I'm not criticizing this article but I was just wondering had anyone else read this. This Gay couple has Quads and is expecting a 5th child. I do wonder which one will the kids call Mommy. They really look like a happy couple.

here
*************************************************************8
02-20-04, 07:49 AM
Texan-In-Exile
Wow! Gives a whole new meaning to "four-on-the-floor"! Wink
Yeah, they do look happy - I hope it all works out for them.
I like the way they're being open about the biological relations with all of the kids. That will make for healthier relationships later on.

02-20-04, 08:04 AM
Lydia
Well, the Mom would be the woman who gave birth to them and the two guys would both be Dads...

I don't really know, but I would assume that neither of them would be called "Mommy"...afterall, one of them is not a woman.

02-20-04, 11:08 AM
Tree
I'm not too sure that I'd want to be one of those babies. When I ask who's my Mom and they reply with "Aunt Brooke is your Mom".....Would I say "Great, I've known her all my life." OR would I say "WHAT???" Wink
02-20-04, 09:01 PM
coldfuse
Wow, Tree, that is confusing! But I guess if you live with that from the start then it can seem perfectly normal to you. I just hope the other kids - or should I say the other kids' parents - don't give them a lot of junk about their family when they get older.

02-21-04, 09:42 AM
frankvan
Considering the number of children without live-at-home moms, or dads, the number of blended families, single parents, etc. the traditional families are rapidly becoming the minority, so the number of children giving grief to those with two mommies or two dads is becoming a thing of the past. 'Fuse, you got that right about the parents. The children are born without prejudices until someone works on them.

02-21-04, 05:53 PM
Tree
Oh goodness, fuse, of course they will give them "junk" - I'd love a perfect world too, but you know it's not. Frown

02-22-04, 02:24 AM
stampeding turtles
Quote: "the traditional families are rapidly becoming the minority,"

How true! And to highlight one example,it was reported in our newspaper last week that Reno now has more single or unmarried people than married for the first time. It even beat out Las Vegas for the percentage of unmarried!

02-24-04, 11:11 AM
Kendor
Though not so apparent is the couple's true selfishness, the fact that the children will suffer from teasing is eminent.

And their personal mental torture will most certainly endure. Isn't it hard enough to imagine what one's [heterosexual] parents are doing behind the bedroom door?

02-25-04, 12:52 AM
stampeding turtles
I would have said it is a very unselfish act to provide a loving home environment to those who might not have had the opportunty otherwise.

It's true the kids will have to deal with cruel and ignorant people full of homophobia, which will taint everything it sees and interpret everything in a negative way without giving those dads any credit for the courage it takes to do something like this. Others will be more tolerant. The children themselves will certainly be more openminded, tolerant and understanding about differences. They might actually celebrate diversity, rather than fear it, like the older generation does.

I have worked with many heterosexual couples who are completely dysfunctional who should never have had children, and very young single lower socioeconomic mothers, all raising children in a way that is not as loving or as stable as this appears to be. The children don't have a chance in these dysfunctional heterosexual families I have worked with either.

Sorry, anymore I find homophobia offensive in the extreme. It's just like racism to me. After visiting the Holocaust museum in Washington DC, and seeing what the Nazis did to the gays, gypsies, mental defects and countless Jews, I see more clearly what homophobia really is.... just another type of destructive hatred that should be exposed for what it is, before it either kills or destroys the lives of more citizens.

02-25-04, 06:38 PM
frankvan
"They might actually celebrate diversity, rather than fear it, like the older generation does. "

Watch that turtles! I couldn't agree with you more, and if I am not part of the 'older generation' who is??

02-26-04, 03:13 PM
Kendor
Diversity for diversity's sake is never a good argument. Where it may be beneficial in some realms, it could be extremely harmful in others

02-26-04, 10:19 PM
stampeding turtles
But FrankVan you are different!!

You seem to be more "with it" and progressive on many issues I see debated here. You are not stuck in the past, but have moved on with the times, it seems. Your sexuality doesn't seem to be "threatened" by the whole thing. So you feel no need to attack it.

And maybe this is just an idea whose time has come ...and if that is true, nothing can really stop an idea if it's time has come.

Since the pendulum has swung back from the 60's and 70's( where the independent human spirit had it's last gasp before being placed on a life support system), to an ultraconservative, liberty-threatened America, where our public is in one of its periodic fits of religious hysteria and strict Victorian-style morality, I don't meet too many people like you on a day to day basis.

So, there is only one conclusion possible. You must be an alien from another planet." Big Grin

02-27-04, 07:07 PM
frankvan

quote:Originally posted by Kendor:
Diversity for diversity's sake is never a good argument. Where it may be beneficial in some realms, it could be extremely harmful in others



Could you furnish an example of where diversity is "extremely harmful"?? Confused

02-28-04, 01:29 PM
frankvan
S.T: Extraterrestrials of certain vintage have mostly nostalgic sexuality, I'm afraid. Wink

02-28-04, 02:44 PM
MrsS
LOL...Sorry to hear that, Frankvan.

02-28-04, 11:16 PM
samantha
OMG i can't think of anyone taking care of so many kids..jeeze Eek

02-29-04, 09:47 AM
Kendor
Well frank, firstly, the burden of proof lies with those claiming the benefits of diversity in any given application.

Second, I said, "could be", not "is".

But I'll give it a go:
Imagine that the US government, for diversity's sake, began issuing many different styles and colors of utility clothes for our military. Couldn't that be confusing in the field and, perhaps, have fatal results?

A bit silly? Of course it is. That's what I mean about applying diversity for diversity's sake.

02-29-04, 12:02 PM
frankvan
I can't think of any situation, with the possible exception of your multi-colored armed forces, where diversity is undesireable. And I can't possibly prove that it is desireable in every case, but: would society be better off with a purely heterosexual population? Without Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Noel Coward, Somerset Maugham,Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Plato, Oscar Wilde, etc. wouldn't we be much poorer? In my not overly-humble opinion, we would be. Wink

02-29-04, 01:28 PM
MrsS
As my husband pointed out when I described this thread to him, one only needs to take a good look at a few of the world's Royal families to see the value of genetic diversity...an observation not quite on target for this discussion, but still valid....In a great many cases,"purity" is its own worst enemy, as it hinders adaptability and tends to ingrain weaknesses more deeply than strengths.

03-01-04, 12:53 AM
DvdGStwrt
Gay Dads have Quadruplets
That is utterly ridiculous.

I can not understand these couples who use the fertility drugs to get litters. Hell, I do not even understand why anybody in their right mind would even think about bringing a new life into this crazy mixed up world - IF they have the choice.

I am simply against having these litters through fertility drugs, its just not right.

4 is more than enough mouths to feed, clothe and shelter - 4 requires a lot of attention, especially if they are all infants.

David

PS (So they are gay, what of it. Neither may be called Mom - Most likely one will be daddy, or dad, and the other Papa or pops)

03-01-04, 07:17 AM
Kendor

quote:Originally posted by MrsS:
As my husband pointed out when I described this thread to him, one only needs to take a good look at a few of the world's Royal families to see the value of genetic diversity...


"...or the movie, 'Wrong Turn'."

I agree with you MrsS, but we're not talking about genetic diversity. Undesirable traits acquired via genetics don't survive because of natural selection. That is, unless some outside force keeps it alive artificially.

Though homosexuality is not genetic, at least entirely, its promotion should be discouraged because, .... well heck, I don't need to explain this anymore.

03-01-04, 11:46 AM
DorianGreyed
Go ahead and explain, Kendor. I, for one, would like to hear it. I assume that you aren't going to use the same argument that you did in the Rosie thread, that homosexuality threatens our survival as a species; that would be rather ridiculous in a thread about a gay couple actually procreating, wouldn't it? Besides, as Aminator and FrankVan pointed out in the Rosie thread, that position has been disproved by a few thousand generations of an increasing population, hasn't it? So what is your objection now?

03-03-04, 01:53 PM
mattlynda
back to the original topic, i dont see why anyone should be allowed to use fertility drugs to become pregnant.

cant do it on your own?
adopt.
there is a HUGE population of unwanted kids, why not give them a chance?
it is a lot easier to provide for and give a good future to one child than it is for four.

03-03-04, 08:27 PM
honilov
Lynda, this couple is from Kentucky, and I read somewhere that gay couples aren't allowed to adopt in Kentucky.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,