How sad.

[Stinger]

It's just that you never really read what is written, you jump to conclusions.

YOU stated you conclusion not me.

I don't think mothers and fathers are not important

Which is more important? Which one can a child do without?

but I do think what is most important is a stable, loving home -regardless of who is the "parent" or "parents".

DUH and all gay couple-parents are stable and loving as opposed to hetero which aren't?

And yes I do support gay marriage and gay couples having children, very much so. In fact I can't wait for my gay cousin to adopt because he is such a great guy and I know he would be a fantastic father.

So mothers aren't important?

 

[jallman]

Chicago Sun-Times via:

Article | The Incredible Shrinking Father

Okay, well first thing I see that gives me pause to wonder is the sub-headline:

"Sperm banks are aiding and abetting a radical agenda: the dad-free family"

I find that to be a bit hysterical. Sperm banks are doing their job which is to provide donated sperm to recipients. Now don't get me wrong; in the situation referenced by the OP, I see a serious problem with the refusal of paternal rights for the donor especially considering there was no contract.

However, in the case of a contracted donation, the male is basically being paid for his sperm and not for his attachment to the "family". It is, basically, a business transaction from his end.

I have the feeling that this should only be done in the cases of infertile couples or stable gay couples and the requirements should be similar to adoption. However, because his involvement is no more than provision of a bodily fluid, he has no more rights to the outcome than a blood donor has to the life of the recipient.

That's from a purely legal standpoint, of course. You may inject whatever emotional hyperbole you wish from here.

 

[Stinger]

What a bunch of rot. Did you go to the Chris Matthews school of loading a question? Why are the hetero parents abusive in this scenario? The added element of abuse changes everything. The more loving caring adults a child has supporting them the better off they are. End of story. So the MAIN point is that no one lesbian, gay, or hetero should put up road blocks keeping a loving biological parent away from a child unless there is a damn good reason and that adult is somehow neglectful or abusive. PERIOD.

It is their only defense which is what was automatically jumped to to justify what happened in court and then the gay thing that was thrown in. And it is so absurd. You ask, aren't daddies important to little girls? And the automatic response is "well not if he is abusive" so they don't have to admit that fathers play very important roles in the lives of children just as mothers do and each is unique in that role.

And then their core issue, gay adoption comes out. If it is admitted that the child is the one who suffers when a mother or father is denied then there goes gay adoption. So the automatic response about abuse hetero parents as if homo parents are NEVER abusive. Just read the other response I have gotten. I wasn't even going there with the thread, this was about an absurd court decision.

 

[americanwoman]

YOU stated you conclusion not me.



Which is more important? Which one can a child do without?

who knows, every case is different.

DUH and all gay couple-parents are stable and loving as opposed to hetero which aren't?

AH! did I say that?!? I said any home that is stable and loving is best for a child. that does include hetero's you know.

So mothers aren't important?

sure. But that doesn't mean a gay -male- couple couldn't adopt.
Didn't you ever watch Full House? My two dads? Even though they were only tv shows, don't you think that could happen in real life? A couple of guys raising some kids right could really happen :shock:
So then when a wife/husband dies, the widow/er has to go out right away and remarry so their children would have a mother/father influence?

 

[Stinger]

Okay, well first thing I see that gives me pause to wonder is the sub-headline:

"Sperm banks are aiding and abetting a radical agenda: the dad-free family"

I find that to be a bit hysterical.

What is hysterical about it, I find it quite sad for the children.

Sperm banks are doing their job which is to provide donated sperm to recipients.

Some of whom are women, who refuse to find a male to marry and be the father of their children, who put their own interest and desires ahead of the children they create.

Now don't get me wrong; in the situation referenced by the OP, I see a serious problem with the refusal of paternal rights for the donor especially considering there was no contract.

You believe he should be able to contract his way out? When does the child get a say?

However, in the case of a contracted donation, the male is basically being paid for his sperm and not for his attachment to the "family". It is, basically, a business transaction from his end.

How sad, creating a child is just a business transaction now.

I have the feeling that this should only be done in the cases of infertile couples or stable gay couples and the requirements should be similar to adoption. However, because his involvement is no more than provision of a bodily fluid, he has no more rights to the outcome than a blood donor has to the life of the recipient.

Oh it's about his rights, never mind the child that is created, the new human life that will never have a father.

That's from a purely legal standpoint, of course. You may inject whatever emotional hyperbole you wish from here.

yeah just hyperbole

As I said in the beginning, how sad where we have come to.

 

[jallman]

Just read the other response I have gotten. I wasn't even going there with the thread, this was about an absurd court decision.

But you had to know that this was going to happen, what with the whole gay adoption thing being such a hot topic.

 

[talloulou]

Okay, well first thing I see that gives me pause to wonder is the sub-headline:

"Sperm banks are aiding and abetting a radical agenda: the dad-free family"

I find that to be a bit hysterical. Sperm banks are doing their job which is to provide donated sperm to recipients. Now don't get me wrong; in the situation referenced by the OP, I see a serious problem with the refusal of paternal rights for the donor especially considering there was no contract.

However, in the case of a contracted donation, the male is basically being paid for his sperm and not for his attachment to the "family". It is, basically, a business transaction from his end.

I have the feeling that this should only be done in the cases of infertile couples or stable gay couples and the requirements should be similar to adoption. However, because his involvement is no more than provision of a bodily fluid, he has no more rights to the outcome than a blood donor has to the life of the recipient.

That's from a purely legal standpoint, of course. You may inject whatever emotional hyperbole you wish from here.

From all the stories I've read it seems to be there is no question when the sperm donation is done through a business. However when it's "friends" making verbal agreements and what not all bets are off. Personally I'd agree somewhat with Stinger and argue that selling sperm is sort of a crappy business to begin with. The very idea that someone would trade their future offspring for a few bucks is beyond ridiculous. I'd also agree that it's somewhat wrong for couples to produce children with "friends" and have an expectation that said friend will have zero say in the child's life. Unfortunately children have become property and they get treated as such. It's all very sad. If I were part of a lesbian couple who wanted to create a child I would go out and find a father to father my child vs. looking for sperm. And if I was a gay man I'd only hand off my sperm to a woman who would allow me to father my child. If a child has a biological mother and father I see no reason to pretend they don't. Obviously I'm sure it would be easier for the lesbian couple or gay couple to parent the child without interference from a "third" parent but you know parenting children is never easy and I don't think it's suppose to be. And doing what is easy rarely is the same as doing what is best.

 

[disneydude]

What a bunch of rot. Did you go to the Chris Matthews school of loading a question? Why are the hetero parents abusive in this scenario? The added element of abuse changes everything. The more loving caring adults a child has supporting them the better off they are. End of story. So the MAIN point is that no one lesbian, gay, or hetero should put up road blocks keeping a loving biological parent away from a child unless there is a damn good reason and that adult is somehow neglectful or abusive. PERIOD.

The point of the question is this:

Of course, given the option, most people will say that ideally the child should be raised in a loving two parent heterosexual family with two loving and caring parents.

But that is not the issue here. The issue here is in Stinger and his ilk saying that THAT is the ONLY way a child should be raised. They discount the possibility that a single parent or gay parent can be a very good parent to the child and label them as selfish.

That is the reason for the question. Assuming that the child is not raised in a loving/nuturing two parent heterosexual family, what is the best situation for a child to be raised. Are two parents better than 1 simply because there are two (even if the home is abusive), is a 1 parent heterosexual home better than a two parent gay household? Is a loving two-parent gay household preferable to an abusive two parent heterosexual household?

Do you understand where I am going with this?

 

[disneydude]

So the MAIN point is that no one lesbian, gay, or hetero should put up road blocks keeping a loving biological parent away from a child unless there is a damn good reason and that adult is somehow neglectful or abusive. PERIOD.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here talloulou....but I think that we can still debate the other issues which I think are seperate from this premise....

 

[Stinger]

who knows, every case is different.

In general, which is not important a mother or a father, you had no problem speak in sweeping general terms in the beginning.

AH! did I say that?!? I said any home that is stable and loving is best for a child. that does include hetero's you know.

But better than one that is stable with a loving mother and father?

sure. But that doesn't mean a gay -male- couple couldn't adopt.

So little girls don't really need mommies?

Didn't you ever watch Full House? My two dads?

Ahhhh a TV sitcom proves it!!!! Those shows were also based on a tragedy weren't they. Were the children purposely created without a mother? Where the fathers trying to find a mother for the children?

Even though they were only tv shows, don't you think that could happen in real life?

And when a little boy loses his father we say it is sad he will not have a father to raise him don't we?

A couple of guys raising some kids right could really happen :shock:

So mothers aren't necessary?

So then when a wife/husband dies, the widow/er has to go out right away and remarry so their children would have a mother/father influence?

It is certainly in the interest of the children that she find a father for them, like my wife did with me and my two step-children whom I raised. Try telling them that having me as a father made no difference.

 

[jallman]

What is hysterical about it, I find it quite sad for the children.

Let's just say I think the hysterical hyperbole approach to bringing social issues to light can never have a positive end.

Some of whom are women, who refuse to find a male to marry and be the father of their children, who put their own interest and desires ahead of the children they create.

I didn't disagree with you here...

You believe he should be able to contract his way out? When does the child get a say?

No, go back and READ what I wrote instead of giving me some knee-jerk emotional response. I said that since there was no contract he should be able to exert his parental rights. :doh

How sad, creating a child is just a business transaction now.

False. I never said any such thing. I said that sperm donation was a business transaction.

Oh it's about his rights, never mind the child that is created, the new human life that will never have a father.

Did you bother to read or did you just have trouble comprehending the implications that I assumed you would get? Look at the examples I gave of who should be able to make use of AI...and then get back to me after you have calmed down a bit.

yeah just hyperbole

Well read back through this response and tell me why I expected emotional hyperbole...:rofl

 

[talloulou]

If it is admitted that the child is the one who suffers when a mother or father is denied then there goes gay adoption.

Well since there are not enough hetero couples around to adopt all the children out there I don't see how you can possibly reach this conclusion. I'm all for gay and lesbian adoption. A loving stable home is much better than being shipped all around to different foster homes. I would appreciate lesbian and gay adoptive parents making sure that their adopted child has both a "mother" and "father" type adult around supporting the child and with family and friends I don't think that would be too hard to do.

 

[Stinger]

The point of the question is this:

Of course, given the option, most people will say that ideally the child should be raised in a loving two parent heterosexual family with two loving and caring parents.

Why is it better? The opinion that is being thrown at me is that fathers don't matter, in fact mothers don't matter. Only adults matter.

But that is not the issue here. The issue here is in Stinger and his ilk saying that THAT is the ONLY way a child should be raised.

The best way and denying a child a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest.

They discount the possibility that a single parent or gay parent can be a very good parent to the child and label them as selfish.

So what if they are a good parent, a father and a mother being purposely denied to a child is not in the child's best interest and should not be done just to satisfy the wants and desire of the adult.

That is the reason for the question. Assuming that the child is not raised in a loving/nuturing two parent heterosexual family, what is the best situation for a child to be raised.

What if we just stipulate that no adults should ever be abusive to children and be done with it.

Now how do you justify a woman purposely impregnating herself with no intention of making sure her child has a father? How is that in the best interest of the child?

Are two parents better than 1

Is a mother and father better than just two adults? Does a good mother purposely deny her child a father solely to satisfy her own desire to be a mother?

 

[disneydude]

From all the stories I've read it seems to be there is no question when the sperm donation is done through a business. However when it's "friends" making verbal agreements and what not all bets are off. Personally I'd agree somewhat with Stinger and argue that selling sperm is sort of a crappy business to begin with. The very idea that someone would trade their future offspring for a few bucks is beyond ridiculous. I'd also agree that it's somewhat wrong for couples to produce children with "friends" and have an expectation that said friend will have zero say in the child's life. Unfortunately children have become property and they get treated as such. It's all very sad. If I were part of a lesbian couple who wanted to create a child I would go out and find a father to father my child vs. looking for sperm. And if I was a gay man I'd only hand off my sperm to a woman who would allow me to father my child. If a child has a biological mother and father I see no reason to pretend they don't. Obviously I'm sure it would be easier for the lesbian couple or gay couple to parent the child without interference from a "third" parent but you know parenting children is never easy and I don't think it's suppose to be. And doing what is easy rarely is the same as doing what is best.

Thank you - excellent post.

In my experience, friends I know that are single mothers, fathers, and gay couples ALL try to raise the child in an environment surrounded by positive role models. A gay couple I know had a baby girl about a year ago. Although the mother of the child does not live with them, she does take an active role with the child...and the child is day-cared by one of the guys sister (who is a stay at home mom with her two children).
Another gay couple I know have adopted 5 children from LA County, all of which were born addicted to crack cocaine. Stinger would call them "selfish" - I call them incredible for being willing to take on a role that most of us would never consider.

 

[talloulou]

That is the reason for the question. Assuming that the child is not raised in a loving/nuturing two parent heterosexual family, what is the best situation for a child to be raised. Are two parents better than 1 simply because there are two (even if the home is abusive), is a 1 parent heterosexual home better than a two parent gay household? Is a loving two-parent gay household preferable to an abusive two parent heterosexual household?

Do you understand where I am going with this?

Any child abandoned by their biological parents will feel that abandonment in some way. How well that "feeling" is dealt with depends on who is around supporting that child. Two lesbians can make two great mom type figures. However they can't equal a dad type figure. Dads and Moms are super important. When the biological ones aren't around the child will benefit greatly from other non-biological father or mother type figures. Some other adult who will step up and be dad or mom. So if two lesbians create a child and think a dad figure is unnecessary I think they are doing their child a disservice. It would be highly beneficial to their child if they went out and found someone to take over the "father" role. As long as the "father figure" is comitted to being dad it probably matters little if he is an uncle, a friend, ect.... What does matter is that he views himself as that child's FATHER regardless of what is happening amoungst the adults. Likewise with the mother figure.

If I found myself a single mother and my childrens father abandoned them I'd quickly move closer to my brothers so they could step in and take over the role. The problem is when people start claiming that either the father or mother role is not important.

 

[disneydude]

Why is it better? The opinion that is being thrown at me is that fathers don't matter, in fact mothers don't matter. Only adults matter.



The best way and denying a child a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest.


So what if they are a good parent, a father and a mother being purposely denied to a child is not in the child's best interest and should not be done just to satisfy the wants and desire of the adult.



What if we just stipulate that no adults should ever be abusive to children and be done with it.

Now how do you justify a woman purposely impregnating herself with no intention of making sure her child has a father? How is that in the best interest of the child?



Is a mother and father better than just two adults? Does a good mother purposely deny her child a father solely to satisfy her own desire to be a mother?

I see that once again you dodge the issue - and in another thread you will claim that you ALWAYS answer the questions posed to you.......which leaves the question: Are you even capable of answering a direct question?

 

[Stinger]

Well since there are not enough hetero couples around to adopt all the children out there I don't see how you can possibly reach this conclusion.

Facts not in evidence, there are hetero couples struggling to adopt.

I'm all for gay and lesbian adoption.

As a last resort. but we aren't really talking adoption here, we are talking creating children and purposely denying them a mother or a father.

A loving stable home is much better than being shipped all around to different foster homes.

Why is the "stable home" thing even an issue here?

Can we all just agree we don't want kids in non-stable homes which are a very small minority of homes to begin with. That adults shouldn't create non-stable homes to begin with and that it is sad when they do and the children suffer when they do, but that it is no more prevelent in heterosexual households than homosexual households.

I would appreciate lesbian and gay adoptive parents making sure that their adopted child has both a "mother" and "father" type

Mother and father "types" don't substitute for the real thing.

 

[disneydude]

The problem is when people start claiming that either the father or mother role is not important.

I agree...I think having a mother and a father is ideal and is important. However, the absence of having a mother or father figure while it may not be the most "perfect" situation does not mean that other situations cannot also be a good environment to raise a child, no more than the mere precense of two heterosexual parents guarantees an ideal environment.

 

[Stinger]

I see that once again you dodge the issue - and in another thread you will claim that you ALWAYS answer the questions posed to you.......which leaves the question: Are you even capable of answering a direct question?

I can only type so fast. I assume you are talking about the false scenario you presented"

OK....well lets see if that is not where your logic holds:

Answer this question, Stinger:

Given the option:

1. Single woman chooses to become pregnant and have a child

2. Two gay men have a child with a female friend who is not involved in the child's life.

3. Child is raised in an abusive two parent heterosexual home.


Given these three options, which do you think is best for the child?
(And don't give us, the "none of the above" cop-out - Have a spine and show us where your logic takes you)

Let's make the choices fair how about it:

1. Single woman chooses to become pregnant and have a child

2. Two gay men have a child with a female friend who is not involved in the child's life.

3. Child is raised in an two parent heterosexual home.



3.

What do you say.

or

1. Single abusive woman chooses to become pregnant and have a child

2. Two abusive gay men have a child with a female friend who is not involved in the child's life.

3. Child is raised in an abusive two parent heterosexual home.

What do you say?

The fact that you can ONLY maintain your position when you paint it as abusive heterosexuals against perfect homesexuals is a clear sign of how absurd it is.

 

[disneydude]

So I take it, the answer to my last question is No.

 

[jallman]

The fact that you can ONLY maintain your position when you paint it as abusive heterosexuals against perfect homesexuals is a clear sign of how absurd it is.

Well if that isn't dishonest tripe...if you are promoting the idea that homosexuals cannot raise children as well as heterosexuals, then we are about to have a conflict.

You would love to think that disneydude's shortcomings in presenting his argument lend your argument legitimacy. You'd like to think that but the rest of us know better.

What exactly is your position, all rhetoric aside and let's start from there...

 

[talloulou]

Facts not in evidence, there are hetero couples struggling to adopt.

Babies sure. But older kids are widely available and there are tons of them waiting to be adopted.

As a last resort. but we aren't really talking adoption here, we are talking creating children and purposely denying them a mother or a father.

Right and as I've said I don't like that either.

Why is the "stable home" thing even an issue here?

Can we all just agree we don't want kids in non-stable homes which are a very small minority of homes to begin with. That adults shouldn't create non-stable homes to begin with and that it is sad when they do and the children suffer when they do, but that it is no more prevelent in heterosexual households than homosexual households.

Stable homes is important when it comes to the adoption issue because tons of kids are being shipped from foster home to foster home and some states are not allowing these kids to be adopted by homosexual couples where they would have a stable home. Once IDEAL is clearly not happening then you look for the next ideal situation. I'd rather see my kids in a loving homosexual home than stuck in a foster care system where they change homes a couple times a year.

Mother and father "types" don't substitute for the real thing.

I think you're 100% right which is why I would never abandon a child. However for a child that has been abandoned or even just suffered the loss of a parent through death another parent type figure stepping in as a replacement can make a world of difference in that childs life. And if a lesbian couple raises a child and insists a man isn't necessary in that childs upbringing I think they're missing the point entirely. It's not about what is necessary so much as it is about what is beneficial.

 

[disneydude]

I The fact that you can ONLY maintain your position when you paint it as abusive heterosexuals against perfect homesexuals is a clear sign of how absurd it is.

You completely missed the point.

Let me break it down for you. It is clearly obvious to anyone following here that you believe the only good enviroment for a child is in a two person loving nuturing heterosexual family.....fine.....ok....you still with me here......

Now.....assuming that a child is born into an environment that DOES NOT meet that criteria, which is the lesser of all these evils:

1. A single parent heterosexual
2. A two parent homosexual couple
3. An abusing two parent heteosexual family


Does that make it a little easier for you Stinger? Lets see if you are capable of actually answer the question this time.

 

[disneydude]

Facts not in evidence, there are hetero couples struggling to adopt.

In the words of your esteemed colleague - Navy Pride: "White people would love to adopt white children".....

Facts in evidence....there are a lot of children of color including babies that are available for adoption.

 

[disneydude]

Once IDEAL is clearly not happening then you look for the next ideal situation. .

Thus....the premise of the question that I have posed to Stinger....which incidentally.....we are still waiting for an answer to.