Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You said that society should stick with what's normal. Laptops didn't used to be normal, therefore we shouldn't have laptops.

    And the survival of nature? What an empty concept.

    You'll have to actually use terms that mean something instead of relying on language to hide your homophobia in nothingness.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    X
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    If it's not an empty concept then clearly define what you mean by nature.

    And don't know what it is? Sure. I went through university studying philosophy, including environmental philosophy and Wittgenstein: On Certainty without knowing the different ways in which the word 'nature' is used.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The fatter one looks like Bruce Willis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Studies show children are actually better off in families where the parents are a gay couple
    Surely that's only because two men can only adopt, and families willing to adopt are those who are better off anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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. No studies have ever been made into what the lasting impact of all this is going to be be, but we already have cases of children who have been been born with IVF, with a donated sperm having major psychological issues, with mothers themselves regretting taking away their children's right to a father. Adopting and fostering are altogether a different situation.

    I don't want a pathetic, moronic response but is it child abuse when a mother dies in a car crash, and the father has to raise them by himself? They are isolated incidents.
    How can you access the needs of a child who is not even born yet? Every child is different. You have a pre conceived idea that the new nuclear family unit is best. But children from nuclear can also have psychological issues. Many children in the world right are raised fatherless but doesn't stop them being successful i.e. President Obama.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So I take it by your avoidance of a straight question that you have no evidence that there was bias in the study?
    I do have evidence, you're clearly just bias towards them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by interact)
    I do have evidence, you're clearly just bias towards them.
    :lol: You haven't even mentioned this evidence, which would suggest there is none.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I bet they will be better parents than most heterosexual parents. Gay men are bullied, threatened and abused an awful lot, and become stronger because of it. They will understand that their child will grow up to be an individual, no matter what sexuality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone else find it weird how the two "fathers" pushed the surrogate out of the way? Like they gave birth to the baby? I get that they want to get the bonding in ASAP however something is quite wrong in that image.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marky Mark)
    Does anyone else find it weird how the two "fathers" pushed the surrogate out of the way? Like they gave birth to the baby? I get that they want to get the bonding in ASAP however something is quite wrong in that image.
    I agree. There is something quite creepy about the photo (no homophobia, I am gay myself and I want to have children... but these fathers seem unbelievably self-absorbed, and more than pushing the surrogate aside, I think they've almost pushed the baby aside.. this moment is clearly all about them)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If it's not an empty concept then clearly define what you mean by nature.

    And don't know what it is? Sure. I went through university studying philosophy, including environmental philosophy and Wittgenstein: On Certainty without knowing the different ways in which the word 'nature' is used.
    By 'nature', I mean the normal and natural way in which God designed a male and a female to have a child. Two dads having a son, therefore, is not natural and so is going against nature.
    The fact that you went through university studying philosophy and claiming that you know the different ways in which the word 'nature' is used is quite shocking as you couldn't understand a simple concept. But I'm guessing you're just trying not to understand it as it involves God and I'm guessing you don't believe in God so there's no point arguing with you as your rigid views won't change.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadine_08)
    By 'nature', I mean the normal and natural way in which God designed a male and a female to have a child. Two dads having a son, therefore, is not natural and so is going against nature.
    The fact that you went through university studying philosophy and claiming that you know the different ways in which the word 'nature' is used is quite shocking as you couldn't understand a simple concept. But I'm guessing you're just trying not to understand it as it involves God and I'm guessing you don't believe in God so there's no point arguing with you as your rigid views won't change.
    So you're accepting God as a premise even though you know most people in the debate won't. I believe you can be refereed to my first reply on the thread (found on page 1).

    God some people are ignorant.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Just cleared out a massive off-topic argument. Refrain from insulting each other and going off topic when responding, or I will close the thread.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Ah, the slippery slope argument. Anything to actually back this up? Because the same sort of thing was said when inter-racial marriages were legalised - that'd it'd lead to incest/polygamy/bestiality being legal, and yet that's never panned out. The slope isn't as slippery as you think it is.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Ah, the slippery slope argument. Anything to actually back this up? Because the same sort of thing was said when inter-racial marriages were legalised - that'd it'd lead to incest/polygamy/bestiality being legal, and yet that's never panned out. The slope isn't as slippery as you think it is.
    Nope, I don't have anything to back it up as nobody knows what the future holds but the fact that in the past, homosexuality wasn't accepted but now it is tells us something, doesn't it?
    You never know- incest, polygamy and bestiality may be legalised in the future. Homosexuality took time for it to be accepted into society.
    By the way, have you heard about that mother who wanted to marry her son because she claimed that they 'fell in love with each other'. Cases like this just show how the world's society is changing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadine_08)
    Nope, I don't have anything to back it up as nobody knows what the future holds but the fact that in the past, homosexuality wasn't accepted but now it is tells us something, doesn't it?
    You never know- incest, polygamy and bestiality may be legalised in the future. Homosexuality took time for it to be accepted into society.
    By the way, have you heard about that mother who wanted to marry her son because she claimed that they 'fell in love with each other'. Cases like this just show how the world's society is changing.
    This doesn't show how society is changing at all. Incestuous attractions have existed since time immemorial and just as they were deemed inappropriate back then they are still regarded as so today.

    However homosexual relationships were recognised and accepted along side heterosexual relationships BEFORE abrahamic religions came about and altered that fact. The legalisation of marriage between homosexuals hasn't changed anything but rather it has reversed a change.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.