careers and failed. Why be vindictive toward those who have succeeded? It's just wrong if you ask me.

Speaking of wrongs - I just came back from the horse track at Del Mar. The dollar I take up to the window was taxed when I earned it, taxed when I bet it, and taxed again if I happen to get lucky. The windfall tax is as wrong as the death tax, IMO.

Lastly, though I have only one very young kid, it seems to me that job one in parenting is making the little guy feel loved. We've all seen plenty of hetero couples fail to do even that. Gay couples are obviously disadvantaged, but kids are much more resilient (and stubborn) than we give them credit for. The preacher's daughter becomes a whore and the drug addicts' kid becomes a doctor.

Spiffnme, if you were raising an adoptive son would you encourage him to be gay, straight or neither?

In reply to:

---

Spiffnme, if you were raising an adoptive son would you encourage him to be gay, straight or neither?

---

There's no encouraging needed. As you grow up you'll be attracted to men, women, or both. Did any of you here need encouraging to be attracted to girls or boys when you grew up? I really doubt it. Hormones are far to strong for that.

I would just be happy and excited that he was able to find someone he loved and who loved him back. It wouldn't matter in the least what sex his mate was.

A friend of mine who is a devout athiest, has a theory that homosexuality is part of evolution. His theory is that it's in the best interest of the group as a whole to have some members not procreate. As a primative species he feels that having the few extra "gay aunts and uncles" around could contribute to the group as a whole without the burden of rearing their own children. Just his theory. I'd never heard it before. But it does have it's merits.

I realize that will get the anti-gay adoption people thinking...but please realize, were not exactly living in caves and hunting our food with spears anymore either.

Read up on the "fair tax" version of the flat sales tax from the link provided earlier. The FAQ give a lot of details. It is still a progressive tax, since the first portion of everyone's spending is not taxed.

I'm not quite sure where all the money is coming from though, since it points out all the ways people save...is it just the broad base that catches everyone that brings in enough revenue to equal what the govt. gets now?

In reply to:

---

...but please realize, were not exactly living in caves and hunting our food with spears anymore either.

---

Obviously he's never seen my apartment or eaten a meal I've cooked.

time for a little humour.....

In reply to:

---

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

---

President Bush at a signing ceremony for the Department of Defense's 2005 Appropriations Act. No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

It's the fact that no one reacted that brings a smile to my face.