Rosie O'donnell is Gay

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by DetroitDave


My buttons are pushed because she's taking something that seems integral to the gay identity like "coming out"*, and using it in a backhanded way to push herself back into the spotlight, pure and simple.

Its as if she is 'Born Again'!

[psst.. she looks like she's put on some weight ]

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DetroitDave

My buttons are pushed because she's taking something that seems integral to the gay identity like "coming out"*, and using it in a backhanded way to push herself back into the spotlight, pure and simple.

If this is so, then your anger is certainly justified -- though her explanation ("I'm advocating gay parenting, I am a gay parent, I have to acknowledge that or I damage my cause") could well be sincere. After all, it is hard to think of any celebrity who has come out and then found their career options and publicity increase, except very temporarily; it hardly seems a good "career move." Ask Anne Heche.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
We tell them "honey, its alright you don't have a daddy. I mean, look at Melissa Ethridge. Her child's father is David Crosby"

What a wonderful gift they've given this child. The genes of an addict and the parenting skills of a psychopath.

I'm against creating any more children who won't be raised by two parents of different genders. It damages their ability to relate to people of the gender missing in their life. Adoption is another matter, though all things being equal I would rather see children adopted by couples made up of both genders than homosexual couples. The only time (again all other factors being equal) I would want to have a child adopted by a homosexual couple is if the alternative was to have that child adopted by a single parent. Two parents are a huge advantage, and I don't know of any evidence which suggests that a gay parent has a de facto negative impact upon their children, (though I wouldn't be surprised if this was true to some extent).

[Jac de Molay]

RTF: Points well taken, but this is the media juggernaut known as "Rosie" we're talking about. If anything, her overall exposure will increase faster than her girth (sorry low blow, couldn't resist).

I think the act of publicly coming out by these celebs has a way of reaching the Overkill threshold real quick. It seems us Little People, after hearing something like this, basically want to move on. After all, people in the real world make these deeply personal decisions on a daily basis with considerably less hubris.

These days, I dont necessarily think its the stigmatization that would kill a celeb's career more than overexposure to the fact. After all, many musicians/actors have very strong careers despite being "out". It's when these figures feel the need to indoctrinate or preach that trips them up, Ellen being the example.

Underestimating your audience is the career-killer, not being gay.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sikander -

So what does that say about hundreds of thousands of mother only families, because the alleged "father" decides to bail, says screw child support and has nothing to do with his kids.

Some of the best damn kids I've ever seen grew up and are growing up without dads - including my niece and nephew, because my brother died when they were young.

One giving, dedicated responsible parent, regardless of gender, is preferable to that parent having time and energy wasted by a waste of DNA just because he happens to be the second parent in name only.

It's sure as hell preferable to two disfunctional, irresponsible parents.

I've known a number of single moms (and a couple of single dads) who are without doubt among the best, most dedicated parents any kid could have, and they generally beat the hell out of the "average" two parent household. Their kids certainly bear that out.

[Promethus]

1. If people had to be licensed to be parents there would be a lot fewer of them.

2, If you had to be licensed, Gay parents would be a significant number of the licensed parents because they would put more effort into it.

3. Is being in a “Traditional Family” where the father is a drunk and beats the children and wife a better situation than a nurturing Gay family?

4. Why is it that “Traditional” is seen to be the best when “Traditional” is always a changing value (example: when America was founded Woman could not own land or inherit there husbands money, it all went to the eldest son or if non then to the government)?

I subscribe to the W.C. Fields theory “That anyone who hates children and small animals can’t be all bad”.
.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Sikander -

So what does that say about hundreds of thousands of mother only families, because the alleged "father" decides to bail, says screw child support and has nothing to do with his kids.

Some of the best damn kids I've ever seen grew up and are growing up without dads - including my niece and nephew, because my brother died when they were young.

One giving, dedicated responsible parent, regardless of gender, is preferable to that parent having time and energy wasted by a waste of DNA just because he happens to be the second parent in name only.

It's sure as hell preferable to two disfunctional, irresponsible parents.

I've known a number of single moms (and a couple of single dads) who are without doubt among the best, most dedicated parents any kid could have, and they generally beat the hell out of the "average" two parent household. Their kids certainly bear that out.

MtG,

I grew up with one parent most of the time, so don't think I'm saying that anyone who grows up like that is doomed. My sister and I were neglected because in reality we had very little parenting at all, with my mom working and going to medical school etc. This had a negative effect upon us. We would have both been better off with two parents (and just to head off the abusive parent case, of course I mean two decent parents).

A quick look at the statistics for boys who grow up with only a mother will bear this out. They (as a statistical whole) suffer from neglect far more often than boys raised in a two parent household, and they suffer additionally from the lack of a regular male role model (again as a statistical whole, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding). Their rates for dropping out of school / criminality are far higher than boys raised in two parent homes, even after you norm for income, race etc. Girls also suffer from the absence of a father, though they don't often display the same symptoms of trouble with the law / school as their brothers, but instead have trouble in relationships with men, because they don't have a healthy close relationship with an adult male to use as a point of departure. Individual results vary widely, but if you think raising children with one parent is close to optimal you are kidding yourself.

I realize that the perfect can be the enemy of the good in many cases (ie, an abusive spouse in a two parent household might be worse for the children than a single parent), and most people are doing the best that they know how to. It's important however that people know what's important for their children, and with the breakdown of the family in the last 40-50 years, many do not know it from experience. In fact many of us were trained to do the wrong things by our hippy parents who had some screwed up ideas about what good parenting was like.

Of course a large number of single parents are single parents due to divorce, and their children have varying degrees of contact with their non-custodial parents. These children tend to be a lot better off (note the trend here, I'm speaking of the group at large, not individual cases) than their peers who never had fathers, but rather sperm donors. In my opinion being a good parent means doing the best that you can do for your children, and this starts before you have them for best results. Anyone who is too caught up in themselves, and puts their own convenience ahead of what's best for the children they bring into the world is too immature to be a good parent. There are many of these sorts of 'parents' out there.

Please note that I used the statement 'all things being equal' when I ranked the situations I though best for children. Obviously children raised by Mary Poppins are going to be better off than those raised by a couple of drunks. IMO children raised by two lesbian Mary Poppins' will be better off than those raised by one, and children raised by Mary Poppins and Burt will be better off than those raised by the two lesbian Mary Poppins. If we are trying to send adopted kids to the best situations we can for them, then we have to keep this in mind. If there are two parties vying for the same child, and all the players seem to be of sound mind, free of drug problems, financially capable etc., then there are other measures we can use to give these children what they deserve, which is the best situation we can find for them. If that means Rosie O'Donnel (who I loathe btw), then so be it.

[MrFun]

There are still people like DetroitDavid who do not understand the legitimate reasons for coming out.

I'm tired of reiterating the same arguments that I have made already on explaining the concept of coming out.

So, to save us all time, I have put the legitimate reasons for coming out in my Signature line.

The only problems that arise from a healthy, stable homosexual couple raising a child or children, are the problems that come from a society that tolerates and even actively supports homophobia.

[Sava]

I just wish that all the laws were equal. I really don't care if people are gay. Maybe then, "coming out" wouldn't be such a big deal.

10% of all animals are homosexual, yet, they don't seem to care.

[Faeelin]

Out of curiosity, why is it to discriminate against a couple because it's two men or two women and not religion?

After all, they're both "preferences". If anything, homosexuality is more of a genetic/biological thing than religion. Which is a matter of culture and upbringing.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
I just wish that all the laws were equal. I really don't care if people are gay. Maybe then, "coming out" wouldn't be such a big deal.

10% of all animals are homosexual, yet, they don't seem to care.

Would you like to buy a clue??
Animals are not capable of caring for anything beyond mating, food, and sleep.

And as for sexual orientation -- we cannot determine for certain whether it's genetics, psychological, or sociological development factors. Or a combination of them.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sava
I just wish that all the laws were equal. I really don't care if people are gay. Maybe then, "coming out" wouldn't be such a big deal.

10% of all animals are homosexual, yet, they don't seem to care.

Perhaps you ought to read the thread (and others on the general topic) before you go shooting your mouth off.

The reason "coming out" is a big deal is because everyone is assumed to be heterosexual in our culture, unless they state otherwise.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MrFun


Would you like to buy a clue??
Animals are not capable of caring for anything beyond mating, food, and sleep.

I think you are the one who "needs a clue", in this case.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Osweld


I think you are the one who "needs a clue", in this case.

How so?? Are you implying that animals are capable of being conscious of abstract concepts and ideas??

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MrFun


How so?? Are you implying that animals are capable of being conscious of abstract concepts and ideas??

Of course they are, but that's not what I implying.


I was implying that animals don't just mate, sleep, and eat - especially since that means that there would be 0 homosexual behaviour in the 'animal kingdom' which there certainly is, as the post that you replied to was saying.

I believe his point was that if humans didn't care about sexuality(like is the case with all other animals), coming out would not only mean nothing, it wouldn't exist - because there would be no need for it.