For Those Without Kids...

[skcin]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

I've never had the desire to have children. I'm almost 29. Maybe when I hit my 30's, isn't that when the clock really starts ticking? Not a clue. Anyways, I don't have a maternal bone in my body.

Of course, falling in love could spur something, but no clue, I've never been in love.

Well, I'm in love, have been for the last 10 years & I still have no desire to have a kid. My best friend had a baby a year ago & I love her to pieces, but still - nothing.

As far as the selfishness goes, I agree to a point. I have friends that had the urge to get pregnant & have a baby. Period. OK, what about the rest? You wanted a baby sooooooo badly. Did you want to raise a child into a responsible adult? Lots of people don't think about that. Lots of people want to have kids cuz they think they're supposed to, not cuz they want to raise a child. Kind of like the people who want the perfect wedding but after it's over - OMG, now we have to work on a marriage?

I know a girl who is separated from her husband (mainly cuz he doesn't want kids & she does. Apparently she couldn't change his mind after 12 years Dumbass.) Anyway, she's not even divorced yet, living with her parents, no money - she meets some guy in a club, they date for about 2 months & she's pregnant. WTF is wrong with you? OH, and he's not an American citizen. She is literally the stupidest person I've ever known. She said she had to have a baby now since she's getting older (she's 35.)

I know there are many people who are in love & want to have children with their partner & raise a family for the next 20 years (hi Theresa! ) And that's fine. But if I were to have a baby right now, it would be for all the wrong reasons - the ones I've been given by other people who don't know how to mind their own f*cking business: My eggs are drying up, I don't want to be an old mom, my mom's getting older I should give her a grandchild so she can see it gorw up, I should want to have a baby by now, my friends' kids need playmates, etc, etc, etc. Not going to happen.

[WelshWitchPMD]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

I remember I declined to go to one of my cousin's baby showers and my aunt calls to ask if I'm going. I say "No." and she goes "Well, when you have a baby, we won't come to your shower."

Eww Baby Showers! I stay as far away from them as possible. It seems that someone from my company is always having a baby and that there is always a baby shower someplace.

I think that I have gone to 2 of them in my tens years there.

I have to laugh at some of my co-workers, too. We just found out that one of the ladies at work is pregnant and another lady said to me " Well, that is nice you know she is getting up there in age".
I replyed "hey she is 5 years younger then me". Then I just walked away.

People say the strangest things when it comes to pregnacies and babies. Sorry, I am almost 40 and I really don't want to sit at someone's baby shower and act like I am so happy for them when I am NOT! I don't mean to sound cruel but half these people I don't even know. It's the samething with wedding showers. No thanks!

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

There are no absolute guarantees in life, Sparky.
If we spent our entire lives basing decisions on a guaranteed result, we'd never do anything.

Of course there aren't. There is common sense, however, and knowledge. It behooves us to take educated risks rather than flying by the seat of our pants on faith alone.

But I couldn't disagree with you more on the notion that the only situation in which the responsibility of raising a child should be taken on, is if it's by two opposite gender parents.

I don't believe that's the only situation. I've never said that. My point is that I think two same sex people who make a child, by hook or by crook or by whatever, are setting a kid up for some grief and to an extent, stacking the deck against the kid. Adoption ? Single ? Widowed ?
**** happens.
Those are reaction situations. Making a new kid is CREATING a situation, and frankly, under those circumstances, I don't feel it's necessarily fair to a kid. I think it's risky, and I don't think anyone has the right to make that choice for another person. Not just because of their own need to be a parent. Get a dog already. Or adopt.

You don't see how raising a child... providing for that child, nurturing that child, clothing, feeding, loving, and supporting that child... you don't see how that's less shallow than promiscuous sex and club-hopping (which I'd have to say is about the biggest dismissal of consequences and most profound embracement of need fulfillment there is in the gay community)?

There can be a whole lotta shallow in any decision a person makes. It's all in the details, and the intentions. On the face of it, that whole Hallmark child rearing picture looks fantastic. It just doesn't take much personality into account. And frankly, though there is a lot of b.s. associated with club hopping and multiple sex partners, that life can lead to meaningful relationships and a rich life as well. It's all about what people want.

You might be relieved to know that the American Psychological Association had this to say:

That doesn't offer me the slightest relief, though I am sure it is justfying a lot of people's decisions. I don't think that the current boom has been going on long enough to know much about the true story

I believe we are forming new ideas and breaking the mold.
We're forming the idea that same-sex couples can have a strong, committed relationship, and raise a healthy, happy, well-adjusted child, in that loving, nurturing environment. It has nothing to do with copying some fictional TV family, or with stealing what straight people have. It's about embracing our potential as mates, parents, and human-beings.

Breaking what mold ? The mold of how gay people lived in The Boys In The Band, maybe. I don't see how jumping into a hetero family paradigm is breaking any mold at all. It's just plugging a different gender parent into it and living a paint by number life with a different cast member. I find the whole idea pedestrian. It isn't what I would call an interesting life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination.

The gay marriage issue was handled in the wrong way, absolutely.
Progress was certainly made in many areas, and we'll learn from the mistakes that were made and move forward.

I think it was the wrong thing to push. In this country anyway. It isn't going to be the right issue to push for a long time.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

The use of "husband" was meant in short-hand. I could have just as easily said "mate," "spouse," "longtime companion," "partner" (a term that I personally loathe because it makes your relationship sound like a business arrangement), etc.

Ironically, many gay men are so preoccupied with identifying each other in terms of whether we're a "top" or "bottom"... which in and of itself is a labelling process to determine one's dominance or submissiveness... that "husband" and "wife" doesn't seem any worse in terms of relationship dynamics.

Husband and wife are WAY worse, in my opinion. Throwing the gender issue in there is loaded as all get out. Top and bottom ? Feh. The association of that with masculine and feminine and dominance and submission may be primal, but if people are caught up in the baggage of it, it's a therapy issue. It's all about nerve endings when you get down to it.

[sparky]

I see what you're saying now. But why is it a "rule" that children are better off with opposite sex parents? If it is only because of society's perceptions, then that rule can change over time, right?

Rule was a bad word to use. It's no secret that research shows that kids do the best in a two parent home. Less drugs, less school problems. I could go on.

It seems to me that if you're going to say that, then you should tell biracial couples that they shouldn't be having children, either, especially because down here in hell, a.k.a. The Bible Belt, there isn't much acceptance for biracial children. Their lives are difficult. Would you tell those people not to have children as well?

I would tell a biracial couple that if they want to live in BFE KKK land and have kids that they are idiots and their kids lives are going to suck. Isn't that tough to figure out. They can go ahead, but at what price ? Why bother ? To make a political point ?

Also, how else will society become more accepting of children of gays if there aren't any?

In other words, toss some to the wolves so that those who come later may suffer less ? Kids aren't cannon fodder.

I know that the children suffer inevitably, but how else do we change society?

My goal isn't to change that part of society. Society evolves. And kids shouldn't be the instrument to leverage the change in society's consciousness.

Children who are gay suffer, but should we tell them not to come out of the closet to avoid that suffering?

That's unrelated to this issue. But, to comment, it all depends. Coming out of the closet in the sticks at 13 can get your ass killed. Sometimes it might be smart to keep your mouth shut until you're in a safe envornment.

And, even if it's unnecessary or ridiculous to some, shouldn't they be able to get married and register at the Baby Gap if that's what they want, considering those are privileges others are allowed?

In some places they can. I'm not sure those are all that important battles to focus on, but hey, let 'em.

But this isn't about just you. Why is it that whenever I debate the issue of marriage with another gay person who isn't for it they always say, "I have no desire to be approved of by city, state, government, etc"? If that isn't what you want for yourself, then don't pursue it. But I can't understand why it's okay with you to deny others of it.

I'm not denying anyone anything. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a Supreme Court Judge.
I understand the benefits that come with marriage, and it is insulting that people have to work so hard to get them when they can't get married. But, it is possible to make most of it happen. It takes some fenagling and work, but it can be done. But being a homo isn't for wimps. It's no cake walk.
That being said, I think historically that this is a terrible time to be focusing on the issues of "Let us get married and have babies!! We want it, we need it don't deny us !" There are bigger fish to fry in this country. Politics is all about timing, and I believe history will resolve those things as time passes. I think the insistence and tone of these arguments turns people off and comes off as selfish, self righteous, and somewhat petty.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by dissention

In terms of gay couples having children, I always look at it from the child's point of view. For example, how are they going to be treated by their peers and society growing up with two moms or two dads? Whereas one might grow up perfectly fine and not be hassled by it, others won't have that luxury. They might be teased about having "fags" for dads or "dykes" for moms, or have the notion that they're somehow less worthy because of their domestic situation pounded into their brains on a daily basis. How does it affect the kid? I think that's the most important thing that should be taken into consideration when the topic of same-sex couples is broached, the paternal or maternal instincts and wishes to have a child should not, in my opinion, because they are not what is important.

It certainly isn't fair that kids from same-sex homes are treated differently, just as it isn't fair that same-sex couples are treated differently than heterosexual couples. It isn't fair that, as Hillary pointed out, biracial children are treated differently than other children. I find it to be disgusting. But that's the society we live in, unfortunately. While it's nice to say that couples are working to change that by proving that they can be fit parents and can raise healthy children, the reality of the matter is that the general population is not going to adapt to that idea any more than George Bush is going to adapt to liberalism, and that means that the children will possibly be ostracized.

I'm all for same-sex couples adopting, just as I am for heterosexual couples adopting. But unlike heterosexual couples, there's an added element to same-sex couple adoptions that could make life harder on the child. As long as that is acknowledged and the parents are ready to deal with it, though, more power to them. Just make sure that the adoption is in the best interests of the child and not just to fulfill your paternal or maternal desires.

Further proof that I want to marry you.

Not that I want to get married, of course.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Agreed. And I agree with most everything Josh said because he acknowledged potential hardships but never actually said that gay people shouldn't be having children because of them. That's not what I'm getting from sparky. Yeah, I could keep going, but you've explained my sentiments well, Tiff.

I don't think there should be a LAW against it. I just think it's risky, selfish, and
suspect. Dear old Dissention summed my viewpoint up better than I have.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by The Tower

About four years ago, I made the mistake of allowing my sister to stay with me for four of five days- her, her idiot Dubya loving husband (he referred to me as a "tree-hugger" while sitting on my couch, eating my food, and watching my tee-vee ), her five-year old, her two-year old and her seven month old fetus.

At one point during her fabulous stay, she complained about the fact that she has actually been to restaurants, movie theaters and entertainment complexes that did not provide baby changing stations in their restrooms.

I didn't even have the desire to invest the energy to point anything out to her, I just wanted her out, out, OUT!!!

Some of the other enchanting things that happened during her stay:

1) Showing up at my house broke and not telling me (she spent all her money during the previous two weeks with other family members).

2) Her husband going to the grocery store with my partner to get dinner stuff and proceeding to load up the cart on all kinds of things such as diapers, etc. and not offering any money-knowing full well that my partner is a gentleman and wouldn't be crass enough to ask for money.

3) Asking me and my partner to babysit their two kids on a Saturday night so they could go visit their friends in Santa Monica- AND asking to borrow our car for no reason rather than drive their own car (they didn't want to use up any more of their gas than they had to).

4) Leaving to go back home during the day while we were at work, and not mentioning the fact that their two-year old had pulled all the strings of off my classical guitar. No mention, no money to fix it, no apology, no nothing.

Charming people, huh?

YOU HAVE MY SYMPATHIES. The word leaches comes to mind.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I guess I don't get it. Deanna's mom and mine were being selfish in wanting to have us? I can't say that about my Mom because she made a conscious decision to have me and give up a lot of things in her life that made her happy, for me. She knew, going into it, that her life was going to change dramatically and she was willing to sacrifice for me. How is that desire selfish? I just don't get it.

When a theoretical discussion turns personal, it's hard to continue it. I'm sure we could, if we were well informed, have a psychological deconstruction of anyone's parents here. There are so many stories and exceptions. That's kind of beside the point.

[Lee]

I didn't read this whole thread as it's pretty long, so I don't know what everyone said.

About 10 years ago, when I really wanted a baby, but somehow it didn't work out & I also changed my mind, if it was a girl, she'd be named Bethany Nicole. (I have a sister named Nicole.) If it was a boy, his name would have been Christopher Michael.

Lee

[sodascouts]

I like the name "Rachel" - and no, not because of Friends.

I also like "J" names for guys. John, James, Jack, Jake, Justin, Jasper and yes Jason and Joshua too.

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.

[ThePenguin]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.

That is hideous. That kid is going to spend her life spelling her name for people.

My nephew is Zacary, w/ no H after the C. I kind of like it that way but I'm sure it will be mispelled a lot in the future.

FWIW I love names that end w/ N-- Ethan, Aaron, Nathan, Weston...I wanted to name my son Ethan so badly but Marty said it reminded him of furniture (Ethan Allen. ) So we went w/ Benjamin-- still got my N at the end.

-Lis

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Lee

I didn't read this whole thread as it's pretty long, so I don't know what everyone said.

lol me neither! Went back, though. And I think this thread should be entitled:

"For those without kids.... let's talk about the meaning of parenthood."

[amber]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.

I think that's weird, too. My best friends cousin named one of her daughters Daisy Ambyr. Ambyr? hello?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Further proof that I want to marry you.

I'm not surprised. I'm quite the catch.