Jessica and Melanie are married. They have decided to start a family, Jessica will be inseminated with sperm donated by Melanie's brother. Is their child automatically at a disadvantage with compared to a child of a similar same sex couple?
I wouldn't say the kid is disadvantaged. The moms might have a little more of a struggle explaining to the kid where babies come from, but I'm pretty sure thats a little awkward for every parent.
arrrrgh ... And I messed up the question ... Meant to be "similar opposite sex couple". Closing poll and retreating.
Gonna try to post a new one with the correct language?
Done. I can't believe that. Sorry ... No wonder it was confusing. Time for sleep.
That explains a lot for sure! It was a bit confusing at first.
Yup. Disadvantaged because the gays will corrupt his little mind.
Very important part of the question: "compared to a child of a similar same-sex couple"
In what way?
I would not support this. The child's uncle will also be it's true father.
It happens, but I think that a random sperm donator would be better.
Fair enough ... I could have constructed the question that way too. In reality, this is a fairly common approach. It brings in the genetics from both families.
Ya, I'm not to sure about the Uncle Dad thing either. Weird, but to each their own I guess.
Didn't Hillary blame Bill's adultery on "seeking the affection of two women growing up"? Sounds like a disadvantage...
Are you saying that Hillary is right?
If someone followed by MachoMatt would share this poll ... that would be way cool.
He doesn't follow me, but I shared it so maybe it could get to someone who he follows.
I'm sorry, how is this similar to my questions? My questions were not meant in anyway to demean or put down same sex couples/parents in any way and I made that very clear.
This is the missing question in your series Matt.
There have been multiple questions about whether kids are better off with biological opposite-sex parents or with adoptive same-sex parents. This flip question may clarify whether people think its about birth parents, or the parents' orientation.
I never demeaned same sex couples. I never said they were bad. My questions (initially) were intended to establish a baseline that in a perfect world, a child is raised, with love and care, by their biological parents. Why? Because if the...
...biological parents take the responsibility of raising their kids, it severely reduces the number of orphans, foster children, and single parent households. All of this, in turn, can make a huge difference in the futures of kids. I did mention...
... several times that same sex couples can certainly be good parents. What I may not have said but will voice here is that I think they're a great option for orphans and foster kids. Again though, my emphasis was that *ideally* kids should be...
... raised by their biological parents, barring abuse, neglect, and absentee parenting.
Matt! I'm seriously not picking on you. I wanted this to get to you because I do think it rounds out the picture all these rolled up opinions paint. Birth parents are generally the best choice. I agree with you. I think the whole same-sex thing
Was simply a distraction from your argument. "Adoptive" in general would have worked.
I've worked with street kids in Seattle. I will say there are some awful parents out there. The laws in this state push "reunification" a bit too heavily. Sometimes the right thing is to find a new home for the child.
Oh, I got you. In that case, yes, it sounds like we do agree, and yes, the conversation went completely the wrong direction because it seems that many (certainly not the majority, thankfully) were too caught up in the fact I was suggesting (and...
... rightly so) that a kid being raised by their biological parents, barring abuse, neglect and whatnot, is the most ideal situation all around. It is what it is. We shall see what others say here then.
I don't see why that kid would be at a disadvantage.