From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: babies
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:04:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.j77jpks
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Apr4.035412.10382@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <j3p30ic@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>We should.  Tell me, what about a child who's parents are both homosexuals
>>would be inherently maladjusted.
>>
>
>I am sorry, but I do not understand the question.


Okay, I will word it in a simpler way.


You say that homosexuals should not have children because of society's 
impressions of homosexuals.  Because of this, you seem to believe that
there will be something inherently wrong with this child because of this
pressure.  What will be inherently wrong?

I don't think that you can come up with a reason...

Let's try a parallel tack, and see what you think about that one.

Should parents on welfare be allowed to have children?  Societally, they
are in a difficult situation, since they do not have the money to properly
raise the children.  They are also living in a crime filled area, so they
children would not be safe.  Should these people not be allowed to have 
children?



>>Then why are you proselityzing about it?  
>
>I am not proselitizing, I am just giving an opinion.

to-may-to, to-mah-to


>>If you say everyone has a
>>different view on what is good, who are you to say that "homosexuals should
>>not be parents"?  It might not seem good to you, fine.  Why do you want to
>>say that it is not good for the child.
>
>I am just a person giving an opinion. That is it.

Well, defend your position.

>I just happen to think that it will not be good for the kid, and that is my
>opinion. Can't I have an opinion?


Defend it...  That is what arguing is all about.

I like arguing with you, because you do not completely avoid the issue.  
However, do not be so sensitive, when people attack your ideas... Defend
them, that is the point.



>>You are saying that neither of us are in a position to represent the "normal"
>>point of view.  I say that there is no "normal" point of view.  There is
>>not even a majority point of view...  This, however, has no bearing on the
>>raising of children.
>>
>
>If you say that there is no normal point of view, then you are sadly 
>wrong, and what is even worse, you do not understand why you are doing and
>saying a lot of things.

Their are varying points of view on every issue.

>If there is no normal view, why do you want to change the idea of 
>homosexuality as a perversion???

If you note, most people on the net do not think that "homosexuality
[is] a perversion".  In fact, they are pretty silent on this issue.  There
are some (a small minority) of people on the net, who seem to have an
issue with this.


>It has bearing in child rising. Go, read about the psychology of children,
>go, read about the formation of authority inside the personality of a 
>growing child, and then come back and say that it has no bearing.

It has no bearing.  A loving caring able parent is much more important
than coming from a household which "normal" society has deemed acceptable.

>How do you think that the psyche of a child is formed?

see above.



FWA