Quake3World

I just think why rob the chance of a male AND female role model cause no matter how great gay parents are you can never replace a missing gender in your life and the things you learn from that particular gender. That's my beef with it.

And there's also another side to this story too. If you're gay you should basicly accept you will not have children. That's part of being gay. Again if this seems harsh it should because you wouldn't want a species to think otherwise since mating is so important.

I think it is a bad idea to do this for foster homes. So many foster kids live in homes where they are treated like shit. If there are gays, etc., who are giving them a supportive environment, better they go there than somewhere else.

That being said - I do believe that, all other things equal, it is a better environment for kids to grow up in a stable home environment with a mother and father as opposed to two fathers or two mothers. But we don't live in ideal times. Each parent (if they are doing their job) will impart given characteristics (values, behaviors, etc.). Fathers and mothers play different, ideally complementary, roles in bringing up kids.
I'd say that there are some intagibles also....things that you can't necessarily point out easily, but that are there more often in kids from stable, supportive families with a mother and father than from stable and supportive families without a male and female parent.

Also to those people that state that gay families would have no effect on whether kids grow up gay or not I remember reading that during the day's of Alexander the great there were a lot of gay's and it was generaly accpeted a lot more openly than today.

So how would you explain something like this while stating that enviroment has no effect on sexual preference?

Kracus wrote:I just think why rob the chance of a male AND female role model cause no matter how great gay parents are you can never replace a missing gender in your life and the things you learn from that particular gender. That's my beef with it.

And there's also another side to this story too. If you're gay you should basicly accept you will not have children. That's part of being gay. Again if this seems harsh it should because you wouldn't want a species to think otherwise since mating is so important.

You raise some valid points, but there is the problem with having children who need homes. I think if there's a straight couple and a gay couple willing to adopt, both should be considered equally.

Yeah that's really the best point I can think of for your side of the argument. The fact that there really are so many children that could really use a home that don't have one... It's tough to argue against that.

tnf wrote:I think it is a bad idea to do this for foster homes. So many foster kids live in homes where they are treated like shit. If there are gays, etc., who are giving them a supportive environment, better they go there than somewhere else.

That being said - I do believe that, all other things equal, it is a better environment for kids to grow up in a stable home environment with a mother and father as opposed to two fathers or two mothers. But we don't live in ideal times. Each parent (if they are doing their job) will impart given characteristics (values, behaviors, etc.). Fathers and mothers play different, ideally complementary, roles in bringing up kids.
I'd say that there are some intagibles also....things that you can't necessarily point out easily, but that are there more often in kids from stable, supportive families with a mother and father than from stable and supportive families without a male and female parent.

I think that was well said. However, since not everyone is a saint in this world and therefore the "ideal" mother/father childhood isnt always so ideal, folks shouldnt just drop gays from being considered foster parents just because they're gay.

We're talking about FOSTER parents here. These kids don't have a mother OR a father. Outlawing homosexual foster parents is equivalent to saying they're better off without a family than with queers, which in my opinion is quite simply homophobic, reactionary hate that doesn't help either of the parties involved. In fact it promotes more suffering and probably decreases the chances of a child having a normal life.

You're right. For those that don't go anywhere we should have something for them to do like make shoes or something. That way, all rejected kids can become great shoesmiths.

That was actually kinda funny there Kracus.

R00k wrote:We're talking about FOSTER parents here. These kids don't have a mother OR a father. Outlawing homosexual foster parents is equivalent to saying they're better off without a family than with queers, which in my opinion is quite simply homophobic, reactionary hate that doesn't help either of the parties involved. In fact it promotes more suffering and probably decreases the chances of a child having a normal life.

:icon14:

i just fell in love with rook :icon14: :icon14: