I completely disagree with the theory that a child must have a male and female adult in the house.
I was raised by a married christian couple along with 3 brothers and 1 sister. My parents are still married.
My father is a kind, gentle man who loves all of his family.
He did not drink alcohol or take drugs, he never cheated on my mother, he worked, took out the garbage and mowed the lawn. He and my mother took us to church every week, they took us to museums, movies, picnics, hikes, zoos, and sent us to private school.
As you will notice there is nothing in there about who my father is.... I don't know who the person inside the body is... I can't tell you if he taught my brothers anything.... He didn't take any of us anywhere without my mother as far as I can remember - I remember my older brother taking us places but not my father. He was never mean, rarely yelled, and never did anything, except go to work, hurch and the occasional baseball game unless my mother asked or told him to do it.
All my siblings are heterosexual, they are all kind and loving. None have criminal records, each has their own idea of a family and all of my brothers are very independent and gracious and helpful to their families.
Did My father do that? I don't think he had much to do with it at all except for setting an example... Did we need a male human in the house to be a second example of what an adult should be like? My mother taught us those things with words and actions. I know my mother inside and out. She worked, raised us kids, kept a quality home and neat respectable house and was open to discussion and teaching. Couldn't my idea's of a male versus a female come from observing someone outside the house just as easily as one inside the building.
In a home where love is shone through actions and words it matters not whether those come from a male or a female and couldn't everyone use and extra bit of love if that second adult in the house is the same gender.
What about all those that were raised by men who were never actually there via military requirements, multiple jobs, poor parenting skills ( whatever reason ) does that mean those children could not grow to be healthy productive adults. Or those who have lost mothers due to whatever reason and were raised by single fathers?
It has only been within the last 50 years that men even became involved in the raising of the children... has there never been a healthy child before the 1950s?
It has been shown that children raised by a gay or lesbian couple are more open minded in all aspects of lie and are no more likely to be gay or lesbian than children of straight couples or single parents.
There are so many children in need of loving homes and so few homes available - it is only fair to these children that they be adopted into stable gay and lesbian families in order to grow up healthy and peaceful
2006-08-09 16:12:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by chocolate sundae 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
My parents divorced when I was young, and my mom turned my sister and I against our dad and was never there for us. I grew up with very little parenting. A few lessons my father and male cousin taught me are all I had as far as "parental" guidance. I never went to any adult for advice or to talk to when I had a problem, and now I'm doing fairly well as an adult. I don't think having a parent figure of each sex is neccessary for a healthy childhood. Having supportive adults that will help when help is needed is important. Having someone to teach right and wrong. To me, gender roles in this country are breaking down. The people that are complaining about needing one parent of each sex are the people that beleive women should be whores in the bedroom and cooks in the kitchen and that the man should be the one with the job. That's some people's idea of a healthy family. I'd type more, but I have to get to class.
2006-08-09 10:32:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by carora13 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think a child, especially an infant, that is up for adoption should be offered to a traditional family first. Not only is it a more proper household, it is less stressful for the child. Outside ridicule, confusion about one's self in the future, etc. Children in orphanages are wards of the state, and the government needs to ensure the best for these children when they are being adopted out. And the best is to have a loving family with a father and mother influence.
Now for children that are a bit older in orphanages should have ANY kind of family life over a group home. In these cases, I am not against any family unit adopting.
When it comes to natural born children being born into non-traditional or "gay" families, we have no right to forbid anyone from any sort of thing. That is the choice of the gay woman or whatever person is in the situation. That child is not a ward of the state, hence the state has no responsibility as to the family situation unless it is deemed to be a danger to the child in the future (as in all child welfare situations).
2006-08-09 15:28:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by DiamondDave 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The concept of family and kinship varies from culture to culture already. There's nothing inherently "better" about the western concept of the nuclear family; it's just that's what people are used to, so it blows their minds when people want to do something different.
You say that children of single parents fill the "parent void" with some other adult...why don't y ou think children of gay parents would do the same?
I'll grant that there MIGHT be a possibility that children of gay (or, for that matter, particularly liberal) parents won't develop a full understanding of the societal gender norms. Thing is, I don't see that as problematic, because societal gender norms are oppressive, dicriminatory, and completely arbitrary to begin with. What is the definition of "what a good man should be", and how is it different from "what a good woman should be"? Quite honestly, they shouldn't differ, and if they do in your head it's time to ask yourself why.
2006-08-10 07:35:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Atropis 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think every child should grow up with a mother figure and a father figure. I can talk to my mom about EVERYTHING she loves me and helps me and I need her. My dad talks to me about what guys think how they act and he protects me like all fathers do and I couldn't survive without him(even though sometimes I really think I can) Two mom's can't give a child what a father gives you know? Two dads can't talk to their daughter about periods and liking boys and bras and stuff because they've never experienced it. Now if a son has two moms then I think it's very important that he finds an older boy to look out with him or a grandpa, or a coach to be the father figure in his life and vise versa for a girl with two fathers.
I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I don't hate gays and I think they deserve the same rights and respect as straight people. But I think EVERYONE needs a mother and a father.
2006-08-09 09:24:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Hello,It'sMe 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's up to the FAMILY to teach their children morals and values. The definition of FAMILY has grown to consist of many and various beautiful concoctions! The point is WHO CARES if a child has two moms or two dads or is being raised by an aunt, an uncle, a cousin??? As long as the FAMILY is teaching this child right from wrong and instilling healthy values then I don't see where the harm is. There are thousands upon thousands of homeless and unwanted children in this world who would be grateful to have two moms or two dads that loved them deeply and provided them the care they needed.
2006-08-09 09:29:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
WHat matters most for children is to have a loving, supportive, and healthy home to grow up in. Yes there are traditional gender-specific roles to learn, but not learning that a woman belongs in a kitchen and a man can't cry will make children decide who they are as individuals. As for any thing positive a gender -specific person can teach a child, why can't a lesbian couple also find a coach or councelor, and uncle, grandfather, or best friend to aid? If I have a son I will be able to teach him how to swing a hammer, and how to cook, I will teach him how to fish and my wife will teach him how to play ball. As for a strong male influence - we both have strong friendships with men, 3 brothers between us, and many other men in our lives.
2006-08-09 09:11:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Alexis 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO! YOu don't need a father and a mother to be a stable child, the same way you don't need to have TWO of them to have a stable child. Children raised in both single and gay households can grow up to be healthy and moral, just like hetero households. It doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the parents, what matters if the character of the parents, and the values they have. Gay, single or straight, there are all kinds of people out there and some may not be the best of parents.
2006-08-09 09:34:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kookoo Bananas 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Children should have both a mother and father. It is the natural law of things no matter which way you cut it. Religion need not factor into it.
Nothing replaces the love and security of having a stable family environment. It's because it no longer exists that there is such confusion in the world.
You shouldn't have to "borrow the love of others" to compensate for what lacks in your own life. I think it's purely selfish of people to bring children into this world when they should be adopting a pet or something.
2006-08-09 09:12:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
My mother went through three preganancies by herself. She had my oldest brother now 28, me 22 and my little bro 19. She raised us all by herself with no coach or camp leader from a church. She relied on her motherly instinct to teach us what is right and wrong. The only male influence i had was my brothers. I think i turned out fine. Im polite honest and i can tollerate alot more than most women i think.
2006-08-09 09:21:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋