Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure my cousins would agree with you (since you quoted my story about them). But, what would you have suggested in their case? (Their mom did not remarry.)
Exactly!
That is not what the poster said and you know it.
*********************************************
I agree with those who say that young girl's parents were using her for their political gain. I have never been impressed with this "out of the mouths of babes" stuff.
I agree. It should say "Out of the mouths of PROMPTED babes".
Kids need a mom and a dad. If they can't have that a dad and a dad or a mom and a mom is better than having only a single parent or living in foster care or as a ward of the state. There's your answer.
There is what is best and there is the rest. Best is a mom and a dad, however, children don't always get what is best. When you can't have what is best, you hope that family will pick up the slack. Mom and grandpa would be preferrable to a mom and a mom or dad and grandma to a dad and a dad. My mom died leaving three children at home. I do not, for one second think they would have been better off if dad had married some guy and raised them with two dads. As the oldest girl (married and out of the house) I tried to pick up some of the slack as did my dad's sisters. My younger brothers and sisters did not need another dad. They had one. They needed someone to fill the role of mom.
Because a man cannot be a role model to a growing woman, she needs what only a woman can provide and visa versa. That is why we see Big Brother orgs, because boys need a male role model in their lives. Probably also why so many kids join gangs, to have some semblance of a caring family, they are seeking to fill in the gaps any way they can.
I think a lot of gay men are seeking father figures that they never had, or they were molested in their youth. Whatever it is, they've got issues that don't need to be passed on to children seeking guidance in a difficult world. That's my opinion, the nuclear family is best for growing children and society as a whole.
This so called nuclear family went out the window a long time ago. We are not the Ozzie and Harriet generation anymore. Many kids only have 1 parent and these are the kids that seem to get in constant trouble because that 1 parent has to work to support the family. And this parent working leaves little guidance for the kids because they don't have a spouse to help out. This is a major reason why they join gangs....no supervision or maybe they just want to make some money. What is best for kids is 2 loving parents regardless if they are 2 males or 2 females.
To say that gay men were molested in their youth and seeking father figures is so ignorant. That may be your opinion but can I ask where you got it from. I think if you knew some gay couples who had kids it would change your opinion.
This so called nuclear family went out the window a long time ago. We are not the Ozzie and Harriet generation anymore. Many kids only have 1 parent and these are the kids that seem to get in constant trouble because that 1 parent has to work to support the family. And this parent working leaves little guidance for the kids because they don't have a spouse to help out. This is a major reason why they join gangs....no supervision or maybe they just want to make some money. What is best for kids is 2 loving parents regardless if they are 2 males or 2 females.
To say that gay men were molested in their youth and seeking father figures is so ignorant. That may be your opinion but can I ask where you got it from. I think if you knew some gay couples who had kids it would change your opinion.
I know gays, but none with children. I base that statement on the gays I know and the studies that confirm how prevalent child abuse is in the foster system.
As for this being a different generation, yes it is, and it's a mess. People are not held responsible for their own decisions anymore, the gov't picks up the tab, and that is the problem, too much gov't intervention. Replacing fathers with Uncle Sam, so he covers the bills, keeps single mothers in poverty. The children learn to game the system, or work the streets. Now you want to compound the problem by having gays raising children from a syrogate or anonymous donor, as proxy parents. If they take kids in foster care, there will always be more, because that does nothing to address the societal problem.
All gay marriage does is let them play house. Gays are notoriously flaky and permiscious, not the ideal role-models. You are rolling the dice with childrens lives. Children have enough challanges without the additional burden of gender confusion. Too many adults don't seem to have any idea what it means to be a man or a woman. This just blurs the lines between genders, creating more gray collectivism, where we are all supposed to be the same. Women are not the same as men, nor are men just homely women. There is no turning back once this threshold is crossed.
There will be no reason to limit this to two people of either gender, why not a commune, or 3 mothers, or 3 fathers that 'love' eachother. The problems compound. Consider the court system, trying to sort out gov't benefits, who gets what when they split. Children will simply be tools for benefits, as these sham marriages appear to be.
I know gays, but none with children. I base that statement on the gays I know and the studies that confirm how prevalent child abuse is in the foster system.
As for this being a different generation, yes it is, and it's a mess. People are not held responsible for their own decisions anymore, the gov't picks up the tab, and that is the problem, too much gov't intervention. Replacing fathers with Uncle Sam, so he covers the bills, keeps single mothers in poverty. The children learn to game the system, or work the streets. Now you want to compound the problem by having gays raising children from a syrogate or anonymous donor, as proxy parents. If they take kids in foster care, there will always be more, because that does nothing to address the societal problem.
All gay marriage does is let them play house. Gays are notoriously flaky and permiscious, not the ideal role-models. You are rolling the dice with childrens lives. Children have enough challanges without the additional burden of gender confusion. Too many adults don't seem to have any idea what it means to be a man or a woman. This just blurs the lines between genders, creating more gray collectivism, where we are all supposed to be the same. Women are not the same as men, nor are men just homely women. There is no turning back once this threshold is crossed.
There will be no reason to limit this to two people of either gender, why not a commune, or 3 mothers, or 3 fathers that 'love' eachother. The problems compound. Consider the court system, trying to sort out gov't benefits, who gets what when they split. Children will simply be tools for benefits, as these sham marriages appear to be.
Wow, I just don't know how to respond to that. You label gays as flaky and permiscious. You can also label heterosexuals as that as well. Look how many single moms there are.
The only reason there are benefits for being married and having children, is to encourage the best social structure for raising the next generation. Gays see that as unfair, so they demand the same benefits, but by their very nature, are unable to procreate, so why should they receive the same benefits that were intended to promote procreation in a stable environment? They simply don't meet the qualifications. Come clean, this is really just about money, right? Civil unions are perfectly respectable.
I'm sick of this topic, and really don't want to discuss it anymore. I know what you're going to say before you say it. Same arguments over and over again.
My partner and I raised 3 wonderful, high achieving, heterosexual children. We taught them to be good people and care about others. We taught them to be respectful of others. We taught them to love unconditionally.
The key to interacting with either sex is honesty, trust, and love. It really doesn't matter what is in your pants. You treat others as you would want to be treated.
There is no such thing as unconditional love. It's a cliche' which ignores all of the many conditions to which love relies.
Wow, I just don't know how to respond to that. You label gays as flaky and permiscious. You can also label heterosexuals as that as well. Look how many single moms there are.
Yes, I addressed that with Uncle Sam replacing daddy as the provider.
There is no such thing as unconditional love. It's a cliche' which ignores all of the many conditions to which love relies.
I'm guessing you don't have children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
