's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why is no one concerned about the CHILDREN?(21 posts)

Why is no one concerned about the CHILDREN?94Nole
Nov 19, 2003 1:58 PM
I am very simplistic in my thinking but IT SEEMS TO ME...Unwed mothers, divorce, stay-at-home dads, same sex unions ("marriages"), and every other controversial issue that permeates our society but rarely does it seems to me that the concern for the children is anywhere near the top of the list of concerns. I would argue it should be the absolute number 1 issue. We bring children into the world but fail to do what is in their best interest.

Do I over generalize when I say we have children out of wedlock, mostly with no concern about them after they are born, provided they are able to make it that far.

Do I over generalize when I say that many who do get married first, get married, have children and then allow wedges or other, "newer" interests to drive them apart from their spouses, leaving the children in a world of tumult without SOMEHOW working it out FOR THEM. I do not mean that they live in chaos but in a way that is best for the children. There was obviously a reason why the marriage took place.

I voiced my opinion below about dads at home vs. moms. I won't go through that again.

Same sex unions have obviously been in the news but many of these couples will want to raise children, but what about the children? I speak of couples that will very likely be middle to upper-middle class couples who will live in neighborhoods and whose children will attend schools with children of hetero couples. They will interact with their friends, the overwhelming majority being raised by a mom and a dad.

My take...people are selfish as he11, concerned only about their own convenience or inconvenience, and when it boils right down, couldn't really care less about how these things currently affect their children.

If we don't take care of today's children, they will be unable to take care of us.
I failed to explain...94Nole
Nov 19, 2003 2:03 PM
that I believe that children of same sex couples will face issues in an already difficult time (teenage years) that will make that period particularly difficult for them to endure.

Just my narrow opinion.
I failed to explain...mohair_chair
Nov 19, 2003 2:26 PM
The children of same sex couples might face issues, but so will the children of opposite sex couples. Parents die, siblings die, kids come down with diseases, kids lose limbs, families break up, families go bankrupt, families get caught in scandals, parents go to jail, parents abuse their children, parents abuse other children, parents disappear, siblings disappear, parents go to war, planes crash into buildings, etc.

Some kids will always have it rougher than others, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Kids are cruel, and you're chasing at windmills if you think you can change it.
only particular people matterDougSloan
Nov 19, 2003 2:05 PM
I don't think you can conclude that any living arrangement is per se automatically unfit for children, or even less fit than any other arrangement. Children get neglected, beaten, molested, etc., even in traditional nuclear families that may outwardly appear to be perfect. On the other hand, 2 women or 2 men cohabitating, or 1 alone for that matter, might do a wonderful, if not perfect, job of raising kids. I think it's unfair and unwise to automatically disqualify anyone.
Yes, but all other things equal. Obviously, there are...94Nole
Nov 19, 2003 2:16 PM
exceptions. Maybe I am just damn ignorant and need to go back into my hole.

I work with young men (12-19) and see the examples of which I speak frequently. All I want is for people to be concerned for the kids first and likely there would be much less to fix later.
not saying it can't be factorDougSloan
Nov 19, 2003 2:25 PM
I think the relationship, every aspect of it, of the parents is important and could be considered in a custody or adoption proceeding. However, I don't think that same sex should automatically disqualify, any more than an unwed single parent would be disqualified.

I think anyone under 20 should be disqualified. (partially tongue in cheek)

maybe even everyone under 30! ;) (nm)ColnagoFE
Nov 19, 2003 3:22 PM
But all other things NEVER ARE equalshawndoggy
Nov 19, 2003 3:08 PM
Doug said it very well -- it's a one out of one sample size. Each kid is different. Will these kids suffer some potential discomfort in the junior high locker room when it's discovered the they have two dads? Yeah, maybe. Will my own kids suffer some potential discomfort down the road because they are biracial? Yeah, maybe. Will your kid suffer some potential discomfort down the road because he's fat or slow or short or ugly or has lots of acne or is too tall or too smart or too dumb or his parents are intollerant? Yeah, maybe. Adolesence can be a BRUTAL time for kids, but it doesn't mean that we should prohibit parents who love their child from being parents because the kid might get made fun of because of his parents. Shoot, looking back now, the kids who were brutalized are running the show, and the tormenters are washing golf carts. Ha ha!

I don't see having two dads (or two moms) to be any different from growing up in a nuclear family, a single parent household, a blended family, etc. Every person is an individual and you can't say that being brough up by gay parents is automatically going to result in you being "messed up." Any studies to support that?

Kids are resilient, and because they are the future they may just be able to overcome the bigotry of their parents. A generation ago, it would have been ok to overtly admonish ME about bringing biracial kids into the world. Not that we don't get an occaisional random comment (fewer since leaving Zion... err, Utah), but as a general matter it's not in the front of my mind on a daily basis (disclosure, I'm white, the Mrs. (Korean) might have a different view). And I bet it won't be for the kids of gay couples a decade from now either.
a question of love vs. neglectStarliner
Nov 19, 2003 5:03 PM
Would you say that the worst kids of those you work with come from a home environment where there is an absence of love and attention? And the best kids are ones who have at least one person in their lives that offers the love and attention that every child needs to count on having...

The point I want to make is, that person could be any number of people - a mother, a father, a grandparent, and older sibling - to a child, and especially younger ones, the gender and sexual orientation of their chosen one are never important factors - emotional and physical safety, security, spiritual warmth and connectiveness are the important factors - and who are we to determine to any child who they can and cannot choose to be that one.
[applause] (nm)czardonic
Nov 19, 2003 2:25 PM
Why indeed!czardonic
Nov 19, 2003 2:38 PM
Why, with the ample evidence that heterosexuals are doing a fine job of neglecting and warping their children, are people so obsessed with this vindictive campaign against homosexuals? If they cared about children, wouldn't they endeavor to identify and address the reasons why any human might fail to account for their child's best interests?

"They will interact with their friends, the overwhelming majority being raised by a mom and a dad."

The overwhelming majority will be raised by a mom and dad of the same race as well. Or are you against miscegenation too, you know, out of concern for the children. (I am going to assume that you are not -- just trying to point out an obvious, if unpleasant, parallel.)

Seems to me that dealing with insensitive peers is pretty far down the list of tribulations that children these days need fear.
also ban poor people...ColnagoFE
Nov 19, 2003 3:25 PM
Let's ban poor people from having kids. Parents with more $ can give kids a better standard of living. A very slippery slope I'd say...
re: So what your really saying is.jrm
Nov 19, 2003 3:13 PM
we should save our children from exposure. tolerance and or exceptance of homosexuals. I dont think im wrong here..
Get thee to a grammarian! Sorry, but that was incoherent...nmbicyclerepairman
Nov 19, 2003 3:58 PM
other than the embarrassment factor...what's the issue?ColnagoFE
Nov 19, 2003 3:18 PM
Why would a same sex couple not be able to give good care to a kid? I can give you plenty of examples of hetero couples who "stayed together" who were awful parents. I just don't see why sex has anything to do with raising a kid. love seems to be the most important thing to me for creating a family. Other than the obvious factor of same sex couples not being able to procreate (at least yet) or males to breast feed what is the real issue? Or is the objection based on predjudice, fear and ignorance?
re: Why is no one concerned about the CHILDREN?oldbutslow
Nov 19, 2003 4:47 PM
Well, you know, Clintoon and his SO were the only ones that cared about the children. He told us so, again and again and again .....
don't forget GW Senior's "thousand points of light" (nm)ColnagoFE
Nov 20, 2003 8:07 AM
re: Why is no one concerned about the CHILDREN?Jon Billheimer
Nov 20, 2003 2:47 PM

I for one agree with you! And although I don't disagree that a same sex couple could not conceivably do a good job of child rearing I think a mother and father are by FAR the preferential arrangement. There's only a few million years of biology and biology-based role playing involved here.

I for one could care less if this opinion sounds reactionary or not, and I will happily share your hole with you. BTW, I'm not against legally sanction same sex civil unions, but I think marriage as it's been practiced for millenia arises out of our biology for good reason and shouldn't be tampered with for social convenience to placate our hyper-rights based modern mindset.
Appeal to common practice.czardonic
Nov 20, 2003 3:05 PM
Whatever track record that heteroxexual marriage may have can not be deemed superior without a fair comparison. Can you point to a lengthy track record of failed homosexual marriages that have resulted in dysfunctional children? No.

On the other hand you certainly could point exactly such a negative track record among the only sample of marriages we have; heterosexual marriages. Now, you might argue that heterosexual marriage is nonetheless more likely to produce successful children. But again, you have no basis to claim that homosexuals could not raise even more successful children if given the chance.

Marriages are subject to the same human failings as all other human enterprises. If you grant that homosexuals are humans, I don't see how you can deny them the benefit of the doubt.
Appeal to common practice.Jon Billheimer
Nov 20, 2003 5:39 PM
"Common practice" at least has one advantage: it produces children to begin with. Secondly, children have clear gender and parenting-style roles with a mother and father to provide some balance and role modelling. The whole parenting issue seems rather commonsensical to me. But then I'm only a schmuck who happened to stay married to a woman for 40 years and raise three relatively normal kids. So what do I know?? (sarcasm intended)
You know your own experience.czardonic
Nov 21, 2003 9:59 AM
I know my experience, and it has worked relatively well for me. But I don't assume that it is therefore superior to that of others.