For Those Without Kids...

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sparky

Exactly what I said.

I don't know... I kind of felt like what I said was a little different than your opinion that being raised by a same gender couple is only slightly preferable to getting poked in the eye with a stick.

Originally Posted by sparky

In what Movie Of The Week ? I wouldn't bet the rent on that. If only that formula bore itself out consistently. It's way more complicated than that, methinks.

I know many people who were raised by one parent... some by their fathers... who turned out a lot more stable than many folks who had two parents.

We certainly know that growing up with both a mother and a father is no guarantee that a person will turn out "right."

Originally Posted by sparky

I certainly don't limit MYself. I wasn't aware that reliving the Mineshaft and Studio 54, or pretending you're June and Ward Cleaver were the only options. That seems like a couple of straighjackets right off the bat. The two utmost extremes.

You referred to raising a family with a partner as the "new gay trend," so I was simply referring to the "old gay trend," which seems to be based on far more shallow pursuits.

But, of course, those aren't the only two options.
All I'm saying is that we can have a "husband" and children if we want them. We're allowed to "nest," if we wish.
Why accuse people who want something deeper and more meaningful in their lives, of copying straight people?

[WelshWitchPMD]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeath

Seven (Erykah Badu)

I wonder if she got that from Seinfeld. The one where George Costanza says he wants to name his future kid Seven.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I don't know... I kind of felt like what I said was a little different than your opinion that being raised by a same gender couple is only slightly preferable to getting poked in the eye with a stick.

That's a figure of speech and there's no slightly about it. If you're talking about idealism, and what's best for kids, BEST is the point. Ideal. We're talking about molding people's lives.

I know many people who were raised by one parent... some by their fathers... who turned out a lot more stable than many folks who had two parents.

That's such a pop psych cop out justification of an argument. I know people who have smoked cigarettes for 60 years and didn't get cancer. It's not a reason to take up smoking. You don't make decisions that affect people's entire lives based on an exception to a statistically proven rule.

We certainly know that growing up with both a mother and a father is no guarantee that a person will turn out "right."

So why bother doing it at all ? And people with seat belts still get killed in car accidents. While we're at it, let's all take off the seat belts. They're really no guarantee at all.

You referred to raising a family with a partner as the "new gay trend," so I was simply referring to the "old gay trend," which seems to be based on far more shallow pursuits.

I don't know that raising kids is any less shallow than going to Studio 54 and doing coke with Andy Warhol. A dominant paradigm is a dominant paradigm. People can go ahead and try and reclaim Leave It To Beaver and call it new and meaningful if they want to. It doesn't make it meaningful. Most people are lemmings. There's a certain element to the trend of gay parenting that is rebellious and is done with a real f-you to society. It's a knee jerk reaction to being told one can't do something and basically that people can do whatever they want to regardless of the consequences just because it fulfills their needs. That is self indulgent. That is coming from an inital statement of "I want" or "I need".

All I'm saying is that we can have a "husband" and children if we want them. We're allowed to "nest," if we wish.

"We" can do whatever the hell we want to with our lives. Life is really all about what we want, after all. Pity we can't consult the kids before they're drug into it. I'm sure most of them would have opinions.

Why accuse people who want something deeper and more meaningful in their lives, of copying straight people?

If the shoe fits.

"Husband" ? Figure of speech or not, that is downright creepy. In all this freedom and doing whatever we want, how about forming some new ideas ?
If people want to break the mold, I say build a new one. The demand to change the cultural/religious institution of marriage is exactly the wrong battle. The Right Wing used that preposterous issue as a barbed club in the last election and kicked the asses of the entire Democratic party into a ditch.
And the subtext of that issue was children. It is a hot button suicide of a political question and took the quiet, steady struggle for gay rights back 20 years.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by sparky

So why bother doing it at all ? And people with seat belts still get killed in car accidents. While we're at it, let's all take off the seat belts. They're really no guarantee at all.

What are you getting at there? I can't see how that coincides with what Brian said.

I don't know that raising kids is any less shallow than going to Studio 54 and doing coke with Andy Warhol. A dominant paradigm is a dominant paradigm. People can go ahead and try and reclaim Leave It To Beaver and call it new and meaningful if they want to. It doesn't make it meaningful. Most people are lemmings. There's a certain element to the trend of gay parenting that is rebellious and is done with a real f-you to society. It's a knee jerk reaction to being told one can't do something and basically that people can do whatever they want to regardless of the consequences just because it fulfills their needs. That is self indulgent. That is coming from an inital statement of "I want" or "I need".

I agree that some people are like this, but you don't feel at least somewhat confident that Brian is not one of them?

"We" can do whatever the hell we want to with our lives. Life is really all about what we want, after all. Pity we can't consult the kids before they're drug into it. I'm sure most of them would have opinions.

So, what is the answer to that? I wasn't consulted before I was brought into this world, and there were times when I've wished I was consulted beforehand. Those of us who are unhappy should kill ourselves? (I know you didn't mean that; I'm being sarcastic here).

If the shoe fits.

"Husband" ? Figure of speech or not, that is downright creepy. In all this freedom and doing whatever we want, how about forming some new ideas ?
If people want to break the mold, I say build a new one. The demand to change the cultural/religious institution of marriage is exactly the wrong battle. The Right Wing used that preposterous issue as a barbed club in the last election and kicked the asses of the entire Democratic party into a ditch.
And the subtext of that issue was children. It is a hot button suicide of a political question and took the quiet, steady struggle for gay rights back 20 years.

If the shoe fits? What about procreation as something basic that a lot of human beings feel inclined to do? (I know, I know--some don't have the right intentions, as you've said, but others do). It isn't a desire that is exclusive to any sexual orientation. How could one by copying the other when people of all sexual orientations have been having children for centuries?

The whole fight for marriage is based on the idea that separate is not equal. If you want a separate instituion because you think heterosexual marriage is so corrupt, that's fine, but to me it's something of the symbolic equivalent of having different schools and bathrooms. And I don't see why the word "husband" is so creepy. I think it's what you make it.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by sparky

In all this freedom and doing whatever we want, how about forming some new ideas ?If people want to break the mold, I say build a new one.

Baby steps. Sometimes you have to take babysteps and THEN break the mold. I agree with you, but I think it's first important to have the people of this country realize that gay marriage falls within the parameters of basic civil rights. To deny gay people the right to marry (and in turn reap the benefits that straight people do) is to invalidate their lifestyle, identity, culture, hence, their very human existence. If we could get past this huge hurdle, then perhaps some mold breaking would be in order. First though, we as a country need to stop the homophobia and this is tall order considering the results of the last election. Those results proved that the people of this country are more afraid of homosexuals marrying than sending their sons and daughters off to die in war. How backasswards is that?

[sparky]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

What are you getting at there? I can't see how that coincides with what Brian said.

What I am getting at is just because there are exceptions to rules, it doesn't mean rules and actual results should be ignored in order that we can be free to do what feels fun and good to us.

I agree that some people are like this, but you don't feel at least somewhat confident that Brian is not one of them?

I didn't realize I was discussing Brian and his personal life. I am talking theoretically. This isn't personal.

So, what is the answer to that? I wasn't consulted before I was brought into this world, and there were times when I've wished I was consulted beforehand. Those of us who are unhappy should kill ourselves? (I know you didn't mean that; I'm being sarcastic here).

The answer ? I think the answer is that people shouldn't impose their choices on unwitting bystanders. Let's face it - it's a bitch growing up. And it isn't made any easier having two same gender parents. I am sure you could refer me to a dozen rosy articles written by people who say they wouldn't have it any other way. The fact remains that I don't think it's fair to saddle a kid with what may turn out to be an enormous obstacle. Should it be an obstacle ? Of course not. Should a child's life be used as an element in a social experiment that "wishes" people were kinder, more sensitive and politically correct ? Not on your life. (I will point out again here that I am talking not about adoptions but about making new kids.)

If the shoe fits? What about procreation as something basic that a lot of human beings feel inclined to do? (I know, I know--some don't have the right intentions, as you've said, but others do). It isn't a desire that is exclusive to any sexual orientation. How could one by copying the other when people of all sexual orientations have been having children for centuries?

There's a biological component, sure. I am referring to jumping in and buying into the whole 50's myth of a nuclear family. That is a dynamic with some serious flaws anyway. And BTW, while people of all orientations have been breeding for centuries they weren't hooting and hollering about getting married and registering at Baby Gap. LOL.

The whole fight for marriage is based on the idea that separate is not equal.

Dude, I don't need a class in civil rights history. That wasn't my point.

If you want a separate instituion because you think heterosexual marriage is so corrupt, that's fine, but to me it's something of the symbolic equivalent of having different schools and bathrooms. And I don't see why the word "husband" is so creepy. I think it's what you make it.

I don't know that I am interested in institutions at all. I don't particularly care if the city or state approves of my relationships.

"Husband" is creepy because it implies there's a wife. Among other things. I could get into a rant here about semantics and historical power dynamics, but what's the point ? I think the relationship between two men is intrinsically different between that of a man and a woman, and that it is counterproductive to borrow a loaded term to define it. Talk to a few men who were married to women and have then gotten involved with men and I'd love to compare notes. The relationships are different animals altogether.

I am DYING to go on, but I have go to a meeting.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sparky

If you're talking about idealism, and what's best for kids, BEST is the point. Ideal. We're talking about molding people's lives.

You don't make decisions that affect people's entire lives based on an exception to a statistically proven rule.

So why bother doing it at all ? And people with seat belts still get killed in car accidents. While we're at it, let's all take off the seat belts. They're really no guarantee at all.

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.

I absolutely feel that people need to think long and hard about whether or not they can properly raise a child, and whether or not they're ready and able to give up selfish tendencies to become the responsible, mature parent that a child needs and deserves.
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.

Originally Posted by sparky

I don't know that raising kids is any less shallow than going to Studio 54 and doing coke with Andy Warhol. A dominant paradigm is a dominant paradigm. People can go ahead and try and reclaim Leave It To Beaver and call it new and meaningful if they want to. It doesn't make it meaningful. Most people are lemmings. There's a certain element to the trend of gay parenting that is rebellious and is done with a real f-you to society. It's a knee jerk reaction to being told one can't do something and basically that people can do whatever they want to regardless of the consequences just because it fulfills their needs. That is self indulgent. That is coming from an inital statement of "I want" or "I need".

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)?

Originally Posted by sparky

"We" can do whatever the hell we want to with our lives. Life is really all about what we want, after all. Pity we can't consult the kids before they're drug into it. I'm sure most of them would have opinions.

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

(T)here is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Originally Posted by sparky

"Husband" ? Figure of speech or not, that is downright creepy. In all this freedom and doing whatever we want, how about forming some new ideas ?
If people want to break the mold, I say build a new one.

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.

If any mold needs broken, it's the one that paints us as amoral sex-addicts who have a preoccuption with our hair, clothes and bodies (and those of others). We know it's just a stereotype, but, sadly, as many gay men buy into it as straight people do.

Originally Posted by sparky

The demand to change the cultural/religious institution of marriage is exactly the wrong battle. The Right Wing used that preposterous issue as a barbed club in the last election and kicked the asses of the entire Democratic party into a ditch.
And the subtext of that issue was children. It is a hot button suicide of a political question and took the quiet, steady struggle for gay rights back 20 years.

The gay marriage issue was handled in the wrong way, absolutely. The debate left many people feeling as if everything they hold dear was being attacked. It rallied many people against us, but it also opened the eyes of many others to our "cause."
Progress was certainly made in many areas, and we'll learn from the mistakes that were made and move forward.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sparky

"Husband" is creepy because it implies there's a wife. Among other things. I could get into a rant here about semantics and historical power dynamics, but what's the point ?

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.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by sparky

What I am getting at is just because there are exceptions to rules, it doesn't mean rules and actual results should be ignored in order that we can be free to do what feels fun and good to us.

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?

I didn't realize I was discussing Brian and his personal life. I am talking theoretically. This isn't personal.

Well, I guess Brian is my example, then. He's someone who wants to raise children and has good intentions. I don't believe that he is being selfish. (But he already explained all of that in his last post).

The answer ? I think the answer is that people shouldn't impose their choices on unwitting bystanders. Let's face it - it's a bitch growing up. And it isn't made any easier having two same gender parents. I am sure you could refer me to a dozen rosy articles written by people who say they wouldn't have it any other way. The fact remains that I don't think it's fair to saddle a kid with what may turn out to be an enormous obstacle. Should it be an obstacle ? Of course not. Should a child's life be used as an element in a social experiment that "wishes" people were kinder, more sensitive and politically correct ? Not on your life. (I will point out again here that I am talking not about adoptions but about making new kids.)

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? Also, how else will society become more accepting of children of gays if there aren't any? I know that the children suffer inevitably, but how else do we change society? Children who are gay suffer, but should we tell them not to come out of the closet to avoid that suffering?

There's a biological component, sure. I am referring to jumping in and buying into the whole 50's myth of a nuclear family. That is a dynamic with some serious flaws anyway. And BTW, while people of all orientations have been breeding for centuries they weren't hooting and hollering about getting married and registering at Baby Gap. LOL.

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?

Dude, I don't need a class in civil rights history. That wasn't my point.

I don't know that I am interested in institutions at all. I don't particularly care if the city or state approves of my relationships.

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.

"Husband" is creepy because it implies there's a wife. Among other things. I could get into a rant here about semantics and historical power dynamics, but what's the point ? I think the relationship between two men is intrinsically different between that of a man and a woman, and that it is counterproductive to borrow a loaded term to define it. Talk to a few men who were married to women and have then gotten involved with men and I'd love to compare notes. The relationships are different animals altogether.

You may have a really good point here. Much of that (perhaps all) is beyond my understanding at this point not only because I'm not a guy but also because I haven't been involved in any of those types of relationships, so I can't really speak about them in that way.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

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?

Excellent point, Hillary.
Let's not forget that, in the not-so-distant past, many children were also ostracized if their parents were of different religions or different ethnicities/nationalities.

If we start down the road of determining which types of couples should or shouldn't have children...... well, let's just say that's a frightening notion.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Excellent point, Hillary.
Let's not forget that, in the not-so-distant past, many children were also ostracized if their parents were of different religions or different ethnicities/nationalities.

If we start down the road of determining which types of couples should or shouldn't have children...... well, let's just say that's a frightening notion.

I can hear the flaming already, but here goes. And it's not directed at anyone, it's just a general statement.

I think what Sparks is trying to get at, at least what I've gotten from it, is that the desire to have children is essentially a selfish one. I don't think that just applies to gay men and women, but to heterosexuals, too. People want to have or adopt kids primarily because they want to be able to look at the kid and say to themselves 'Look what I've done. I raised a child.' Humans have paternal and maternal instincts wired into them, it's natural to want to breed and raise kids. But that doesn't make it any less unselfish; people have kids for the personal satisfaction of doing so. I mean, why else would people who were ostracized because of their religion or ethnicity or nationality continue to have children? Surely they knew that their children would face the same society that they were faced with. They had them because they wanted them.

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.

[EnchantedSLN]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

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

Why stop there? Poor people, people of color, people in less stable countries... anyone who is predisposed to having any kind of adversity in his or her life should simply not have children because the children aren't consulted before being brought into the world. By that rationale no one should procreate. Some genetic mutation might occur causing a condition or disability that could make growing up a little harder. Kids don't get to preapprove their parents' DNA.

Obviously, there's an element of choice involved where gay individuals decide whether to have children, while most of us don't know what's going to happen when we mix our genetic stuff up with someone else's, but suggesting that a couple shouldn't have a child in either case is ridiculous. Life isn't perfect. We don't get to sign consent forms before we pop out. If we're lucky, we're recieved by someone who loves us and will do they best they can for us.

I know Sparks isn't trying to say no one should have kids. And yes, I think a lot of people, straight or gay, do have children for selfish reasons, and that's unfortunate, but not everyone who wants to have kids does so because it's trendy.

[GateandGarden]

I agree with most of what you're saying, Josh, except that the inherent desire to have children is a selfish one; I think that applies to only some people. I'm still not sure if that's exactly what Sparky was getting at or not.

[The Tower]

Oy. I love how threads turn into this stuff. My two cents...

I think "husband" is soooo creepy, in terms of gay relationships. It screams of the implication that somehow the only way to have a gay relationship is for the relationship to be in the mold of a straight relationship (and who the hell wants that?).

All this baby making is outta control. People hardly ever think of the consequences of having a child. At least gay people actually have to really decide to do it- so that inherently puts a little more thought into the creation of a child.

I personally have no interest in raising a kid. Disposable income, my personal freedom and knowing that I'm not screwing up someone's life are much more desired and enjoyable aspects of my life that I'm glad I don't have to give up (thank heavens I'm gay).

Gay marriage? Eh- marriage is overrated and unnecessary anyways. I don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall, keeping me tight and true- my old man keeps away those blues.

I think the ability to have a child should be licensed, but that'll never happen. Childbirth- the biggest and most far-affecting entitlement program ever. The piles of taxes I pay go towards making sure that all this unregulated baby-making is taken care of with no return whatsoever. I never want to hear anyone bitch to me about having to pay taxes.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

Why stop there? Poor people, people of color, people in less stable countries... anyone who is predisposed to having any kind of adversity in his or her life should simply not have children because the children aren't consulted before being brought into the world. By that rationale no one should procreate. Some genetic mutation might occur causing a condition or disability that could make growing up a little harder. Kids don't get to preapprove their parents' DNA.

Obviously, there's an element of choice involved where gay individuals decide whether to have children, while most of us don't know what's going to happen when we mix our genetic stuff up with someone else's, but suggesting that a couple shouldn't have a child in either case is ridiculous. Life isn't perfect. We don't get to sign consent forms before we pop out. If we're lucky, we're recieved by someone who loves us and will do they best they can for us.

I know you're not trying to say no one should have kids. And yes, I think a lot of people, straight or gay, do have children for selfish reasons, and that's unfortunate.

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.