Yes, I think it is better for a persons parents to be heterosexual.

Don't get offended, people have differing views.
Let us agree to disagree.

ISF said:

Yes, I think it is better for a persons parents to be heterosexual.

Don't get offended, people have differing views.
Let us agree to disagree.

I don't agree with your POV, but I agree that it is okay for you to feel this way, as long as you would not try to prevent homosexual persons to raise children or get married.

It would be like saying "I think office workers raise children better than firemen." You would not prevent firemen from having children, it would just be an opinion, maybe even a prejudiced opinon, but let's face it, everyone is prejudiced in some way.

I think healthy, happy, upper-middle class thirty-somethings raise children better than a lot of other "types" but that does not mean the opposite cannot be true sometimes, too. Every stereotype could be true, but it's opposite is always true, as well.

The dangerous part is using the opinon/prejudice to legislate things like marriage or adoption or surrogacy laws.

well technically it takes male/female to make a baby so in some weird way one could take that to mean that males/females should raise said baby together. In a sense it is ideal however many single str8 parents and gay couples at least try to offer the child exposure to the opposite sex by way of family and friends as role models so it's not like the child won't benefit from that male/female parenting in some other way. I've seen this with lesbian couples who have male friends that act as father figures so perhaps a similar arrangement will occur with Elton and his partner. Maybe the nanny will be a woman.

Still....Elton is too old to be raising a child from birth. There's a reason why nature makes it harder for folk to reproduce successfully after a certain age and why birth defects occur when the parents are old (both males and females ). And like someone said earlier, there are a lot of kids in orphanages and foster care who could use a stable home and someone to call dad or mom on a permanent basis. An older child would have been more suitable and would benefit from Elton at his current age but this baby nah. By the time the kid is in middle school Elton will not be able to engage in sports or crafts activities, be able to keep up with the kid mentally or be able deal with the kid's anxieties about having an old parent when most classmates have younger parents. We see this with grandparents who end up having to raise their grandchildren....parenting is simply more difficult as one advances in age.

Youth is on everyone's side where reproduction is concerned.

^ Not always.

Youth may be a key but sometimes youth can be disruptive. We have so many young fathers turning their back on children because they don't want the responsibility.

I think it's easy to say what you're saying then it is to prove how factual that is. And contrary to popular belief, gay parents do have a mother to rear them in case they want to spend some quality time together for a week.

Timmy84 said:

^ Not always.

Youth may be a key but sometimes youth can be disruptive. We have so many young fathers turning their back on children because they don't want the responsibility.

I think it's easy to say what you're saying then it is to prove how factual that is. And contrary to popular belief, gay parents do have a mother to rear them in case they want to spend some quality time together for a week.

yes, parenting is not a lab situation.

You can argue that a child should have both male & female influence, and that they should be young enough to see the child go to college. But like you say, there is no guarantee that a hetero father will stay with the mother, or that he won't be an alcoholic, or that he won't be abusive, or that he will pay any attention to the children, etc, etc

Parenting is best judged on a case by case basis. Maybe The Larry Kings, Elton Johns, Melissa Ethridges, Tony Randalls of the world make great mothers & fathers. We know plenty of "traditional" parents are terrible at it.

NDRU said:

Timmy84 said:

^ Not always.

Youth may be a key but sometimes youth can be disruptive. We have so many young fathers turning their back on children because they don't want the responsibility.

I think it's easy to say what you're saying then it is to prove how factual that is. And contrary to popular belief, gay parents do have a mother to rear them in case they want to spend some quality time together for a week.

yes, parenting is not a lab situation.

You can argue that a child should have both male & female influence, and that they should be young enough to see the child go to college. But like you say, there is no guarantee that a hetero father will stay with the mother, or that he won't be an alcoholic, or that he won't be abusive, or that he will pay any attention to the children, etc, etc

Parenting is best judged on a case by case basis. Maybe The Larry Kings, Elton Johns, Melissa Ethridges, Tony Randalls of the world make great mothers & fathers. We know plenty of "traditional" parents are terrible at it.

Yeah don't forget Ronald Isley though, he's another one that could live long enough for his son. I'm more alarmed about his marriage though. But that's another story.

Timmy84 said:

^ Not always.

Youth may be a key but sometimes youth can be disruptive. We have so many young fathers turning their back on children because they don't want the responsibility.

I think it's easy to say what you're saying then it is to prove how factual that is. And contrary to popular belief, gay parents do have a mother to rear them in case they want to spend some quality time together for a week.

Your latter statement I think I already covered. I'm not saying gay parents (be they women or men) don't have a mother or father figure involved...I'm saying they more often than not DO have such figures for their kids so one can't assume that a kid raised by two women or two men won't have the benefit of both a dad and a mom at some point. An aunt or family friend can be a parental figure and even god parents. Sure there are some incidents where a kid won't grow up knowing a father or mother figure at all but I think that's rare.

With regard to youth, I'm not talking teen parents of course but your typical breeding years which tend to be 25-40. If you read parenting articles, articles on fertility & reproduction and even articles on blended families....you don't see on average people in their retirement years having and raising newborns. It's just rare and I don't think that's accidental. I think it's biological, cultural and societal. People just know that at some point you have to give up the idea of making/birthing babies.

DesireeNevermind said:

Timmy84 said:

^ Not always.

Youth may be a key but sometimes youth can be disruptive. We have so many young fathers turning their back on children because they don't want the responsibility.

I think it's easy to say what you're saying then it is to prove how factual that is. And contrary to popular belief, gay parents do have a mother to rear them in case they want to spend some quality time together for a week.

Your latter statement I think I already covered. I'm not saying gay parents (be they women or men) don't have a mother or father figure involved...I'm saying they more often than not DO have such figures for their kids so one can't assume that a kid raised by two women or two men won't have the benefit of both a dad and a mom at some point. An aunt or family friend can be a parental figure and even god parents. Sure there are some incidents where a kid won't grow up knowing a father or mother figure at all but I think that's rare.

With regard to youth, I'm not talking teen parents of course but your typical breeding years which tend to be 25-40. If you read parenting articles, articles on fertility & reproduction and even articles on blended families....you don't see on average people in their retirement years having and raising newborns. It's just rare and I don't think that's accidental. I think it's biological, cultural and societal. People just know that at some point you have to give up the idea of making/birthing babies.

Just because we haven't seen it don't mean it's not true that it occurs. Again you never know how life turns out.

^ true. I won't hold my breath though.

DesireeNevermind said:

Timmy84 said:

^ Not always.

Youth may be a key but sometimes youth can be disruptive. We have so many young fathers turning their back on children because they don't want the responsibility.

I think it's easy to say what you're saying then it is to prove how factual that is. And contrary to popular belief, gay parents do have a mother to rear them in case they want to spend some quality time together for a week.

With regard to youth, I'm not talking teen parents of course but your typical breeding years which tend to be 25-40. If you read parenting articles, articles on fertility & reproduction and even articles on blended families....you don't see on average people in their retirement years having and raising newborns. It's just rare and I don't think that's accidental. I think it's biological, cultural and societal. People just know that at some point you have to give up the idea of making/birthing babies.

People used to only live about 35 years, so women's fertility & the more "typical" age of reproduction doesn't make as much biological sense as it used to.

People are living into their 90's. It's not like Elton needs to protect his child physically or hunt for him. He just needs to provide for him and teach him to be a good kid.

And Elton's situation just is not normal. You can't compare him to just ANY 65 year old having kids

NDRU said:

DesireeNevermind said:

With regard to youth, I'm not talking teen parents of course but your typical breeding years which tend to be 25-40. If you read parenting articles, articles on fertility & reproduction and even articles on blended families....you don't see on average people in their retirement years having and raising newborns. It's just rare and I don't think that's accidental. I think it's biological, cultural and societal. People just know that at some point you have to give up the idea of making/birthing babies.

People used to only live about 35 years, so women's fertility & the more "typical" age of reproduction doesn't make as much biological sense as it used to.

People are living into their 90's. It's not like Elton needs to protect his child physically or hunt for him. He just needs to provide for him and teach him to be a good kid.

And Elton's situation just is not normal. You can't compare him to just ANY 65 year old having kids

Women are still having babies at 40, 50, 60 years old too.

Timmy84 said:

NDRU said:

People used to only live about 35 years, so women's fertility & the more "typical" age of reproduction doesn't make as much biological sense as it used to.

People are living into their 90's. It's not like Elton needs to protect his child physically or hunt for him. He just needs to provide for him and teach him to be a good kid.

And Elton's situation just is not normal. You can't compare him to just ANY 65 year old having kids

Women are still having babies at 40, 50, 60 years old too.

Sorry but that shit is foul too. Just cuz medical advances allow you to do something nature otherwise doesn't should not move you to do that thing. We can put human ears on mice but it doesn't mean we should. No 60 year old woman should be having a baby. The majority do this through egg donation. Many IVF centers won't even work with a woman past the age of 46. I've learned this through my aunts struggles to conceive and she is 47. There are health risks to both mother and infant the older the mother is. This is why most women stop menstruating after 50. Nature is not to be mocked. There is a design to our survival and ability to thrive.

NDRU

When have people ever only lived to be 35? All cultures and societies are different. People as a rule didn't up and die at 35 for nothing. Many ethnic groups have had folk living into their 90s especially those peoples who lived in more fertile and tropical areas e.g. native americans who had longer life spans than their european invaders who introduced to diseases to them and destroyed their food sources and habitats during hostile takeover.

You have war, disease, availability of food and clean water and a host of other factors that play into life expectancy but life span alone is not a reason to keep attempting breeding. Elton doesn't need to hunt for his kid like they're living in the wilderness but as a quality father he should be able to interact with his child and do normal things like play with the kid, mentally stimulate the kid, keep up with demands for his time, travel with the child, stay healthy and alert for the kid etc. The older you get the harder it is to do such things. Why do you think people retire from working in their 60s? Parenting is arguably the hardest job anyone can have because it's nearly a 24/7 occupation that continues even after the child matures.

Y'all should ask your parents how much work it was to raise you then ask them if they could have done it so easily at 65.

^ I know a great aunt of mine's who died at 35. Think she had a heart attack.

Timmy84 said:

^ I know a great aunt of mine's who died at 35. Think she had a heart attack.

Yeah but what caused the heart attack? Stress, nutritionally deficient diet, obesity, gum disease, drug or alchohol abuse, birth defect etc? Is is not the norm that people have heart attacks at 35. It is the norm that as you age so does your heart and if you were a drug abuser for much of your youth like Sir Elton, then you've upped your chances significantly for having a heart attack later in life. That's just the reality of it all and the choices we make. Nobody is saying Elton is going to kick the bucket tomorrow but it is very likely that his health will further deteriorate (part of the aging process for someone already compromised by life long drug abuse) and he will not be as active and involved parent as this baby deserves. Plain ole common sense.

DesireeNevermind said:

Timmy84 said:

Women are still having babies at 40, 50, 60 years old too.

Sorry but that shit is foul too. Just cuz medical advances allow you to do something nature otherwise doesn't should not move you to do that thing. We can put human ears on mice but it doesn't mean we should. No 60 year old woman should be having a baby. The majority do this through egg donation. Many IVF centers won't even work with a woman past the age of 46. I've learned this through my aunts struggles to conceive and she is 47. There are health risks to both mother and infant the older the mother is. This is why most women stop menstruating after 50. Nature is not to be mocked. There is a design to our survival and ability to thrive.

NDRU

When have people ever only lived to be 35? All cultures and societies are different. People as a rule didn't up and die at 35 for nothing. Many ethnic groups have had folk living into their 90s especially those peoples who lived in more fertile and tropical areas e.g. native americans who had longer life spans than their european invaders who introduced to diseases to them and destroyed their food sources and habitats during hostile takeover.

You have war, disease, availability of food and clean water and a host of other factors that play into life expectancy but life span alone is not a reason to keep attempting breeding. Elton doesn't need to hunt for his kid like they're living in the wilderness but as a quality father he should be able to interact with his child and do normal things like play with the kid, mentally stimulate the kid, keep up with demands for his time, travel with the child, stay healthy and alert for the kid etc. The older you get the harder it is to do such things. Why do you think people retire from working in their 60s? Parenting is arguably the hardest job anyone can have because it's nearly a 24/7 occupation that continues even after the child matures.

Y'all should ask your parents how much work it was to raise you then ask them if they could have done it so easily at 65.

through all of history until the 20th century http://en.wikipedia.org/w...expectancy

Currently Swaziland's life expectancy is 39

I don't disagree that most older people have less energy, and there is a reason people have kids at a fairly young age, but that there are exceptions to any rule. There are a lot of factors in parenting not just age.

DesireeNevermind said:

Timmy84 said:

^ I know a great aunt of mine's who died at 35. Think she had a heart attack.

Yeah but what caused the heart attack? Stress, nutritionally deficient diet, obesity, gum disease, drug or alchohol abuse, birth defect etc? Is is not the norm that people have heart attacks at 35. It is the norm that as you age so does your heart and if you were a drug abuser for much of your youth like Sir Elton, then you've upped your chances significantly for having a heart attack later in life. That's just the reality of it all and the choices we make. Nobody is saying Elton is going to kick the bucket tomorrow but it is very likely that his health will further deteriorate (part of the aging process for someone already compromised by life long drug abuse) and he will not be as active and involved parent as this baby deserves. Plain ole common sense.

Unless someone has dealt with stress ALL THEIR LIVES, I doubt no one will always die once their 70s and 80s come up. Usually you die over some other mess than what you're ailing with. This can be at any age. Like for instance, someone in their 90s can die of natural causes though they had cancer and cancer wasn't even the cause of death.

Timmy84 said:

DesireeNevermind said:

Yeah but what caused the heart attack? Stress, nutritionally deficient diet, obesity, gum disease, drug or alchohol abuse, birth defect etc? Is is not the norm that people have heart attacks at 35. It is the norm that as you age so does your heart and if you were a drug abuser for much of your youth like Sir Elton, then you've upped your chances significantly for having a heart attack later in life. That's just the reality of it all and the choices we make. Nobody is saying Elton is going to kick the bucket tomorrow but it is very likely that his health will further deteriorate (part of the aging process for someone already compromised by life long drug abuse) and he will not be as active and involved parent as this baby deserves. Plain ole common sense.

Unless someone has dealt with stress ALL THEIR LIVES, I doubt no one will always die once their 70s and 80s come up. Usually you die over some other mess than what you're ailing with. This can be at any age. Like for instance, someone in their 90s can die of natural causes though they had cancer and cancer wasn't even the cause of death.

Also, how many people live to 80 naturally? Don't most older people use some kind of medication? Would they survive without it?

Or an injury might have been life threatening back then, or losing teeth, or bad eyesight.

Living to 70-80 is not really natural

NDRU said:

Timmy84 said:

Unless someone has dealt with stress ALL THEIR LIVES, I doubt no one will always die once their 70s and 80s come up. Usually you die over some other mess than what you're ailing with. This can be at any age. Like for instance, someone in their 90s can die of natural causes though they had cancer and cancer wasn't even the cause of death.

Also, how many people live to 80 naturally? Don't most older people use some kind of medication? Would they survive without it?

Or an injury might have been life threatening back then, or losing teeth, or bad eyesight.

Living to 70-80 is not really natural

Unless you're a health nut or you're very active in what you do.

NDRU said:

DesireeNevermind said:

Sorry but that shit is foul too. Just cuz medical advances allow you to do something nature otherwise doesn't should not move you to do that thing. We can put human ears on mice but it doesn't mean we should. No 60 year old woman should be having a baby. The majority do this through egg donation. Many IVF centers won't even work with a woman past the age of 46. I've learned this through my aunts struggles to conceive and she is 47. There are health risks to both mother and infant the older the mother is. This is why most women stop menstruating after 50. Nature is not to be mocked. There is a design to our survival and ability to thrive.

NDRU

When have people ever only lived to be 35? All cultures and societies are different. People as a rule didn't up and die at 35 for nothing. Many ethnic groups have had folk living into their 90s especially those peoples who lived in more fertile and tropical areas e.g. native americans who had longer life spans than their european invaders who introduced to diseases to them and destroyed their food sources and habitats during hostile takeover.

You have war, disease, availability of food and clean water and a host of other factors that play into life expectancy but life span alone is not a reason to keep attempting breeding. Elton doesn't need to hunt for his kid like they're living in the wilderness but as a quality father he should be able to interact with his child and do normal things like play with the kid, mentally stimulate the kid, keep up with demands for his time, travel with the child, stay healthy and alert for the kid etc. The older you get the harder it is to do such things. Why do you think people retire from working in their 60s? Parenting is arguably the hardest job anyone can have because it's nearly a 24/7 occupation that continues even after the child matures.

Y'all should ask your parents how much work it was to raise you then ask them if they could have done it so easily at 65.

through all of history until the 20th century http://en.wikipedia.org/w...expectancy

Currently Swaziland's life expectancy is 39

I don't disagree that most older people have less energy, and there is a reason people have kids at a fairly young age, but that there are exceptions to any rule. There are a lot of factors in parenting not just age.

Ok first off wikipedia is not exactly the most credible source for stats on life expectancy and second if you're going to use them anyway why not include some other pertinent parts in your posts:

Interpretation of life expectancy

In countries with high infant mortality rates, the life expectancy at birth is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life. Because of this sensitivity to infant mortality, simple life expectancy at age zero can be subject to gross misinterpretation, leading one to believe that a population with a low overall life expectancy will necessarily have a small proportion of older people. For example, in a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five, but everybody else dies exactly at 70 years old, the life expectancy at age zero will be about 37 years, while about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70. Another measure such as life expectancy at age 5 (e₅) can be used to exclude the effect of infant mortality to provide a simple measure of overall mortality rates other than in early childhood—in the hypothetical population above, life expectancy at age 5 would be 65 years

Humans live on average 39.5 years in Swaziland^[4] and 81 years in Japan (2008 est.), although Japan's recorded life expectancy may have been very slightly increased by counting many infant deaths as stillborn.^[5]The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years (see Jeanne Calment). This is referred to as the "maximum life span", which is the upper boundary of life, the maximum number of years any human is known to have lived.^[6]

Check this out

Life Expectancy calculator.

just punching in a few tidbits on Elton, and they had him not living past next year. cold I know. it's mostly for amusement I think/hope.

http://moneycentral.msn.c...t/main.asp

^

Some people on Wiki cite links though.

The site itself isn't reliable but clicking on the links in the references section could be the reason why people choose to rely on Wikipedia for information.

Hell most information sites, you have to have a credit card to access them now.

DesireeNevermind said:

Check this out

Life Expectancy calculator.

just punching in a few tidbits on Elton, and they had him not living past next year. cold I know. it's mostly for amusement I think/hope.

http://moneycentral.msn.c...t/main.asp

Are you serious, Desiree?

Jesus. lol

Timmy84 said:

DesireeNevermind said:

Check this out

Life Expectancy calculator.

just punching in a few tidbits on Elton, and they had him not living past next year. cold I know. it's mostly for amusement I think/hope.

http://moneycentral.msn.c...t/main.asp

Are you serious, Desiree?

Jesus. lol

dang why you gotta sound like my mom when you say that?

[Edited 1/3/11 15:12pm]

DesireeNevermind said:

Timmy84 said:

Are you serious, Desiree?

Jesus. lol

dang why you gotta sound like my mom when you say that?

[Edited 1/3/11 15:12pm]

I can't help but feel like a concerned big brother...sometimes.

u aint right

DesireeNevermind said:

NDRU said:

through all of history until the 20th century http://en.wikipedia.org/w...expectancy

Currently Swaziland's life expectancy is 39

I don't disagree that most older people have less energy, and there is a reason people have kids at a fairly young age, but that there are exceptions to any rule. There are a lot of factors in parenting not just age.

Ok first off wikipedia is not exactly the most credible source for stats on life expectancy and second if you're going to use them anyway why not include some other pertinent parts in your posts:

Interpretation of life expectancy

In countries with high infant mortality rates, the life expectancy at birth is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life. Because of this sensitivity to infant mortality, simple life expectancy at age zero can be subject to gross misinterpretation, leading one to believe that a population with a low overall life expectancy will necessarily have a small proportion of older people. For example, in a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five, but everybody else dies exactly at 70 years old, the life expectancy at age zero will be about 37 years, while about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70. Another measure such as life expectancy at age 5 (e₅) can be used to exclude the effect of infant mortality to provide a simple measure of overall mortality rates other than in early childhood—in the hypothetical population above, life expectancy at age 5 would be 65 years

yeah, obviously some people are living longer and some are dying younger, that is what makes an average

DesireeNevermind said:

u aint right

It's all good.

I feel that for gay couples adoption should be the only option.

Well I gotta be careful on this one...

I'm gonna say it, and you can take it however you wanna take it.

ANYBODY can have kids anymore, it seems.

And no, it has nothing to do with him being gay. I have gay friends and a gay family member, so it has nothing to do with that.

DJFreelan said:

Well I gotta be careful on this one...

I'm gonna say it, and you can take it however you wanna take it.

ANYBODY can have kids anymore, it seems.

And no, it has nothing to do with him being gay. I have gay friends and a gay family member, so it has nothing to do with that.

So the act of child making and rearing has been cheapened IYO? For instance.....babies are to be designed and/or bought now that we have sperm banks, egg donors, surrogates, easy overseas adpotions, octomoms and rich celebs willing to pay top dollar for any and all above? Octomom is gettin' top dollar from that porn king who makes the vivid films. Allegedly. She had all those babies at once because she thought the public would send her money. I'm almost convinced that was the case.

I'm just trying to figure out your statement is all. When people say "anybody" can do this or that it usually means that a certain "this or that" has been lessened somehow.

The thrill is gone!!!! In my BB King voice.