From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:19:19 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov12110938@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.154338.21358@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.002333.5329@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>>>The major crux of the conversation centers around the rights of
>>>adults _known to be homosexual_ to keep those children.
>
>>I disagree the crux of both your posts was to insinuate that homosexual
>>parents are better then het parents.
>
>So, where were you when people were posting about how children needed
>"role models" of both sexes, thereby "insinuating" that "het parents are
>better than homosexual parents"?  Oh, but that's *true* you may say.
 
Actually I'm het so I will leave it to the hom's to defend themselves
believing they can do it better.
I don't want to interject the obvious here, that being all people are
individuals, as such wether or not they are a better parent(its subjective)
depends on the person in question and what your comparing them too. Not
who their porking this week. But that would take the fun out of this
typical net discussion.
   
>Well, *let's* look at the posts in question, which you have thoughtfully
>provided. 
 
I did didn't I.
 
>
>>Lets look at Elfs post:
>>>>>>> Unlike heterosexual parents, homosexual parents don't take their
>>>>>>  children for granted.  They can't afford to.
>
>>I guess I'm just sensitive when I take this as an attack on hetero's.
>
>Yup.  While he could have qualified it more, the sense of it, that
>homosexual parents have to live with a risk of losing their children
>(not to mention the additional problems in having them to begin with) 
>that heterosexual parents do not is quite true.  It is possibly not true 
>that *all* homosexual parents *never* take their children for granted,
>but it is certainly true that many heterosexual parents frequently *do*.
>And it is true that they can afford to.
 
The last sentence is pure B.S. not even worth argueing, as to the rest.
I hate to interrupt your brain surgery here but I'm quite sure
homosexual parents take their children for granted on average just
as much as heteros despite your lofty head in the clouds ideals.
 
>
>>Now here's Frances delightful post that Elf mysteriously deleted out:
>
>>>Also, since child-rearing is not a standard social role for gay couples,
>>>they only have children if they want them enough to really fight for it. 
>>>A lot of heterosexual couples still have kids without really thinking
>>>it over, simply because that's what straight couples are expected to do.
>
>>Nothing derogatory about hetero's here.
>
>Not at all.  Simply a true statement.  With the other one, I could at
>least see how you might find it derogatory, if you put in lots of
>always's and never's and such.  Do you *dispute* that heterosexual
>couples have children without really thinking about it?  I have a friend
 
No I don't. Do you dispute that many homosexual parents have children
from previous relationships and that many of those children were not
planned for. If you don't dispute it then the statement is
generalized to the point of invalidation. In fact I put forth most
homosexual parents who have custody of their children had those
children from a hetero coupling.
 
>who has three children, all of them not only accidental but unwanted.
>He loves his children very much, but he and his partner certainly didn't
>"think it over" before having them.  A same-sex couple can't just
>accidentally have children.  They *do* have to "think it over."  And
>they often *do* have to "fight for it."
 
See above.
 
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
 
Biff Dutton.

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory