Rupert Everett: 'There's nothing worse than gay parents'


Locutus
#1
Rupert Everett has spoken out against gay parents and said he “can’t think of anything worse” than two men bringing up a child together.

The star of the 1998 film Shakespeare in Love blazed a trail for gay actors when he came out as homosexual 20 years ago.

However, he has been criticised by gay rights groups after giving an interview in which he decried same-sex couples who have children.

The 53-year-old told the Sunday Times Magazine that his mother Sara had met his boyfriend but “still wishes I had a wife and kids.”

“She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her,” he said. “I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.

“Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That’s just my opinion.

“I’m not speaking on behalf of the gay community. In fact, I don’t feel like I’m part of any ‘community’.
“The only community I belong to is humanity and we’ve got too many children on the planet, so it’s good not to have more.”

more

Rupert Everett: 'There's nothing worse than gay parents' - Telegraph
 
L Gilbert
+4
#2
Oh, well. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion.
 
SLM
+7
#3
I always find it suspicious when actors make "controversial" statements and their last big film was over a decade ago. Not saying that's what is, just saying though.
 
taxslave
#4
Maybe he has been reduced to making adds for the GOP to earn some money?
 
WLDB
+3
#5
I was raised by just a mother. You dont really "need" a mother and a father. Sure, it may be ideal but one or the other (or any combination) can get the job done. Its been done before and will be again. I can think of much worse things than being brought up by two gay dads or two lesbian mothers. Like having heterosexual Susan Smith as a mother for example.
 
skookumchuck
+1
#6
Doesn't matter whose Ox is getting "gored" or not, someone is gonna be upset
 
Corduroy
+9
#7  Top Rated Post
I can think of a few worse things than gay parents: sexually abusive parents, neglectful parents, junkie parents, no parents (unless you're Batman), religious fanatic parents, toddler beauty pageant parents.
 
Colpy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

I can think of a few worse things than gay parents: sexually abusive parents, neglectful parents, junkie parents, no parents (unless you're Batman), religious fanatic parents, toddler beauty pageant parents.

I think a kid needs a Mom and a Dad........but it is hard to disagree with your point.
 
coldstream
-1
#9
An exhaustive academic study by U of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus recently prompted a vitriolic campaign against him at the University, when in strictly contolled and objective studies he found there were measurable and definable negative impacts on children raised in same sex, homosexual households.

To its credit the campaign to expel Regnerus failed at the University.. no doubt to the great frustration of pseudo psycho 'scientists' that have attached themselves to the homosexual cause.. .. who want to prevent any publishing or academic credibility attached to anything counter to the politically correct mantra of the indistinguishability of traditional and homosexual families.

Essentially it seems that homosexual households really are tantamount to child abuse

Case Closed at UT Austin: Regnerus Exonerated

study of children in same sex households
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 17th, 2012 at 01:05 PM..
 
Colpy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

I was raised by just a mother. You dont really "need" a mother and a father. Sure, it may be ideal but one or the other (or any combination) can get the job done. Its been done before and will be again. I can think of much worse things than being brought up by two gay dads or two lesbian mothers. Like having heterosexual Susan Smith as a mother for example.

Like I said above.....
 
Machjo
+1
#11
Let's suppose two heterosexual celibate men were raising a kid together. What would we say to that?
 
coldstream
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Let's suppose two heterosexual celibate men were raising a kid together. What would we say to that?


There is a genius to both the male and female contributions to child rearing.. that can't be faked. A childhood deficient in one or the other and within a family gounded on the love of those parent for each other and the child.. will be impoverished in comparison.

It's obvious for all who want to see.. of the catastrophic social outcomes for individuals and communities in the absence of (real) fathers.. or mothers.
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 17th, 2012 at 01:25 PM..
 
Corduroy
+1
#13
What is a male contribution and female contribution to child rearing?
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

There is a genius to both the male and female contributions to child rearing.. that can't be faked. A childhood deficient in one or the other and within a family gounded on the love of those parent for each other and the child.. will be impoverished in comparison.

It's obvious for all who want to see.. of the catastrophic social outcomes for individuals and communities in the absence of (real) fathers.. or mothers.

Let's say the mother dies and the brother in law decides to move in to help out for awhile. It's still better than nothing, right?
 
55Mercury
+4
#15
I would imagine any communal setting where there is harmony amongst the members would be a better atmosphere for raising children than one which is fraught with discord, regardless of gender or orientation.
 
WLDB
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

There is a genius to both the male and female contributions to child rearing.. that can't be faked. A childhood deficient in one or the other and within a family gounded on the love of those parent for each other and the child.. will be impoverished in comparison.

It's obvious for all who want to see.. of the catastrophic social outcomes for individuals and communities in the absence of (real) fathers.. or mothers.

I was raised by a single mother. Im fine. My sister is too - though she had a really big rough couple years and became a mother young. My father was an abusive alcoholic. My mother was lucky to get rid of him. In hindsight so were me and my sister. Nearly all of my friends come from single parent households. Given divorce rates it wont be long before most children are raised in such a way.

Now there are ways around adoption if you are a homosexual couple. I personally know of two couples who simply made an arrangement with a member of the opposite sex and had a child. So its now quite easy for homosexuals to reproduce and be parents in a relationship with someone of the same sex. Though I do imagine a lot of those kids will end up being ultimately raised by one parent. From what Ive read the divorce rates among homosexuals is similar to that of heterosexuals.

The nuclear family is no longer the only way.
 
Cliffy
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

What is a male contribution and female contribution to child rearing?

Males are not much more than sperm donors, except in rare occasions. With both parents working in most households today, I think that it would be hard to objectively measure the differences between any combination of parents. And as you pointed out before, heterosexual parents come in all stripes and perversions.
 
coldstream
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Let's say the mother dies and the brother in law decides to move in to help out for awhile. It's still better than nothing, right?


The study was intended to determine whether children are in fact affected negatively by unconventional homosexual lifestyles by parents. It indicates that they are. Certainly you will find many cases where children of single parents have flourished... or where highly dysfunctional families... those plagued with alcoholism and the like.. in fact are very injurious to the children regardless of the presence of two heterosexual parents. But that doesn't undercut the point that there are ideals that affect both community and individuals.. and that should be promoted by society in general.. rather than utterly rejected in service of some gratuitous concept of equality.
 
Walter
+1
#19
I disagree with Rupert. My parents were and are happy and they raised a very successful and happy next generation.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

An exhaustive academic study by U of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus recently prompted a vitriolic campaign against him at the University, when in strictly contolled and objective studies he found there were measurable and definable negative impacts on children raised in same sex, homosexual households.

To its credit the campaign to expel Regnerus failed at the University.. no doubt to the great frustration of pseudo psycho 'scientists' that have attached themselves to the homosexual cause.. .. who want to prevent any publishing or academic credibility attached to anything counter to the politically correct mantra of the indistinguishability of traditional and homosexual families.

Essentially it seems that homosexual households really are tantamount to child abuse

Case Closed at UT Austin: Regnerus Exonerated

So the UofT agrees with him? That's irrelevant to the guy's accuracy. Entire universities used to think the Earth was the center of the universe at one time.

uhuh Didja read the conclusion of the study?
Quote:

As scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are finding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive (Rosenfeld, 2007). This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18. While previous studies suggest that children in planned GLB families seem to fare comparatively well, their actual representativeness among all GLB families in the US may be more modest than research based on convenience samples has presumed.
Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for...

Quote has been trimmed
Basically it's just restating that kids of heterosexual families may do better as "wholesome" individuals than the kids of homosexual families, which also applies to kids of separated familes, single-parent families, and other types of families in society.
Anecdotally, my wife (bisexual) is extremely principled, is pretty "well-adjusted" (quirky as she may be), successful, etc. and I lost my father at a very young age, both of us are irrreligious, and yet we raised two kids that fit quite well into society.
On the other hand, here you are ignoring evidence, injecting your religiosity into a great many of your posts, etc. I'd hardly call you an objective person.

Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

There is a genius to both the male and female contributions to child rearing.. that can't be faked. A childhood deficient in one or the other and within a family gounded on the love of those parent for each other and the child.. will be impoverished in comparison.

BS. You mean "MAY be impoverished in comparison".

Quote:

It's obvious for all who want to see.. of the catastrophic social outcomes for individuals and communities in the absence of (real) fathers.. or mothers.

Catastrophic? No exaggeration there, right?
F'k, I sure am glad my kids were raised apart from hateful, phobic, irrational people like you,

Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

The study was intended to determine whether children are in fact affected negatively by unconventional homosexual lifestyles by parents. It indicates that they are.

Wrong. It indicates they MAY or have an increased tendency to be.
Obviously, your bigotry has clouded your comprehension abilities.
Quote:

Certainly you will find many cases where children of single parents have flourished... or where highly dysfunctional families... those plagued with alcoholism and the like.. in fact are very injurious to the children regardless of the presence of two heterosexual parents. But that doesn't undercut the point that there are ideals that affect both community and individuals.. and that should be promoted by society in general.. rather than utterly rejected in service of some gratuitous concept of equality.

lmao So you want all kids to be your version of "normal". Good luck on that flight into the surreal.
 
karrie
+3
#21
People need to give their heads a shake and realize the difference between acknowledging an ideal... (yes, I feel a mom and a dad in a stable, happy home is ideal for a child's upbringing)... and having the right to try to force people to live said ideal, or guilt them for not fitting into it.
 
Risus
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I think a kid needs a Mom and a Dad........but it is hard to disagree with your point.

Has hell frozen over? I agree with Colpy!
 
Cliffy
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

Has hell frozen over? I agree with Colpy!

If one of the gay couple is a queen, the child would have a mother.
 
Liberalman
#24
Children of homosexual parents will mature a lot faster in a heterosexual society for the simple reason that they will have to fight to fit in and find their ground. Some children will be able to deal with the pressures of being raised by gay parents and other will have problems. Most religious organizations shun homosexual behaviour and the kids will always have to endure people that belong to these groups trying to save them.

The gays have won most of the legal battles of being recognized as a normal group and they have gained most of the benefits but now they have to prove themselves to the rest of the people that are in the community which will be hard to do for another couple of generations or they could segregate themselves and have their community grow and evolve with their families.

This has been done over long periods of time where a group segregates themselves so they can enjoy peace and safety.

One of the recent examples is the American presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s family is of the Mormon religion where in the beginning they had to segregate themselves and move out of country to the wild west in the 1800s just to save themselves from the mobs of people who wanted to kill them and they evolved into what they are today.

Unfortunately the gay parents will have to endure but as time goes on things eventually get better.
 
Locutus
+1
#25
Rupert Everett: 'There's nothing worse than gay parents'





Rupert Holmes on stage with The Village People:

Rupert Holmes - Escape The Pia Colada Song 80 - YouTube

 
Nuggler
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Let's suppose two heterosexual celibate men were raising a kid together. What would we say to that?


Hello Father
Hello Father

Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I disagree with Rupert. My parents were and are happy and they raised a very successful and happy next generation.

So you had siblings? Obviously.
 
coldstream
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

BS. You mean "MAY be impoverished in comparison".

Catastrophic? No exaggeration there, right?
F'k, I sure am glad my kids were raised apart from hateful, phobic, irrational people like you,

Wrong. It indicates they MAY or have an increased tendency to be.
Obviously, your bigotry has clouded your comprehension abilities.
lmao So you want all kids to be your version of "normal". Good luck on that flight into the surreal.


If you want to apply a word catastrophic to situation you could apply to an environment where the nuclear family and especially fathers have disappeared.. in the inner city, largely African American ghettos of the U.S... impoverished.. gang, drug and crime ridden.. adrift in hopelessness for generations.

University sociological studies look for trends. There are always exceptions.. those apply for protocols for new drugs and such as well.. but you can discern a meaningful relationships from the data. There might be other factors not included in the study.. perhaps the presence of non parental male or female role models that could affect individual results... but you would be foolish to throw out a clear pattern of cause and effect.. because it doesn't comply with pc standards.. and therefor must be 'bigoted'.
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 19th, 2012 at 01:39 PM..
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

If you want to apply a word catastrophic to situation you could apply to an environment where the nuclear family and especially fathers have disappeared.. in the inner city, largely African American ghettos of the U.S... impoverished.. gang, drug and crime ridden.. adrift in hopelessness for generations.

University sociological studies look for trends. There are always exceptions.. those apply for protocols for new drugs and such as well.. but you can discern a meaningful relationships from the data. There might be other factors not included in the study.. perhaps the presence of non parental male or female role models that could affect individual results... but you would be foolish to throw out a clear pattern of cause and effect.. because it doesn't comply with pc standards.. and therefor must be 'bigoted'.

Concerning single-parent African-American ghettoes, I remember reading one statistic (not sure if US or Canadian) that white women are more likely to get an abortion.

consider too that even in Canada racism against blacks can be quite extreme. I remember an uncle in law (government worker in electronics) who said whenever he drove his nice car wearing a baseball cap, almost guaranteed he'd get stopped. An ex-brother-in-law was stopped by the same officer so many times he started referring to him by his name, and only then did the officer stop stopping him all the time (I guess he got the hint). Also the previously mentioned brother in law was told an apartment was not available but it was available for me when I went to look the same day. Another brother in law started always getting stopped by police about a week after he decided to start growing dreds. After a week of that he decided to chop them off. They were barely sticking out! And the uncle in law mentioned above was once told a job offer was unavailable but a white friend was still offered the same job the same day.

All of this contributes to the ghetto, though in the case of the in-laws they were all doing well none-the-less. But just saying all of this racism does not help.
 
L Gilbert
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

If you want to apply a word catastrophic to situation you could apply to an environment where the nuclear family and especially fathers have disappeared.. in the inner city, largely African American ghettos of the U.S... impoverished.. gang, drug and crime ridden.. adrift in hopelessness for generations.

And all that is because of homosexuality, right? It has nothing to do with unemployment, economics, politics, etc.

Quote:

University sociological studies look for trends.

Yes, trends. Not absolutes like you were gibbering about. You said that there WILL be negative effects on the kids whereas the study simply said there are measurable and definable negative effects. Besides that, you said "It's obvious for all who want to see.. of the catastrophic social outcomes for individuals and communities in the absence of (real) fathers.. or mothers." That is a statement of an absolute.
Quote:

There are always exceptions..

Backpedaling now.
Quote:

those apply for protocols for new drugs and such as well.. but you can discern a meaningful relationships from the data. There might be other factors not included in the study.. perhaps the presence of non parental male or female role models that could affect individual results... but you would be foolish to throw out a clear pattern of cause and effect.. because it doesn't comply with pc standards.. and therefor must be 'bigoted'.

Like I said, clouded comprehension resulting from your particular bias. That wasn't my issue at all. I said YOU are bigoted. YOU state things in absolutes without regard for any evidence suggesting you cannot use absolutes.
BTW, Texas isn't exactly unbiased as a state full of people concerning homosexuality. So the U of T may simply avoid studying anything unbiased about homosexuality in favor of studying anything that may show the negative aspects.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Sep 19th, 2012 at 04:31 PM..
 
coldstream
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

And all that is because of homosexuality, right? It has nothing to do with unemployment, economics, politics, etc.

Yes, trends. Not absolutes like you were gibbering about. You said that there WILL be negative effects on the kids whereas the study simply said there are measurable and definable negative effects. Besides that, you said "It's obvious for all who want to see.. of the catastrophic social outcomes for individuals and communities in the absence of (real) fathers.. or mothers." That is a statement of an absolute.
Backpedaling now.
Like I said, clouded comprehension resulting from your particular bias. That wasn't my issue at all. I said YOU are bigoted. YOU state things in absolutes without regard for any evidence suggesting you cannot use absolutes.
BTW, Texas isn't exactly unbiased as a state full of people concerning homosexuality. So the U of T may simply avoid studying anything unbiased about homosexuality in favor of studying anything that may show the negative aspects.

You're the one always saying i don't produce evidence LG.. and when i do you still complain.. i guess you are just prejudiced.

There's no satisfying you LG.. basicly it comes down to your rejection of any system of objective order or natural law in the world. Yet you codify your own concepts of moral relativism into a system of inverted ethics.. even though its own internal contradictions make that an absurdity.. lost in a subjective malaise of political correctness and expediency.

Before its drilled out of them by the modern school system.. children in fact do have that sense of order and law.. which is why abnormal and immoral environments, like homosexual households... affect them so negatively. That's a point of view.. based on well vetted science and social precedence.. and outright common sense.. but its not bigoted.. because i do not hate homosexuals.

I don't hate people suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction.. or any number of disorders, compulsions and afflictions... but i refuse to be part of a culture of enabling self destructive, life denying behaviour.. which you have embraced so fully. And i certainly lament that children are victimized by these highly dysfunctional and emotionally abusive environments.
 
no new posts