Whats your opinion on same gender parenting.

1. If you want some information do you need resources? No

2. If you want to write on a paper do you need something which enables you to write on the paper? No

3. Can you smell a flower if your nose is not functioning? Yes

4. If you are in a room with no lights and the candle you had turned off does this mean there will be no light at all? No

I think it's great and gay/lesbian couples should have the same right as everyone else.

and Straight Arrow: you never ease to amaze me, you got special talent for nonsense talk.

I wonder what would be your answer Miss Mimi?

1. If you want some information do you need resources?

2. If you want to write on a paper do you need something which enables you to write on the paper?

3. Can you smell a flower if your nose is not functioning?

4. If you are in a room with no lights and the candle you had turned off does this mean there will be no light at all? If we need light we can go out of the room

Then no, I don't believe everything needs to have a source.

The word source is defined as the thing need to cause an event or situation or something to be made.

For example when people ask what is your source or resourcers of such an information?

He / She will say some books and internet websites.

Like food resourcers can be plants or animals,etc.

So my question do you need a resources to get an information?

If you never read or heard of some things will you be able judge correctly?

What do you mean by source? And which evolution process? Biological evolution or societal/cultural evolution?

I wish to ask you:

Do you thinks things need a source to intiate the evolution process?

Well in the case of those children, they aren't Muslim, so none of the adoption rules apply to them.

Not to do with you Miss Mimi I am just highlighting the fact that legal adoption of children in Islam in not allowed meaning that, even if a couple raises a child, that child does not get automatic right to the estate of that couple.

So if the child is raised in an orphanage, a foster home or an adopted home, or by single sex parents or otherwise it all depends on each case. Where as one might work for one child in one situation may not work for another is the same situation.

So nothing is better than the other, it all depends on the society and circumstances you live in.

So...what's that got to do with me?

Miss Mimi Adoption is technically illegal in Islam, and adopted children in Islam do not have any rights to the adopted parents estate automatically.

tahsinmim's picture

tahsinmim said Miss ...

I think you are not much aware about evolution

Read more: http://www.qatarliving.com/node/8183346?page=1#ixzz2Gtx6AnCj

This goes into the "best posts on QL" category :P

Were we posting our opinions to get respect from anyone in particular. I guess while I expect others to respect my opinion on an issue I must be able to respect the opinion of the other person too.

As it is said, what may seem right to you may not seem right to me. But again, thats how QL is and I sometimes tend to forget that...:)

Did I miss the bit where this went from being a thread about gay couples raising children, to disputes about evolutionary biology?

If so, I'm not longer really interested.

Wake me up if things get back on track.

I talked about the evolution of society Straight Arrow. you know, from hunter-gatherer society, to agricultural based society, to industrial based society.

Do you deny at one point humans lived in small hunter-gatherer groups before they began to plant, grow and harvest crops?

so we must say our opinion also

Here are some short articles:

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

http://www.icr.org/article/177/

Also here is an interesting qoute of an american scientist:

"Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. "

More:

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-vs-evolution-n.htm

Also here is one page article:

The science faculty at the University of California at Berkeley have such a statement on file. It is as good a statement as any of the tests that science must meet, to be worthy of the name. They are:

The conclusions of science are reliable, but still tentative. No scientist ever proves anything. The best that any scientist can do is to try to explain what he sees.

Scientists do not vote on their conclusions. When they do their jobs properly, they explain all that they see in the simplest way possible. “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” said William of Ockham. And that does not depend on what anyone prefers.

Scientists hold to no absolute “givens” or “directives.” The Berkeley professors say that “nothing in the scientific enterprise requires belief.” More accurately, nothing in the scientific enterprise requires obedience, except of the laws of logic, averages, etc.

Scientists do not make moral or philosophical judgments in their work. A scientist, or an engineer, might decide that building a given device might be immoral. But to decide that a given conclusion would be immoral is not the job of a scientist.

BUT - The Latest Scientific Evidence Proves Evolution Theory Fails Miserably.

Tests Were 'Rigged' Say Experts.

Examples of numerous violations of at least three of the basic rules the Berkeley professors say science must follow. Please note the following for further reference.

Evolution advocates refuse to admit their basic premise is tentative. Even a scientific law is tentative. But not to an evolutionist. To an evolutionist, nothing can have a cause beyond nature, and no intervention is possible in nature, apart from anything a man can do.

Yet whenever any set of observations is so radically different from natural expectation that the probability of those observations is vanishingly small, they still refuse to accept intervention. The reason: to accept intervention, they must accept an Intervenor.

Evolution itself is a dogma. This is almost the same as 1 above, and more. Evolutionists, to the extent that their political or other power allows, do not permit anyone to call himself a scientist who does not, liberally, believe in evolution. They say that their enterprise does not require belief. Yet they offer a premise that they have never been able to observe, or show, in action.

Evolution advocates, and their allies in other disciplines, have made and continue to make philosophical judgments in their work. The prize example is Edwin Hubble (of telescope fame). He set forth what he called the Copernican Principle: that the universe has no center, and every vista in the universe would look the same to any observer, no matter what galaxy (or larger object) he was in. At first Hubble saw plainly that the galaxy in which we live is at the center of the universe. But then he made a philosophical judgment against that conclusion.

more on:

http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/1725-theory-of-evolution-fail

And Mimi's list doesn't even touch upon places where gay couples can use surrogates to start families without violating any laws.

Yes many Tahsinmim.

Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in the following countries:

Argentina

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Denmark

Iceland

Netherlands

Norway

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Uruguay

Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in the following jurisdictions:

Australia: Western Australia (2002),[40] Australian Capital Territory (2004),[40] and New South Wales (2010).[41]

Mexico: Mexico City (2010)[42] and Coahuila.[43]

United States: Rhode Island (1993),[44] District of Columbia (1995),[45] New Jersey (1998),[46] New York (2002),[45] California (2003),[45] Indiana (2006),[45] Maine (2007),[45] Florida (2010),[47] Arkansas (2011), Connecticut,[45] Illinois,[45] Massachusetts,[45] Oregon,[45] Vermont,[45] New Hampshire, Washington, Hawaii, Iowa, Nevada, Delaware, Guam[40]

Men and women are different things - should they be given different rights?

Fertile and infertile people are different things - should they be given different rights?

What's your point?

How is that any different to infertile couples who cannot produce their own children naturally? Should they be banned from adopting or using surrogates or some other means of artificial insemination?

I'm yet to see any argument, other than religious, against gay parenting, that wouldn't also rule out other forms of socially accepted types of families.

The only answers on this thread that I can respect for actual honesty are the ones along the lines of "it just doesn't seem right to me" or "it creeps me out". At least those people weren't reaching for imaginary "reasons" why gay parenting is wrong.

Tahsinmim this WHOLE thread is about gay people becoming parents. So my child, if gay, can either adopt, surrogate or have a child with a friend.

Perhaps Happygolucky, I still think saying that gay parents are "better" is a big statement however. I think loving parents, regardless of gender, are BEST.

"no real difference" has been overridden by the later part of the statement "except that..."... I guess when we say except that, that becomes an overriding statement, No.

What has religion got to do with people whose religious beliefs don't disallow gay people from raising children?

SA, this isn't a thread about whether or not there's a god. I don't want to hijack the thread.

Yesterday it was stated " There have been some preliminary studies and so far it shows no real difference, except that children of lesbian couples appear to do better in school"...based on the arguements in support of gay parents can I not logically say what I said in my previous post.

Why would someone knowingly want its child not to do better than others (being raised by natural (mixed) parents) if by offering them to gay parents it becomes possible.

I think the "no real difference" is the bigger statement there.

If you do not answer the questions I asked you then this means that what you say is only philosophy.

By the way do you like philosophy?

I think you already know that anyone who is ideologically in favor of same sex parenting, is also in favor of same sex marriage equality, and understands that sexual orientation is not a choice, but the way a child is born.

Gay parents don't produce gay kids. If they did, it would only logically follow that only gay parents can produce gay children, which would be rather surprising for families where only 1 of their children are gay. Did the gay kid come from a different parent?

Nope. I'm sure there are some aspects of daily life that may have skipped my notice. But for the most part all you have to look at is aboriginal tribes and other similar animal species, like chimps, to figure out how our society evolved.

If my child turns out to be gay I'll happily walk him down the aisle to marry the man of his dreams.

Humans are animals. We should follow the behaivour that allowed us to survive the last 100,000 years, not the last 1000.

If you know it's a hijack, then why are you hijacking?

Who says that gay parents are BETTER than straight parents? No one is saying one is better than the other, only that they can both be equally good.

Good gay parents are better than bad straight parents and vice versa.

If gay parents are considered better than mixed parents, as is being put forth by some, can we kill all the women tomorrow or atleast women who are supporting the idea and give away their kids (if they have) to gay parents or as a last bargain atleast give away their children to gay parents.

"imagine you are a child and you see parents happy with their children and you do not have parents to take care of you what will you say?"

I would say I want parents, I don't care if they're two men, two women, one man or one woman as long as they love me.

As long as my parents loved me, I wouldn't care if they were biological, adoptive, step-parents, or gay parents.

There are yet to be any studies that show that the children of gay parents do worse in their educational or psychological development. Some studies show that they do better.

I think it's time people stop being so bigoted and pretending to have concerns about children, while at the same time saying that they have no problems with other 'unnatural' ways of raising kids.

FFS Straight Arrow, this is not a philosophy class. This is a discussion on gay parenting. I like how no one has answered this question:

I've a question. In the thread I posted about the 4 children who've been taken from their mother because she neglected and abused them. One of whom has disabilities. What would the "enlightened" on this site prefer: that they be adopted all together by a loving, stable gay couple who are dedicated to them, or that they are split up and sent to different foster homes, and the disabled child to a home, with people who don't really care about them. What's better for them and society?

you will know, imagine you are a child and you see parents happy with their children and you do not have parents to take care of you what will you say?

I am speaking about ideal parents, because no ideal parents can spoil their children.

Miss Mimi has posted about homosexuality in birds and it was normal process in the post.

Just a question,

if you Miss Mimi assumed that we evolved then did evolving process happened with out a source?

Second question for you where did the source came from?

Third question did you see evolving process without a source? Or did you see evolving process with a source?

Fourth question what are the differences between creationism process and evolving process?

Who needs parents at all?

In nature there are plenty of animals that just lay their eggs in someone else's nest and then leave.

Their offspring end up being raised by an animal of a totally different species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite

I think we can all learn a lot from what nature has taught us about 'natural parenting'.

just watch national geo. ,homosexuality happens a lot (as miss mimi tryed to explain earlier) as a survival tool,.one parents ends up alone,. the others in the group step in to help out,.same sex or opposite sex most of the time same sex as this is not seen as taking away somebody else his or her partner within the group,.hence gayism,. is a normall thing for as long as living beings,. walk on this planet

Homosexuality has been documented in thousands of animal species Tahsinmim.

I'm comparing chimps, lions, bears and birds Tahsinmim, a spectrum of animals, since people are so keen on looking at "nature" for the answer.

Because that's how we've evolved. Most likely to allow genetic diversity.

Why it is meant to have two genders male and female?

if that comes with Gin,..i go for it.. ;)

over the long term,.i small community in wich everybody is supportive,.holds longer stand then a community in wich individual "couples" who care less what happends with their neighbours attidude (like what you see these days a lot).

I've a question. In the thread I posted about the 4 children who've been taken from their mother because she neglected and abused them. One of whom has disabilities. What would the "enlightened" on this site prefer: that they be adopted all together by a loving, stable gay couple who are dedicated to them, or that they are split up and sent to different foster homes, and the disabled child to a home, with people who don't really care about them. What's better for them and society?

Really deadman, that's how nature works? Which particular animal? Because chimps raise their young as a widespread societal group, lions have one male and multiple females with the females providing all the food, many animals don't have the males involved at all, like bears. And for many bird species it's not uncommon to see two males take over the raising of abandoned eggs.

By evolution human beings are societal creatures, designed to live in close knit groups. Once a baby was mobile (about 6 months) it would have been left in the care of the elderly, lame or lazy,and older children who were still too young to work the fields and hunt. "Marriages" would have been short or long lived partnerships, but would have been no way binding.

Don't confuse "nature" with the dictates of religion's that came about tens of thousands of years after human beings started walking around.

So ya, I guess I agree with you, no more going against nature! Let's throw away marriage, cities, social dictates and go back to living in small groups, shagging whom we please and raising our children as an extended unit.

@ Miss Mimi: Its good to explore new options, take new routes, do new things, change life styles but to what extent ...really??? Personally i am not against women being non-orthodox at times. I know so many women who are so successful and are yet different from traditional life styles.

But when it comes to parenting... the whole concept of being a parent pivots around a pair of living beings. A natural pair. Its the rule of the nature. One contributes towards the birth and other strives for the survival of the family. Look around... that is how nature works. I guess we as human beings can do unbelievable things such as genetic engineering, cloning, etc and simply try to be in control of the nature itself.. but the question is to which extent?

We have in the past tried to be super beings, but we simply cant go against the Laws of the nature.. Its a disaster in many cases!!!Parenting has to be the way it was planned by nature. We can try but it cannot be implemented in general.

Or man marrying lots of women

Man marrying woman or man marrying man?

Get back in the kitchen Mimi. There's dishes to wash and shirts to iron and floors to clean, woman!

yes, i saw "Quest for Fire" also .. great movie .. :O)

There was a time when it would have been considered insane and the height of laziness for a full grown, healthy, woman to stay home and raise children when she was needed to gather food. There would have been a time when children were raised by the village, not by the parents. There was a time when the idea of marriage was completely non-existent.

Ah yes...from gay parents to Christmas trees...lol

And he still don't get it...rofl.

well kerosene is normal jet-a1 but jets will run on diesel as well or preheated oil ;) as in offshore applications

techy06: There was a time when most people defined a family as a mother, a father, and their biological children.

But that's changed! Time to take the evolutionary step beyond the simians and the Simpsons!

it's like flying a jet on kerosene

And BTW Nearly all aspects of Christmas observance they have their roots in Roman custom and religion. per-dating the birth of Jesus Christ.

And yup the Bible openly,clearly and strongly, spoke against the custom.

check this out (Jeremiah 6:6)

Fubar : Truth of the matter is, we live in a world filled with customs, but few ever seek to understand their origin.

I thought maybe you were a Viking, Marco. Didn't the ancient worship of their God Balder's favorite evergreen tree by the Scandinavians lead to the tradition of decorating trees during winter?

Being a non-religious person doesn't mean cultural holidays and celebration should be missed out on. ya diggin it, tiger boi?

MN-01 has already said that he is not religious..

To each his own ..

Who cares what religions allow if you aren't religious?

I don't think there's anything wrong with gay parenting I mean as long as they are good parents, who cares about their living arrangements or who they choose to love?

I'm friends with people who adopted three children from and before the adoption poor kids had such a hard life struggling with on drugs parents who were neglectful and abusive. Next came separation and spent time moving around foster homes before they were reunited and placed under the care of this upper middle class gay couple.

And now the siblings now get to live together in a home where they are well provided and loved by a caring stable couple that just happen to be gay.

Now if this was to happen in a country where gay adoption was not allowed it is likely these kids would have gone their whole childhoods being shuffled from one foster home to another.

Seriously does it, I mean look if the child is safe and loved by the person or the people who are taking care of him or her, then it doesn't matter what is their belief, what their gender.

And in all honesty people who are saying that children make their own choices should happen, think carefully how irrational "most" children, example: my little cousin saw this cute kitten so forced her parents to take her, and she played with her only a bit and got bored her, I think the kitten only stayed for like 2 months, before her parents finally gave away the kitten. She didn't care for the kitten at all, and only saw her as a toy.

Also there is a reason why the army in America at least waits at least for you to be 18 before they tell you to join, because you are considered mature enough to make that choice, even then your still 100% mature enough to make decisions.

I answered you before: no, I'm not gay. Just sticking up for homosexuals against the ignorant twats of the world.

We haven't decided what real nature families are.

Do real nature families include:

Single parents, whether through divorce or death.

Step parents, whether through divorce or death.

Foster parents

Adoptive parents

Blended families - children from both the mother and the father from previous marriages/partnerships, including polygamy.

I think the discussions can be healthier if we can avoid seeking personal information, preferences etc. We must discuss the thought not the person. I can be anyone but for the sake of discussion I can see things and put forth a POV from a completely opposite perspective.

Just an observation.

it is some how shamefull to agreed this kind of parrents.

they just only abusing the gender and real nature families.

If you have a polygamous family of children, what mother's name would the children use at school? Does each child put down the name for all the different mothers, or just the mother of that child, plus the father?

Wouldn't that be very confusing for the school? And the kids? And what does each child call one another - brother, or half brother, or step brother?

So, tah, you feel 4 mothers 1 father is a better arrangement than either 2 mothers of 2 fathers?

I think it's relevant.

More than a few people have said that children do best in a house with "one mother and one father".

In a polygamous house, who does the child call mom?

Wouldn't it be confusing for your father to be married to a woman who isn't your mother?

Er...what's your point, Tah?

Thanks, Khanan. But the forces of ignorance are strong on QL.

^Let's say different...

with your mission of 'quashing ignorance'. :)

male gay couple as a parents. I find it weird. Read before calling names.

Tah, no, but I am a strong supporter of quashing ignorance.

I find people who contract AIDS 'unacceptable'. How dare they!

MM...no worries..:) Take care

Sorry happy, I read your statement wrong. Still a little jet lagged today.

Khanan, no. But anyone still upholding the 'gay is a choice' opinion is seriously behind the times. Talk to any gay person and they will tell you that being homosexual is not a privilege nor is it something they have willed upon themselves.

lol, you find homosexuality 'unacceptable'. Such a total neanderthal, you are.

Here are three children that were raised by wild animals :p

http://www.datelinezero.com/2011/12/12/modern-children-raised-by-wild-animals/

Where did I say I agree that children can be raised successfully without two parnets of both genders. I said I know none of the kids with either parent dead or even divorced meaning I know kids raised by two parents of both genders...WTH, whats wrong with me...:)

yes what about polyandrous parents?

What about polygamous parents?

CHANGE......

needs more description in which direction. Don't change the Rules of the nature.

Change is the constant journey to Growth...sounds good

...Fire staff, being disloyal, etc, etc, etc?

The real change required is in People's attitude and mindset.

Elton john and his partner are doing a great job..:)

remained a domestic animal until he met Jane :)

lol Victory..:)

If Tarzan can be raised by apes then why not single sex parents?

"And I know none with either parent dead or even divorced and all the kids did well, are very successful personally and professionally, are helping the society, are raising their kids good and are very happy as a family."

So why the emphasis on two parents of both gender if it's been proven that children can be raised successfully without it?

And I know none with either parent dead or even divorced and all the kids did well, are very successful personally and professionally, are helping the society, are raising their kids good and are very happy as a family.

There are those subtle feelings shared by the kid from both, the father and the mother, which mean a lot, when a child is raised by mixed parents. How can a child tell what it missed if it never even experienced that. May be Prof. Dawkins would consider it as child abuse too, where the child is deprived of the love and care of both the father and mother...:)

@Ryan...better participate and have your opinion rather than calling names. Hope you can talk more than just what brand of beer is available at QDC.

@ Khanan...thanks buddy...;)

She's 33 and has two children of her own who love their granddads.

What's common sense to the human race is to raise productive, caring people who contribute to the future of society. This can only be done by providing stable, loving childhoods for them. If two same sex parents can provide that, than they should be allowed to do so. It serves society better for the child to be raised with them rather than raised in a half way home, foster care system or with abusive parents.

anyone with different PoV than yours is a caveman ??

I am with Brit and HGL on this one. On personal level, I find it very strange and unaccepatble especially to male gay partner being parents. T0 me, mother love is irreplaceable.

One was his own, the mother left when she was still an infant, and the father ended up coming out of the closet and meeting the love of his life and he moved in with them when she was two. She's never seen or spoken to her mother since. One was adopted by his mothers.

MM, why do you bother? It's like having a discussion with a caveman.

I knew just as many people in high school with one dead parent as I did with gay parents. 2 each. So I guess it's about the same. And why should someone be forced to marry again?

All kids need is stability, love and guidance. You don't need two parents to get that, or different sex parents.

MM...out of multi billion world population how many such cases would be there where a child has one of its parents dead. Moreover what has the child got to do with it. Instead of giving away the children to adoption, guess the remaining parent can marry again. The probability of outcome would remain the same. And so an accident should not be used to justify an action. Point is, I would support a society being built on a normal natural process and not on aberrations, which can be accomodated but not become the very base of building it upon.

So people who loose a parent are unnatural and abnormal happygolucky? The remaining parent should be forced to what? give their children up for adoption so they can be raised in what you consider to be a better environment?

There have been some preliminary studies and so far it shows no real difference, except that children of lesbian couples appear to do better in school.

for backing me up,.find kind of left alone in this thread with my point of view ;)

To grow up with both mother and father by the side is a natural process. Anything else is accomodating an aberration to the natural or normal. I would say that the child be given the opportunity to be raised in a home with both of them.

It would be interesting to know how the child felt growing up with such parents and its behavior patterns. Any studies been conducted?

I know several children of same sex parents, and their all well rounded, caring, involved individuals. None of them are gay themselves and one is the lovely mother of two girls of her own who love their grandads very much.

As someone who's own parents fostered abandoned and abused children for well over a decade I can tell you I'd choose a loving gay couple to raise children over a half way home, foster parents or crap biological parents any day of the week.

Leaving science, religion, atheism out of it. On a personal level, i am not comfortable with it. However, society at large has deemed it acceptable, so be it.

Gay parenting could lead to parents throwing acid in their kids' faces or kids growing up to be gang rapers.

Oh wait a minute...

Straight Arrow : Don't even know what you on abt mate!

i think as long as the child is brought up well. i'm not against it

be obtained by a something which the believer very convinced other wise the belief will not be strong.

That is why a Belgian girl converted to Islam since 10 month and for 8 months she did not tell them, as she wants to read more and then she might announce it to them.

And there was an amazing Irish student in Cana Blue eyes and yellow hair and he was teaching some Pakistani the classical Arabic and I was so happy because the Paskistani people did not say anything and they were learning happily abd this way is considered civilized, ok they might have looked for another guy who is Arabi, but I guess they decided not go because these Pakistani and Iresh guy were in the same college.

This is just wrong, against god & nature.

Go be gay somewhere else.

tahsnimim you mean the source for the above comment? wikipedia :)

tahsnimim, lets just say I know more than you think, But I also look from every angle, not just from one side. Blind belief without conviction is a very dangerous thing!

not one but tree kids ;)

and part of a straight couple :)

not in favour,.well i have nothing against it,.if one of my childs turned out to be gay/lesbian so be it,.will not love or care for them less,.more less will be suportive in their own choise.

the kids raised by gay couples i mean.

not all of them are adopted,. normally one of the parents is the biological mom/dad.

i also know couples in wich the "interchanged" being male/male and female/female couples and have both a child wish, and in one case i know the childs know as well,.that their bio daddy or mommy is part from the other couple.

i dont say its correct or incorrect just that it happens,.and the childs are cool with it

But can you tell us why? I know they only go for a period of time and not for their whole life.

Long time ago in Arabia people used to send their young children away in the early years to be raised by non-biological carers!

how do you want people to respond correctly if you are not clear?

Please define what you been by gay parenting?

Is saying truth bushing?

Love have never been a conspiracy, Love = purity, if love is used for conspiracy then it is not love it is a hypocrite.

There is always a logic, for example the man who benifits humanity can not be described as a criminal.

Another example is the fair judge will always be bad in the eye of criminals.

Why I like to give examples?

Because examples helps to convey the message and let others understand it.

The love provided to the child can be positive or negative, a right love will not spoil the child where as a wrong love will spoil the child as simple as that, and this makes it important to look at the way love is provided.

The word irrelevant is applicable in some cases and in some cases no.

Straight Arrow: You're just beating around the bush.

I want to hear MN-01 what is your definition for gay parenting?

Does this mean when some one is sitting with his brother and they are teaching one of their sons togather as it is in the picture posted is gay parenting?

Supose that the mother and the father had an accident and they died while the kid at school for example, then the brother of the father decided to take the kid and raise in the house where there are only brothers for example and the family of the mother agreed, is there something wrong with this?

i do agree,.on your explanation of logic,.but this refers to gay couples as well

the are in the relationship because of commom interest and objectives

but before this there is right logic and there is wrong logic, simply the right logic will bring you to the results you want and the wrong logic will not bring you to the results you want.

The logic of the relation between man and woman in my opinion is that they share commen objectives and goals and one othese goals is to have a partner to share the beauty and ugly in this life, another goal is to have a family,a patner who support the other part to stand and move forward.

There is an arabic saying:

"Take the wisdom from the mouth of carzy people"

This means that some crazy people might give you an idea which can briliant.

i know and i do respect your opinion as well,..

you know what is best,.(atleast for your self)

but do you know kids raised in gay family's ??

and how did the turn out?

dont judge "something" if you dont know how it works,. please read into the subject first

its not out of topic ,..it is the topic from this tread ;)

i dont know if there is any logic behind gayism but is there any logic behind any relationship?

most of them are based on feelings and emotion (either by the parents or couple it self),..wich is not logic after all,.

I think governments should stop adopting kids to childless families too.

Since the orphan kids aren't biologically related to their adoptive parents, the child will not be loved.

Thanks Tahs,Thanks fubar

@cracydutch-it's my own opinion and I sure have my own reasons,which I think is best, not discussed in public.Afterall,u are free to follow yours.......and I mine...lols....

it will not work because nothing can replace the feelings of mother and the attraction bond between the mother and her son or daughter.

In nature when man is married to a man (applicable for gays) can one of them (both me organs are standard male organs with no defects) become pragnant without medical interpetation? Same question for women married to a woman, can two women having a relation make one of them pragnant without a man in their relation?

Also same sex parenting will cause the poor child to neglet the other sex, so in my opinion when the son grows there will be big possibility (Not 100 %) he will become a gay and the daughter might become Lesibian.

In my opinion any thing against nature will not work.

Can it rain without clouds? i.e. have you ever seen a clear blue sky raining?

there you say it yourself ROLE MODELS but what if a mixed gender parenting couple doesnt qualify as role model,.and a gay couple does (men or female) what comes first?

1,.well thaugt/raised

2,.educated well

3,.with love and care

if a gay couple can provide this ,the qualify in my eyes as a good paranting couple,.and as mentioned before,.kids out of gay homes,. turn out well,.i know many

I agree Silvermist. Children need two parents of both sexes.

That's why governments must take children away from single parent families.

Personally,I don't support the idea in the least!There are plenty of reasons for the same.What I believe is that,to grow up to be a well-balanced adult, children need the role models of both sexes!

Honestly there are some families who are not the same sex, and they are horrible parents, heck you can't even call them parents.

I believe as long as the two people care for the child, and love the child they qualify in my book as good parents.

cracydutch : Oh my bad but Yeah, I definitely mean the former...

What a child needs is a loving, safe and secure home. Now how that’s being provided is just irrelevant.

It's actually ironic that so many folks object to same-gender adoption of unwanted children but don't seem to have the slightest problem about the thousands of children living in highly abusive “Normal” Hetro families.

As for the” coz God hates it! “part,

well I just believe that, God has been taken in vain by people to make it appear religion hates same-gender homes.

you ask to different questions,..

1.gay parenting

2.same gender household

most times the are connected but not always.

and yes i know kids from family's your asking about and the are NOT gay and are adults with a career and have there "things" setteled.

so being raised in a gay household doesnt make you gay,.your born gay,.not made one (my opinion)

Are you you Gay? or Lesbian? just asking.

i still disagree same gender parenting. maybe i need more time...

anyway, in a couple of decades these offsprings will show if it is good, bad or normal. many countries are taking the steps to live the experiment; wait and see.

Landlover, what if it's 2 lesbians, and 1 is the biological mother, is that okay?

And what if you have a mother whose husband dies, and she remarries, so the father isn't biologically related to the child, will he be the same as lesbian parent, since he's not related to the child?

I can't see any real difference between the arguments against gay parents, and single parents.

kids raised by same gender loving parents are better off then with a mixed couple who live in hatetreat,.

also same gender parents are not always gay,.as in the share a household raise there kids,.but are not sexual involved in the relationship.

so i agree

Real parents love is selfless and natural for their Children. Single parent is better than same gender :)

dawood khan said I also dont agree with these ...

I also dont agree with these kind of parenting and the way kids grow in these relationship wud have a bad childhood mentally as well as physically

_____ hmmm like? could you elaborate?

I'm not in favor with this type of child parenting. There's nothing exceptional than the love that the father and mother can give to their childrens. The love that is legally admitted by the eyes of God and in the eyes of people. Cheers.

fubar : Surely its better to have two attentive parents, than one or none.

I also dont agree with these kind of parenting and the way kids grow in these relationship wud have a bad childhood mentally as well as physically

Fubar a single parent is much better than the gay parents as its the blood relation which makes parents love & care their kids that is why we call a mother's love is priceless.

Personally I’m Between Two Opinions

1- FOR

1. It’s alternatives to the typical kind of family

2. It offers gay/lesbian couples the chance to show they can be very good parents - or perhaps even better than the traditional family set-up.

AGAINST

1. It could lead the adopted child to badly being bullied at school should other children find out about his/her adopting parents

2. Society will disapprove because we are biased against things we are unfamiliar with, like gay/lesbian lifestyle and for some very odd reason.

And why so? Some do it because of their religious beliefs that it is wrong, some think it is bad for the child, etc.

while some are just plain haters, and Some think that children should have a choice as to the sexual orientation of their foster parents and that it is wrong to impose things on them at such an early age

Agree victory.. A mother with Father makes it perfect. Others can bring up the child but lacks one and its contributions. period.

It's the same with single parents.

A single parent can't reproduce, you need two people of different genders.

A single parent can't be a mother AND a father, so the child is missing out, or getting confused because the mother can't be a father, and a father can't also be a mother.

Unnatural living style, passing wrong informations to the next generation. this will create more chaos and confusions.

It would definitely be not same as natural parents as they cant produce their own blood. I dont know how they can have kid...its possible only by adoption or renting a girl ( but definitely they cant as they are gayyyyy) or by sperm banks or wteva. One of them will act as mom which IMPOV is difficult and will constantly keep the kid in confusion.

I don't agree with it personally, it must be difficult for the kid to be raised in such an enviroment and if they are straight it will leave them confused.

Personally, I don't think there better or worse....I don't believe the parent's sexual orientation has anything to do with capability to raise a child....I think they r parents just like any other parents....some r good and some r bad and sexuality has nothing to do with it.