(1) You made a very generalized statement that could be said to anyone, having nothing to do with any specific argument. You must be brilliant. (2) Sperm may come from males, but it's the sperm that's needed to mix with an egg to create an embryo. Just because someone is male doesn't mean that they can produce sperm, let alone sperm that is fertile. (3) That's an argument some people have had over the years when it comes to cloning, which I will give you kudos for making a legitimate argument. (4) I'm not quite sure what you mean by #4. (5) Well I'm sure anyone that skewed your argument the way you just did would agree. But the fact is, it takes a lot more than just money to adopt a child. My cousin is a social worker for an adoption agency. There is a long checklist of things to check for before someone allows you to adopt a child. There's tons of paperwork, tons of screening, visits that are scheduled and unscheduled before adoption is finalized. And who says that straight people have more experience with children just because they're straight? As a human sexuality educator, I've seen many parents after their children have come to me for help. Some straight parents that need some serious anger management, need to go to rehab, are verbally abusive and demeaning to their spouses and children, or physically abuse to their spouses and children. Again, you used the argument of "nature" to justify why something is better. But I can tell you from experience as an educator, just because you produce a child, doesn't mean you are interested in the care for that child. I have so many children coming to me just because they are craving attention that they are not getting at home. It's just heartbreaking. But couples (or singles) that adopt are much more likely to care for their children. A choice which for gay couples (until A.R.T.) was the only option if they wanted to have children. So I don't think it's that bold of statement to say that gay parents might be doing a better job. (6) If you really think that I am the only person to ever have this opinion, perhaps you should get to know more people that are not in majority groups. The incredible LGBTQ youth I've met in my line of work are incredible kids. Going through so much abuse because of people's faith, only to reassure beliefs that anything outside of heterosexuality isn't "natural". Or women that are constantly bugged by their mothers that they aren't getting any younger, and should seriously get married and have kids already. When there are many that don't want to. The whole "nature" argument comes from the basis of religion. Something that can't be measured, tested, or conclusive. So when someone argues "nature", we need to question it. (7) The fact that you think trans-men are "women who want to be boys" shows truly how ignorant you are. You should get to know some trans-men that are open about there identity. Perhaps you've come across some men that were trans and never even knew it. But if you educated yourself, or even just opened your mind, you would understand that there is no concrete definition of a "man". When we talk about biology, society has deems there is male, female, and intersex. But words like "man" and "woman"- there are no universal definitions. They people don't *want* to be men, they *are* men. But they were born female. And again, another group which the argument of "nature" is abusive to.
Is it normal that I am surprised by men who want children?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
(1) You made a very generalized statement that could be said to anyone, having nothing to do with any specific argument. You must be brilliant. (2) Sperm may come from males, but it's the sperm that's needed to mix with an egg to create an embryo. Just because someone is male doesn't mean that they can produce sperm, let alone sperm that is fertile. (3) That's an argument some people have had over the years when it comes to cloning, which I will give you kudos for making a legitimate argument. (4) I'm not quite sure what you mean by #4. (5) Well I'm sure anyone that skewed your argument the way you just did would agree. But the fact is, it takes a lot more than just money to adopt a child. My cousin is a social worker for an adoption agency. There is a long checklist of things to check for before someone allows you to adopt a child. There's tons of paperwork, tons of screening, visits that are scheduled and unscheduled before adoption is finalized. And who says that straight people have more experience with children just because they're straight? As a human sexuality educator, I've seen many parents after their children have come to me for help. Some straight parents that need some serious anger management, need to go to rehab, are verbally abusive and demeaning to their spouses and children, or physically abuse to their spouses and children. Again, you used the argument of "nature" to justify why something is better. But I can tell you from experience as an educator, just because you produce a child, doesn't mean you are interested in the care for that child. I have so many children coming to me just because they are craving attention that they are not getting at home. It's just heartbreaking. But couples (or singles) that adopt are much more likely to care for their children. A choice which for gay couples (until A.R.T.) was the only option if they wanted to have children. So I don't think it's that bold of statement to say that gay parents might be doing a better job. (6) If you really think that I am the only person to ever have this opinion, perhaps you should get to know more people that are not in majority groups. The incredible LGBTQ youth I've met in my line of work are incredible kids. Going through so much abuse because of people's faith, only to reassure beliefs that anything outside of heterosexuality isn't "natural". Or women that are constantly bugged by their mothers that they aren't getting any younger, and should seriously get married and have kids already. When there are many that don't want to. The whole "nature" argument comes from the basis of religion. Something that can't be measured, tested, or conclusive. So when someone argues "nature", we need to question it. (7) The fact that you think trans-men are "women who want to be boys" shows truly how ignorant you are. You should get to know some trans-men that are open about there identity. Perhaps you've come across some men that were trans and never even knew it. But if you educated yourself, or even just opened your mind, you would understand that there is no concrete definition of a "man". When we talk about biology, society has deems there is male, female, and intersex. But words like "man" and "woman"- there are no universal definitions. They people don't *want* to be men, they *are* men. But they were born female. And again, another group which the argument of "nature" is abusive to.