Tweet
If I may pick your gray matter for a bit?
I have heard on a number of occasions, that gays should never raise children. And by gays, I mean a lesbian couple, bisexual couple or a gay couple. My question is, why not?
They do not teach homosexual behaviour, at least not the vast majority of them. So the argument that they will "breed more gays" flies out the window.
I have heard the argument that they will raise the children to be disruptive, strange or unnatural (sorry, language barrier; čudni). But other than the statistical summary that they do indeed seek out slightly less traditional roles, roles more suited to them than society expects, I cannot find any data stating that they are a problem. Which, in my mind, is a good thing. I wish we had more female soldiers, and more male nurses.
However, the main point is, how would you enforce this? Even if gay marriage wasn't as accepted as it is today (and there is plenty of room for improvement), how would you enforce it? Say you have a (closeted bisexual) mother, whose husband died in a warzone. So she has to raise a child by herself. Would you object to this? And what if the same mother starts hanging out with a female friend. No kissing, no hugging, just friends. And that friend spends a LOT of time at the house. Is this a problem? What if that same friend and the mother start hugging? No kissing, but definate affection can be seen. Would this be a problem? What if we substitute the mother for a father?
And what happens if there is a triangle, where one member is bisexual? Say the mother is bisexual, and the couple has one of her VERY good friends live with them. All three of them raise the child(ren) to the best of their abilities. Would this be a problem? If yes, what about a couple where a sibling of one of the parents lives with them (the mothers sister). Or just a good friend, no sexual context whatsoever? Of course this is rare, but the question remains.
If there is no objection to any of this, then why can gays not adopt children? They would probably make up for a significant amount of adopting parents, considering the trouble to create a child themselves.
Where is the limit, the border?
I don't think there should be a problem. The father and mother roles are called roles for a reason. A man is just as capable of being loving, tender, nurturing as a woman is (though slightly less likely, I imagine). And a woman is just as capable of being gruff, strict or inspirational as a man is. Plus to that, I believe that society raises children almost as much as parents do. So what is the problem of having that society closer to home, by actually being in the home (in the case of a triangle)?
In essence, what is the problem with gays, gay unions and most importantly, them raising children? And why are gays, as compared to lesbians, in such a bad light?
I have heard on a number of occasions, that gays should never raise children. And by gays, I mean a lesbian couple, bisexual couple or a gay couple. My question is, why not?
They do not teach homosexual behaviour, at least not the vast majority of them. So the argument that they will "breed more gays" flies out the window.
I have heard the argument that they will raise the children to be disruptive, strange or unnatural (sorry, language barrier; čudni). But other than the statistical summary that they do indeed seek out slightly less traditional roles, roles more suited to them than society expects, I cannot find any data stating that they are a problem. Which, in my mind, is a good thing. I wish we had more female soldiers, and more male nurses.
However, the main point is, how would you enforce this? Even if gay marriage wasn't as accepted as it is today (and there is plenty of room for improvement), how would you enforce it? Say you have a (closeted bisexual) mother, whose husband died in a warzone. So she has to raise a child by herself. Would you object to this? And what if the same mother starts hanging out with a female friend. No kissing, no hugging, just friends. And that friend spends a LOT of time at the house. Is this a problem? What if that same friend and the mother start hugging? No kissing, but definate affection can be seen. Would this be a problem? What if we substitute the mother for a father?
And what happens if there is a triangle, where one member is bisexual? Say the mother is bisexual, and the couple has one of her VERY good friends live with them. All three of them raise the child(ren) to the best of their abilities. Would this be a problem? If yes, what about a couple where a sibling of one of the parents lives with them (the mothers sister). Or just a good friend, no sexual context whatsoever? Of course this is rare, but the question remains.
If there is no objection to any of this, then why can gays not adopt children? They would probably make up for a significant amount of adopting parents, considering the trouble to create a child themselves.
Where is the limit, the border?
I don't think there should be a problem. The father and mother roles are called roles for a reason. A man is just as capable of being loving, tender, nurturing as a woman is (though slightly less likely, I imagine). And a woman is just as capable of being gruff, strict or inspirational as a man is. Plus to that, I believe that society raises children almost as much as parents do. So what is the problem of having that society closer to home, by actually being in the home (in the case of a triangle)?
In essence, what is the problem with gays, gay unions and most importantly, them raising children? And why are gays, as compared to lesbians, in such a bad light?
I was just pointing out the common arguments from the opposing point of view. And I see where you're going with it too.
Comment