Why it is important that children be raised by opposite sex parents rather than same sex parents:
1. Children can only be procreated by a man and woman; if same sex couples could procreate, this valid point would be invalidated.
2. Whilst not every child has a present mother and father, ever child has a biological mother and father.
3. Children know when a biological parent is missing; which is why it is the common case that children raised by same sex parents seek out their missing parent.
4. Same sex parenting means that one parent is always missing.
5. A same sex parent cannot supplant or provide the missing influence of the missing biological parent.
6. Opposite sex parents provide a full range of unique and important gifts, influences and experiences, where as same sex parents can provide only half.
7. Same sex parenting means children will always, always miss out a full and diverse upbringing unlike their peers who have a mother and father.
8. Single parenting and same sex parenting are contextually the same as there is a missing parent and a stagnation in the influences and raising of the children.
9. Social science affirms that the best outcome for children with the least upbringing issues, the least criminal outcomes, least drugs and best future is a non-combat, married household with their biological mother and father.
.0. Homosexuality is a confirmed mental illness, and the option of leaving a child within the guardianship of two mentally ill individuals always carries a risk of abuse, neglect and death.
.1. Non-biological parents are confirmed as raising their new children differently and inner a lesser manner than their own children.
This is why it's important for children to be raised by their mother and father; and though there are cases of children growing up to becoming good citizen by two same sex parents; however, every child with two same sex parents has another parent, and that parent is the other biological parent.
M.
8 comments
1. So what? Are you against straight adoption too? By being against adoption you are dooming more kids to shitty foster homes. Or worse.
2. See point 1.
3. Right… that doesn’t mean adoption isn’t the right thing.
4. See point 1.
5. Why not?
6. Gender determinism. Scientifically discredited.
7. You want kids to have a diverse upbringing? Hahahahahahahaha!
8. Well, no, because with two parents the kid is able to have twice the care for half the effort.
9. That’s because single parents are more likely to be challenged financially and thanks to capitalism will be working too much to raise their kid the same way a two-income household can. The sheer amount of single parents in the US overwhelms the adopting gay AND straight couples out there, not to mention the rampant classism/racism in the police, hence fudging the stats.
10. Fuck off.
11. See point 10.
Why it is important that children be raised by opposite sex parents rather than same sex parents:
So boys should be raised by lesbian couples and girls should be raised by couples of gay men?
1. Children can only be procreated by a man and woman; if same sex couples could procreate, this valid point would be invalidated.
That's not even an invalid point. That's a completely irrelevant fact. (Actually it's not even technically true since two men or two women might be able naturally procreate if one of them is trans but hasn't had their gonads removed, not to mention that many non-binary people can't be classed as either women or men but may still have functioning genitals that allow them to have kids)
2. Whilst not every child has a present mother and father, ever child has a biological mother and father.
And many children have biological parents who are unable to take care of their children, unfit to care for children, or just don't want to take care of children. And, oh yeah, some kids *don't* have biological parents. You know what "orphan" means right? Fucking idiot.
3. Children know when a biological parent is missing; which is why it is the common case that children raised by same sex parents seek out their missing parent.
This isn't an argument against kids being raised by same-sex couples, it's an argument against any kind of couple adopting a child. And it's a shitty argument. What, not having any parents at all is better than adoptive patents? Fuck you. Also, no, kids don't have some kind of magical sense to detect missing biological parents. Somebody could live their whole lives and never know they were adopted if nobody told them.
4. Same sex parenting means that one parent is always missing.
Not necessarily, as I've explained. Also, so what?
5. A same sex parent cannot supplant or provide the missing influence of the missing biological parent.
Nobody can provide the missing influence of the biological parent, regardless of gender. If the biological parent isn't missing because they're dead then their influence would probably not have been a good one. If they are dead, then they can't raise the child anyway.
6. Opposite sex parents provide a full range of unique and important gifts, influences and experiences, where as same sex parents can provide only half.
No couple can provide a full range of unique and important gifts. Whatever might be unique to one gender or another isn't much different than the many other things a person might be missing for various other reasons. Every couple is unique and will have their own special things they can provide to their kids.
7. Same sex parenting means children will always, always miss out a full and diverse upbringing unlike their peers who have a mother and father.
Even if that were true, which I doubt, orphans will miss out on even more than that. Being adopted by a same-sex couple must be an improvement on no parents at all, right? Maybe get back to us when you've managed to find opposite-sex couples to adopt all the world's orphaned and abandoned kids?
8. Single parenting and same sex parenting are contextually the same as there is a missing parent and a stagnation in the influences and raising of the children.
I thought this was about same-sex couples? Lots of people who are raised by single parents turn out just fine so this really doesn't help you at all.
9. Social science affirms that the best outcome for children with the least upbringing issues, the least criminal outcomes, least drugs and best future is a non-combat, married household with their biological mother and father.
Maybe. Maybe not. In some cases it's definitely not true. Unless you think abusive parents aren't a thing? But it's not always possible for kids to be raised by their biological parents anyway, so what's your point?
.0. Homosexuality is a confirmed mental illness, and the option of leaving a child within the guardianship of two mentally ill individuals always carries a risk of abuse, neglect and death.
Homosexuality actually isn't a mental illness. Also, since when is "9" followed by ".0"?
.1. Non-biological parents are confirmed as raising their new children differently and inner a lesser manner than their own children.
Oh? Perhaps so. Shitty adopted parents favoring biologcal children has been known to happen. I suspect it's not the norm though. And I bet whatever your source for that was didn't look at households with only adopted children (assuming you didn't just pull that out of your ass). So you really are arguing against all adoptions aren't you?
All this about gendered influence makes me imagine a man who is a master chef, and tries to teach his kids the basics of cooking, and they just stare in blank incomprehension because he’s not a woman.
We can guess what’s *really* missing, though - continuous everyday examples of husbands dominating their wives.
Setting aside your implication that men and women can only be capable of a specific and limited range of knowledge and personality traits that are also mutually exclusive based on gender - which is not how people work at all - raising a child is a much different thing than conceiving one.
But by the exact same token for which you say same sex couples should not raise children should men be barred from all say in a child’s life because they cannot create one personally? You find that a disqualifier for a couple that cannot do so, but not for an individual?
Further your attempt to highlight how couples with their own biological children treat adopted children in comparison just undermines your argument. First of all it focuses on parents who already have children and then hyperfocuses on a particular flaw unique to that situation which does not to other adoptive parents. Second their opposite pairing does not help in any way to improve how well they raise the children, and it’s more a sense of personal ownership that seems to be your focus and the source of problem. Third a couple with no biological children would logically not have that same problem of clear preferential treatment.
And overall you completely exclude the qualities of a good parent, looking instead for a norm to fill and hope that translates to good parenting. I assure you, that is NOT a foolproof formula. More than the man/woman standard however you seem very focused on the biological parent laying claim above all. Something that does not hold up and makes every other angle fall apart when you consider it is entirely possible and not uncommon for one biological parent to die or otherwise leave the picture. The raving centered around the biological parent then runs into conflict with supposedly needing an opposite pairing. Finally bonds of blood can mean shockingly little to some parents except as an excuse to abuse their children. Kids are often up for adoption because their biological parents were monstrously unfit.
Sir Elton John & David Furnish's two sons. As opposed to, say... Josh Buggar.
If your... 'alternative' has become as toxic as Chernobyl, then the sooner your precious 'Nuclear Family' is replaced by the Fusion Family, the better.
1. This is an answer on mechanics, not a 'why' for your thesis..
2. This is a fact. Does not support a 'why' for your thesis.
3. Yes, adopted kids seek their source. Doesn't explain your claim.
4. This is just reason 3. Doesn't amplify your lack of an answer.
5. Citation needed.
6. Citation needed.
7. Citation needed desperately.
8. Nice attempt to cover for your special-case argument, but meaningless to your thesis.
.
9. Where? What study shows this? Citation needified.
10. Not anymore.
11. Bullshit.
Sooooooo, nothing but BS.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.