I can assure you I'm not lying. I don't see how that's any more 'abnormal' than if we were to remove the other man from the picture and assume the child belonged to a heterosexual couple. What isn't 'normal' about a father holding their newborn baby? 'Cause that's all I see in the picture.

What you see in the picture is objectively not a normal situation though. Normality is not determined by looking at what you're comfortable with.

Normality describes what is common. Same sex parenting is not as common as opposite sex parenting therefore it is objectively more abnormal.

Reply 184

Fukimi-Takiada

Seriously I don't want to live in this world any more.....

How can we allow these kind of things omg,I feel like an alien....

Reply 185

Nadine_08

Original post by NicCx

No matter what sexuality, you should be able to have a child.

You're not God to decide that.

Yes.

Where on earth did I make a moral judgement, and say that normal = bad? The reason I argued as strongly as I did here about this not being normal is because our language has become muddled. We conflate abnormal with bad, and therein lies the issue.

Reply 188

Nadine_08

If things like this are being accepted in today's society and being considered 'normal' then in a century, you'll be seeing something like a brother and sister getting married.

Reply 189

Nadine_08

What have laptops got to do with the survival of nature? The development of technology is nothing compared to what we're talking about.

Reply 190

MostUncivilised

Original post by interact

A childs need should be considered first and foremost. Forcing children to be raised without either a mother and fathers love, when it is not necessary is child abuse imo.

Absolute nonsense. You have no scientific basis for that claim, it is merely neanderthal logic

Studies show children are actually better off in families where the parents are a gay couple

Reply 191

username91207

Is it just me who thinks having children is a privelege and not a right?

Reply 192

limetang

Original post by snowyowl

Is it just me who thinks having children is a privelege and not a right?

Oh absolutely. You cannot approach this issue from a 'rights' perspective it is far more important that we consider the needs of the child above anything else.. That said gay parenting is generally exceptional for two reasons: Firstly any gay couple wishing to start a family must do so very deliberately, and secondly in most circumstances there is a vetting process for them as parents simply because of the avenues they must go down (adoption etc.)

Reply 193

limetang

Original post by interact

The studies probably do show that because of the nature of same sex parenting being a) very deliberate (there are no accidental children), and b) same sex parents generally have to go through some form of approval process first (i.e. adoption). So you're general weeding out people who'd be bad parents, the same doesn't happen with straight parenting.

So ... not really a fair study in terms of like for like comparison, but it's an irrelevance because the facts are that gay parents do generally do amazing jobs as parents for the reasons above. I mean ... it's better that a gay couple bring up a child than for it to go through the 'care' system.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 194

Nadine_08

Hahah I'm not homophobic at all but two dads?? That's definitely abnormal. The survival of nature isn't an empty concept at all but you probably won't understand it as I doubt you actually know what nature is.
And about the laptops, I'm saying you can't use that as an example to compare to the abnormal situation we're discussing. It's insignificant compared to it.

Reply 195

interact

Original post by MostUncivilised

There are far more important methodological problems in the research undertaken. For example, having the study open to 2 month old children, how the hell are you supposed to measure happiness in a 2 month old child?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 196

limetang

Original post by interact

I agree, I can't see where I have called for gays not to be allowed to adopt or foster.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you had, although re-reading what I wrote it's very clear that it could be taken that way. Apologies.

Reply 197

MostUncivilised

Original post by interact

There are far more methodological problems in the research undertaken. For example, having the study open to 2 month old children, how the hell are you supposed to measure happiness in a 2 month old child|?

So I take it by your avoidance of a straight question that you have no evidence that there was bias in the study?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 198

Aku-gila

The fatter one looks like Bruce Willis.

Reply 199

JayJay-C19

To be honest, parenting is about so much more than the genders of the parents. Their ability to raise a child is not limited by their gender and I know of many people that have had a child via surrogacy and raised it together and the child has turned out neither gay, nor any different from a "normal" child conceived by a man and a woman and raised by so.

Also, most of the people on this thread use the words, 'abnormal' and 'normal' too much. Who are you, to be perfectly honest, to say what is normal and what is not? Normal is non-existent. Everyone is different and parenting does not come with a manual, therefore, how can anyone say that two males raising a child is wrong?

As for the whole religious argument and the natural theories - why do you even have to delve so far into these topics? It is as simple as this:

1. a baby is born;
2. it is raised by two men;
3. it is perfectly happy.

The End.

Religious arguments just have me in hysterics because they all contradict each other and all of the people who use religious arguments need to seriously re-evaluate their lives and stop exploiting the bible for your own ends. If you're going to use religious arguments then accept all of the religious stories as valid. You can't just decide that one minute you're going to believe, fully, whatever is said about homosexuality in the bible yet then go and deny the validity of another passage purely because it doesn't sit right with you and I don't care what anyone says, next-to-nearly ALL religious people I have met and known, do exactly this: "Gays will go to hell because it is an abomination as stated in the Old Testament however, stoning women is wrong, even though it is mentioned as a necessary punishment for adulterers in the Bible". No. You can't do that. Sorry.

At the end of the day, live and let live. There are no perfect parents and whose to say that there will be no female influence in the baby's life? What if, as someone rightly said prior to this response, the female dies giving birth to the child and two men care for the baby - won't their mothers or aunts or whoever, have some involvement? There are plenty of single male parents who have raised babies but you're not concerned about them, no, only because they're heterosexual. Don't mask your bigotry with pathetic analogies and contradictory, hypocritical, POINTLESS, arguments. There really are too many of them in todays world to use.

Seriously, I fail to realise why this is even an issue in society. Like, move on and focus on your own lives... unless of course you still believe that homosexuality dooms nations... even though it's been in existence just as long as heterosexuality, but you know.