# Same sex couples and their human rights



## RMCF (2 Jul 2010)

I listened to the debate on The Last Word today about the right of same sex couples to have children.

Now I have always had fairly strong views on this over the years, yet I still do not consider myself a homophobe which is always thrown at you if you hold the view I do.

Needless to say, I only think that couples who are capable of having children should have them. I have no qualms about same sex marriages, but I always thought it could complicate the life of the child(ren) later in life. And I do appreciate that many children may well be happier in a same-sex marriage as in the traditional marriage of a man and a woman.

But the angle I always stood by was, "if two same sex people want to have a long term relationship *why exactly *do they have the human right to have children?"

They cannot do it themselves, so why should we give it to them? Surely if you bow to this then there are other cases where people may claim something as 'their human right'?

I know this is a whole can of worms, but I believe what I believe. Nature works in a certain way for a reason.


----------



## MANTO (2 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> They cannot do it themselves, so why should we give it to them?



God help any straight couple that cannot have kids if thats your point. Thats the most bigoted statement i have ever read here.


----------



## MANTO (2 Jul 2010)

and one more point - _'their human rights'_ Glad to know you have more human rights than anybody else!


----------



## MANTO (2 Jul 2010)

..


----------



## MANTO (2 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> Needless to say, I only think that couples who are capable of having children should have them. .



Again, god help the 'straight couples' that cannot have kids.....


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

But 'straight' couples get married and try to have children in the understanding that they can physically have them.

Same sex couples have to accept they cannot. Surely.


----------



## MANTO (3 Jul 2010)

But not every straight couple meets each other and think they are going to have kids, that develops through the relationship - so why different for a gay couple?

I dont know what position you are in, in terms of married, dating, have kids? But when you meet somebody, is your first thought...kids - I doubt it. And what if you wanted kids but couldnt medically - is it tough because its not natural?


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

But fundamentally my argument is why they should have the 'human right' to have children? I think everything else in the debate is getting in the way of this question.

Why should they automatically have this right? I'm arguing if you give them this right then surely we are opening up cases where others can claim other thigns as their 'human right'?


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2010)

I think the point is that if gay people are equal under the law then they should have the same rights as anyone else. Once you discriminate because of sexual orientation you are de facto demoting them to second class citizenship.

Gay couples don't have a particular basic human right to have children, they have a basic human right to equality, all else flows from that.


----------



## MrMan (3 Jul 2010)

MANTO said:


> But not every straight couple meets each other and think they are going to have kids, that develops through the relationship - so why different for a gay couple?
> 
> I dont know what position you are in, in terms of married, dating, have kids? But when you meet somebody, is your first thought...kids - I doubt it. And what if you wanted kids but couldnt medically - is it tough because its not natural?



But when they meet the realise there is the possibility of kids even accidentally, not so in the other case.


----------



## lightswitch (3 Jul 2010)

I agree with you RMCF.  I have no problem with gay people at all but two men or two women are simlply not capable of producing a child naturally, so to me that answers the question.  It seems to be an extension of the "I am entitled to everything" culture.


----------



## Ancutza (3 Jul 2010)

I'm firmly with RMCF & Lightswitch on this one too.  Kids are not commodities.  There is no automatic 'right' to have them.  From a purely biological point of view (I don't believe in 'God' any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa or the Tooth Fairy) I would contend that offspring of any species should be raised by a male and female of their said species.  Should a male or female of any species choose to pair themselves with a like gender of the same species then they have to accept that that precludes some things, such as the ability to have offspring.


----------



## Complainer (3 Jul 2010)

I've no idea why people think that there is some connection between what people get up to between the sheets and their parenting ability. 

I saw some report recently showing that in Dublin, just one in five households is a 'traditional family' with wife/husband/kids. I also recall some research (from Canada I think) showing that children brought up by gay parents were no better or no worse off than other children. They were also no more likely to be gay than other children.

The suggestion that only those who are 'capable' of producing a child should be parents is hugely offensive to me, having gone through the IVF process. One in five couples have fertility issues, and need some medical intervention to help them to have kids. The suggestion that single-parent families are 'unfit' parents is hugely offensive. Are we going to take children away from single parents, or separated parents, or the remaining widowed parent?

Give me one good single parent or two good gay parents over two crap straight parents any day.


----------



## gabsdot (3 Jul 2010)

No one has the right to have children, but every child has the right to a family.


----------



## Complainer (3 Jul 2010)

gabsdot said:


> No one has the right to have children, but every child has the right to a family.


WHat's your definition of 'family'?


----------



## shanegl (3 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've no idea why people think that there is some connection between what people get up to between the sheets and their parenting ability.
> 
> I saw some report recently showing that in Dublin, just one in five households is a 'traditional family' with wife/husband/kids. I also recall some research (from Canada I think) showing that children brought up by gay parents were no better or no worse off than other children. They were also no more likely to be gay than other children.
> 
> ...



Well said. Nail, head.


----------



## Berni (3 Jul 2010)

Ancutza said:


> I would contend that offspring of any species should be raised by a male and female of their said species.



Many species raise their young in single sex environments. 
Elephants for example only welcome the male for his 'biological input', and thereafter the young are reared in entirely by the females.


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

lightswitch said:


> I agree with you RMCF.  I have no problem with gay people at all but two men or two women are simlply not capable of producing a child naturally, so to me that answers the question.  It seems to be an extension of the "I am entitled to everything" culture.



You hit the nail on the head here, and sum up exactly the point I was trying to make, although I came across as a homphobe !!

I was questioning their 'right' to have children, despite the fact that they can't. Basically this new urge in society and among the masses that they are entitled to everything and its an infringement on their human rights if they aren't given it.

"I want this" and "I want that", and you must give it to me otherwise you are discrimiating against me.

By all means let two gay people get married, but why must they have the automatic right to adopt children, simply because they can't have them? And this whole argument about some 'straight' couples being bad parents - the way you listen to the pro's of gay couples, you'd think they would all automatically make great parents. There is every likelihood that they would be as rubbish and uncaring as 'straight' couples can be.


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2010)

Ancutza, do you think that a single mother who ends up in a loving stable relationship with another woman should have their children taken away?

What about two same sex people who don't have a sexual relationship? I don't have sex with my wife in front of my children; I presume this is the norm, so unless others do I don't see why what they do or don't do when they go to bed should matter in the context of parenting.
Should children being raised by their mother and grandmother be taken away? What about those being raised by their father and grandfather?


----------



## tiger (3 Jul 2010)

what happens when one partner already has a child from a previous relationship?


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> By all means let two gay people get married, but why must they have the automatic right to adopt children, simply because they can't have them?


 Because they are equal under the law.



RMCF said:


> And this whole argument about some 'straight' couples being bad parents - the way you listen to the pro's of gay couples, you'd think they would all automatically make great parents. There is every likelihood that they would be as rubbish and uncaring as 'straight' couples can be.


 I agree, so what?


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

tiger said:


> what happens when one partner already has a child from a previous relationship?



I don't see how this would be an issue at all. Its not like my argument is that existing children should be taken away.

We are talking about having 'new' children given to them as a right of being a married couple.


----------



## RMCF (3 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> Because they are equal under the law.
> 
> *I agree, so what*?



Because the "better to be in a loving, gay family than an unloving straight family" line is trotted out all the time as some sort of reason for it to happen, thats why.


----------



## MrMan (3 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've no idea why people think that there is some connection between what people get up to between the sheets and their parenting ability.
> I saw some report recently showing that in Dublin, just one in five households is a 'traditional family' with wife/husband/kids. I also recall some research (from Canada I think) showing that children brought up by gay parents were no better or no worse off than other children. They were also no more likely to be gay than other children.
> The suggestion that only those who are 'capable' of producing a child should be parents is hugely offensive to me, having gone through the IVF process. One in five couples have fertility issues, and need some medical intervention to help them to have kids. The suggestion that single-parent families are 'unfit' parents is hugely offensive. Are we going to take children away from single parents, or separated parents, or the remaining widowed parent?
> Give me one good single parent or two good gay parents over two crap straight parents any day.


 
*The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live. It is but one opinion just as valid as your own.*

*Nobody is suggesting that we have a perfect society, but if we all lived as we should and as nature intended then things would be better.*

*It may be hugely offensive to you but that is how debates tend to go. Personal attachments and experiences tend to colour our thoughts but they don't lend anymore weight to your argument.*

'Give me one good single parent or two good gay parents over two crap straight parents any day.'
*What really does this add to the argument?*


----------



## Ancutza (3 Jul 2010)

> do you think that a single mother who ends up in a loving stable  relationship with another woman should have their children taken away?


No.  The children in this instance are the mothers and her rights take precedence.



> Should children being raised by their mother and grandmother be taken  away? What about those being raised by their father and grandfather?


Equally no.

I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here.  What we are talking about is the right of a same-sex couple to adopt a parentless child who is up for adoption. 

Where a child is available for adoption I think that that child should, in the first instance, be offered to a heterosexual childless couple.  If no such couple is found then the child should be offered to a heterosexual couple with children.  Under such circumstances, and given the historical imbalance between kids available for adoption and the number of heterosexual couples seeking to adopt, it would be inconceivable that such a child would be made available to a same-sex couple for adoption.  That is proper order IMO. 

My own parents tried to adopt a child in the early eighties when they already had myself and my sister.  They were rightly turned down.  They did eventually (and two additional kids later) succeed in adopting my now 21 year-old brother in 1989 but that was at the specific request of his then 15 year-old biological mother who stayed with them during her pregnancy because of the 'shame' her situation would have visited on her family in the village from whence she came.


----------



## Ancutza (3 Jul 2010)

I see your next argument coming Purple and I admit I don't have an answer for it!


----------



## Berni (4 Jul 2010)

tiger said:


> what happens when one partner already has a child from a previous relationship?





RMCF said:


> I don't see how this would be an issue at all. Its not like my argument is that existing children should be taken away.



But it is an issue, as the current legislation doesn't allow the parent's new spouse to adopt their children. You end up with the non-biological parent having no rights to the child they are raising.

If the biological parent dies, would you think it right that the child is then taken away into care and placed with your idyllic hetero couple? Should they lose both the people who have been raising them in one fell swoop?


----------



## becky (4 Jul 2010)

Berni said:


> But it is an issue, as the current legislation doesn't allow the parent's new spouse to adopt their children. You end up with the non-biological parent having no rights to the child they are raising.


 
My friends husband (not the biological father) adopted her child in the last 10 to 15 years.  The biological father never sought any contact despite repeated invitations before and after my friend married. 

I agree it shouldn't be automatic, especially if the biologial parent is involved in rearing the child, but it was certainly allowed.

Back on topic, I don't agree that someones sexual preference should have any bearing on whether or not they should be allowed to adopt.


----------



## Complainer (4 Jul 2010)

lightswitch said:


> but two men or two women are simlply not capable of producing a child naturally, so to me that answers the question.





RMCF said:


> I was questioning their 'right' to have children, despite the fact that they can't.


Pretty much every 'traditional' straight couple seeking to adopt children in Ireland today are unable to have their own children. Following your logic, they should NOT be allowed adopt either, as they are not capable of producing a child naturally. And I presume you would wipe out the IVF clinics too - we don't want all those infertile couples having kids - right?



Ancutza said:


> No.  The children in this instance are the  mothers and her rights take precedence.


 


RMCF said:


> I don't see how this would be an issue at all. Its not like my argument is that existing children should be taken away.


This really does expose the lack of logic in your arguement. If you feel that gay couples cannot be fit parents, then why would you leave children in their care?



MrMan said:


> *The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live. ...*
> *Nobody is suggesting that we have a perfect society, but if we all lived as we should and as nature intended then things would be better.*


Just so I understand this, are you saying that homosexuality is unnatural? What is your view on oral sex and anal sex between straight couples - are these considered to be 'unnatural' too?


----------



## dmos87 (4 Jul 2010)

Love is love - what difference does the parents sexual orientation make? 

You forget that they are still people with wants and hopes - they want children and hope to have them someday, just like straight people do. Yes, their sexual preference makes that difficult for them but it should not stop them and nor should any law. A parent should be determined by they capacity to provide and love a child and I personally think sexual orientation should not come into it. 

If my partner or I (heaven forbid) were to find ourselves infertile I would fight tooth and nail to give a child a loving home. I would do the same if I were gay. I know I am capable of giving a child a wonderful home with loving parents and that is what matters. Yes, I would consider it my human right to adopt a child. 

Are you also against surrogates for same sex couples?


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> *The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live.*


 
Nature doesnt intend - it evolves. There is no design. Nature has left us with a useless appendix, skeletal issues from walking upright, a nerve that traverses all the way up and down a giraffes neck needlessly, and a variety of other 'dud' left overs.

Culture plays an important part in behaviour. Do you think nature 'intended' us to wear clothes, eat with a knife and fork, drive cars, sit at comouter desks? Of course not - but as a species we evolve to accomodate these things.

Many human societies have chosen different methods of child rearing than the modern western standard of a 'family unit' - to suggest that the modern western standard is the only correct way is simply historical/cultural arrogance.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

This thread is funny. People should just be open and admit they have issues with homosexuality instead of hiding behind some ridiculous argument about how gay people shouldn't have kids because they can't naturally conceive.


----------



## Latrade (5 Jul 2010)

I see no reason why a child should be made to live its life through the care system when there are couples who would provide complete care and support for that child just because of what some consider to be "natural" or not.

From this thread and the arguments used against the legislation I don't actually hear much in the way of reasoned arguments against why same sex couples can't adopt and be recognised as parents. All I hear is that as a couple they are incapable of having children "naturally" or that they aren't a family.

So what is a family? What's our model for a "family"? As much as I love my parents, they weren't perfect, they made mistakes, they have their faults, prejudice, lack of reasoning, as does any human. How is a same sex couple going to be any different? Just tell me the tangible, specific trait that opposite sex couples have in parenting over same sex that precludes the latter? 

Sexuality is just one small (well depends how absorbed you are by the deed on a daily basis) aspect of being a human. Preferring one sex over another doesn't suddenly wipe out all other human emotions, feelings, needs and empathy. 

Outside of just not liking their lifestyle there is no actual, rational, logical, tangible reason why same sex couples cannot be parents.


----------



## Ceist Beag (5 Jul 2010)

So far in this thread I've seen very few comments get this argument the right way around. This should not be about what the adults want or what their rights are. It should be about what is right for the children and what their rights should be. So those making the argument that gay couples cannot have kids and therefore should not be allowed adopt children are completely missing the point here. This is not about an alternative way for gay couples to raise children. The whole point of adoption is to find a suitable caring and loving home for the children. So for that reason I can see no logical argument for excluding gay couples from the list of potential candidates when looking for homes for these children.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> Just so I understand this, are you saying that homosexuality is unnatural? What is your view on oral sex and anal sex between straight couples - are these considered to be 'unnatural' too?



No I'm saying natural procreation happens between 2 members of the opposite sex, I presume homosexuals understand that when they have sex there is no fear/hope that a child may result from the experience.

As for oral or any other type of sex, it's all good. I just don't understand how a viewpoint that states that it is only natural for hetero couples to procreate leads to insinuations of homophobia, but there you go that's just the world we live in.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Nature doesnt intend - it evolves. There is no design. Nature has left us with a useless appendix, skeletal issues from walking upright, a nerve that traverses all the way up and down a giraffes neck needlessly, and a variety of other 'dud' left overs.
> 
> Culture plays an important part in behaviour. Do you think nature 'intended' us to wear clothes, eat with a knife and fork, drive cars, sit at comouter desks? Of course not - but as a species we evolve to accomodate these things.
> 
> Many human societies have chosen different methods of child rearing than the modern western standard of a 'family unit' - to suggest that the modern western standard is the only correct way is simply historical/cultural arrogance.



And in the billions of years of evolution we have ended up with clothes and forks, yet homosexual sex still won't result in pregnancy.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> *The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live. *


 
That is homophobic. You make it sound like homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 
Just because you are gay doesn't mean you don't have the same paternal instincts as hetrosexual people. Gay men might want to be dads and gay women might want to be mams. Who are you to say that their sexuality stops them from having kids because they can't procreate 'naturally'. Even though there are thousands of hetrosexual couples who can't procreate 'naturally' either and have to resort to IVF, adoption, surrogacy etc to have kids.


----------



## Firefly (5 Jul 2010)

I think that society ( and I do not agree with this by the way) would have a far easier time allowing 2 women to adopt a child rather that 2 men and because it would not be possible to discriminate against male couples like this it would be impossible to introduce adoption for gay couples.


----------



## Firefly (5 Jul 2010)

ceist beag said:


> it should be about what is right for the children and what their rights should be.


 
+1


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> And in the billions of years of evolution we have ended up with clothes and forks, yet homosexual sex still won't result in pregnancy.


 
Nor will heterosexual sex where one person is infertile.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> No I'm saying natural procreation happens between 2 members of the opposite sex, I presume homosexuals understand that when they have sex there is no fear/hope that a child may result from the experience.





MrMan said:


> And in the billions of years of evolution we have ended up with clothes and forks, yet homosexual sex still won't result in pregnancy.



While technically correct, this misses the point completely. It is far from impossible for gay people to have children. Many gay people have children from previous relationships. For many gay women, all they need is a helping hand from a male friend (or an online semen bank) to bring a child into their relationship. For gay men, it is a bit more complicated, but surrogacy (formal or informal) is certainly an option.

So gay couples can have kids. Get over it.

As others have said, let's now focus on what is best for the children (whether biological or adopted).


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> That is homophobic. You make it sound like homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
> Just because you are gay doesn't mean you don't have the same paternal instincts as hetrosexual people. Gay men might want to be dads and gay women might want to be mams. Who are you to say that their sexuality stops them from having kids because they can't procreate 'naturally'. Even though there are thousands of hetrosexual couples who can't procreate 'naturally' either and have to resort to IVF, adoption, surrogacy etc to have kids.



You can take from my words as you please but the gist of my post was that maybe and I repeat maybe because through natural means only we can only provide human life through sex between a man and a woman then maybe we are meant to parent in this way too. 
The argument about infertile people is valid but unfortunate circumstance is the reason for this whereas a gay man has a certainty of never conceiving a child if he only has sex with men.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> While technically correct, this misses the point completely. It is far from impossible for gay people to have children. Many gay people have children from previous relationships. For many gay women, all they need is a helping hand from a male friend (or an online semen bank) to bring a child into their relationship. For gay men, it is a bit more complicated, but surrogacy (formal or informal) is certainly an option.
> 
> So gay couples can have kids. Get over it.
> 
> As others have said, let's now focus on what is best for the children (whether biological or adopted).



My point is valid and as soon as people can get passed the fact that differing opinions have a place in this argument too the sooner they might realise that popular opinion isn't always correct.


----------



## Latrade (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> My point is valid and as soon as people can get passed the fact that differing opinions have a place in this argument too the sooner they might realise that popular opinion isn't always correct.


 
As far as I can see no one is disagreeing with that point. All it has done is raised the question that if ability to conceive naturally means you aren't fit to be considered a parent, then that has bigger consequences outside of same sex couples.

So are those who aren't able to conceive "naturally" are to be excluded from all adoption rights? 

What aspect of natural conception makes you a good or bad parent? 

People are entitled to hold differing views, the problem as I see it is that rather than be open and just say they have a problem with homosexuality and gay couples being parents as a result of this, they try to hide behind vague generalisations and logical fallacies. 

Let's face it, objection to this legislation has nothing to do with ability to conceive, in effect it's people trying to play God by deciding who can and can't be a parent and denying a child the right to be brought up in a loving family.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> My point is valid and as soon as people can get passed the fact that differing opinions have a place in this argument too the sooner they might realise that popular opinion isn't always correct.


I've no problem with differing opinions.

I have a problem when people try to pretend that their differing opinion has some basis in biology, when it is clearly nothing to do with that.


----------



## Vanilla (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> This thread is funny. People should just be open and admit they have issues with homosexuality instead of hiding behind some ridiculous argument about how gay people shouldn't have kids because they can't naturally conceive.




Aahhh, the ugly truth rears its head.

I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=110978


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Aahhh, the ugly truth rears its head.
> 
> I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu:
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=110978


 
Thanks Vanilla - I already said everything I need to say on the subject in the last thread.

Its one of those circular arguments that will never be resolved because it depends on how people feel about homosexuality rather than whats right or wrong.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> As far as I can see no one is disagreeing with that point. All it has done is raised the question that if ability to conceive naturally means you aren't fit to be considered a parent, then that has bigger consequences outside of same sex couples.
> 
> So are those who aren't able to conceive "naturally" are to be excluded from all adoption rights?
> 
> ...



I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it. 
We unfortunately have evolved to the current times whereby many unsuitable parents raise children and that cycle continues but that is our own doing.
So the union of a man and woman was meant for procreation with the added bonus of pleasure thrown in. Infertile or sterile couples are unfortunate and together they can still form a union that follows natures intended link. 
It's a different thought process I admit, I have nothing to hide, this is an anonymous forum so if i wanted to gay bash i wouldn't need subtlety to do it. My opinion offends you and complainer and no doubt others, should I change because I am different to you?


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've no problem with differing opinions.
> 
> I have a problem when people try to pretend that their differing opinion has some basis in biology, when it is clearly nothing to do with that.



I have no desire to mislead you with my opinions, so take what I say as what I mean or make idle assumptions, it is entirely up to you.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.
> We unfortunately have evolved to the current times whereby many unsuitable parents raise children and that cycle continues but that is our own doing.
> So the union of a man and woman was meant for procreation with the added bonus of pleasure thrown in. Infertile or sterile couples are unfortunate and together they can still form a union that follows natures intended link.
> It's a different thought process I admit, I have nothing to hide, this is an anonymous forum so if i wanted to gay bash i wouldn't need subtlety to do it. My opinion offends you and complainer and no doubt others, should I change because I am different to you?


 
Nobody is asking you to change. They are simply asking you to be honest when you are discussing it. It is obvious that you find homosexuality un-natural and wrong even if you don't want to admit it. Sorry if that's an idle assumption but there you go. That's what forms your views on the rights of gay people to adopt children. It's not based on the idea that gay people make bad parents or because they can't procreate naturally, they shouldn't have children. 
I don't agree with your views but I respect them. I just don't agree with hiding your views behind some ridiculous idea about nature and it's intended link. There is homosexual behaviour exhibited in most species as well as humans so are you saying that nature had no role in that?


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.


 
Following this rationale - should we not intervene with antibiotics in the case of infections, treatment in the case of cancer etc.. 
Should women who bottle feed have their children taken off them?
If its as nature intended - should we leave it alone?


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Nobody is asking you to change. They are simply asking you to be honest when you are discussing it. It is obvious that you find homosexuality un-natural and wrong even if you don't want to admit it. Sorry if that's an idle assumption but there you go. That's what forms your views on the rights of gay people to adopt children. It's not based on the idea that gay people make bad parents or because they can't procreate naturally, they shouldn't have children.
> I don't agree with your views but I respect them. I just don't agree with hiding your views behind some ridiculous idea about nature and it's intended link. There is homosexual behaviour exhibited in most species as well as humans so are you saying that nature had no role in that?



People are offended by an honest viewpoint yet I am supposed to accept being called a liar? 
I don't think homosexuality is un-natural I just believe that we tend to learn from nature through observation and as far as I can see nature only allows man and woman to procreate together. No assumption just fact. Same sex couples can't procreate together, another fact and they have never been able to and never will be because survival of the species is doing just fine.
If I found that I preferred the company of men or entered a loving relationship with a man I would go into it with the knowledge that the relationship will be a childless one.


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> People are offended by an honest viewpoint yet I am supposed to accept being called a liar?
> I don't think homosexuality is un-natural I just believe that we tend to learn from nature through observation and as far as I can see nature only allows man and woman to procreate together. No assumption just fact. Same sex couples can't procreate together, another fact and they have never been able to and never will be because survival of the species is doing just fine.
> If I found that I preferred the company of men or entered a loving relationship with a man I would go into it with the knowledge that the relationship will be a childless one.


 
So people with fertility problems shouldn't be allowed kids? If I found out my girlfriend couldn't have children, I should just accept that I will never have a family?


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Following this rationale - should we not intervene with antibiotics in the case of infections, treatment in the case of cancer etc..
> Should women who bottle feed have their children taken off them?
> If its as nature intended - should we leave it alone?



Yes indeed and burn some books while you're at it. Why do opinons always seem to go to the extreme when trying to quash an argument?
If you look around you, you will see that treatments are derived from nature aswell. As the planet is becoming more and more over populated there could be an argument that our 'evolvement' will have a detrimental effect on us all in time to come, but lets just leave me be as a homphobe for the moment before we move on to my darker population control tendencies.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> So people with fertility problems shouldn't be allowed kids? If I found out my girlfriend couldn't have children, I should just accept that I will never have a family?



And we have come full circle. Accept what you like.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.
> We unfortunately have evolved to the current times whereby many unsuitable parents raise children and that cycle continues but that is our own doing.
> So the union of a man and woman was meant for procreation with the added bonus of pleasure thrown in. Infertile or sterile couples are unfortunate and together they can still form a union that follows natures intended link.


There is no doubt that nature (or evolution or God - take your pick) has left us with the process for male/female procreation. This certainly is the most effecient process to produce offspring, but it is not the only process. IVF and surrogacy also exist. Homosexuality also exists in the animal kingdom. Male/female offspring doesn't have a great track record in producing great parents.

It's not the only game in town.



MrMan said:


> Same sex couples can't procreate together, another fact and they have never been able to and never will be because survival of the species is doing just fine.


Oh yes they can!


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> And we have come full circle. Accept what you like.


 
That's because you haven't answered it. I assume since you have no problem with homosexuality, you are against people having children through IVF, surrogate parents, adoption or anything that doesn't involve a man and a woman having actual sexual intercourse.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> There is no doubt that nature (or evolution or God - take your pick) has left us with the process for male/female procreation. This certainly is the most effecient process to produce offspring, but it is not the only process. IVF and surrogacy also exist. Homosexuality also exists in the animal kingdom. Male/female offspring doesn't have a great track record in producing great parents.
> 
> It's not the only game in town.



I understand that life can be artificially created and there are ways around infertility, my point seems to be getting lost though. I'm not dealing in fact just theory when I say that if nature points at something we should look at it. Nature says man+woman = child, i say why deviate from that?
 Infertile couples can still make that same equation except they don't have all of the necessary components to follow through.
I'm not convinced by the notion of surrogacy, but I can understand the yearning for children that leads to IVF etc.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Nature says man+woman = child, i say why deviate from that?


 
Nature says man+woman MAKE child.
Nature says nothing about who raises a child.


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Nature says man+woman MAKE child.
> Nature says nothing about who raises a child.


 That's it in a nut shell.

I have some reservations that, taking the biases of society into account, a same sex couple would be the best placed to raise an adopted child. I can see where people are coming from with that argument (though I think it falls down when you ask what equality really means) but I think the "it's against nature" argument is nonsense.
In practice social services etc will put children with families that they think are best suited to raising the child in question. They will take age, colour and sexual orientation etc into account. If the interests of the child comes first then I see no problem with that. If the best couple for the job is a gay couple I see no problem with that either.


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2010)

Since when was it a "human right" to be entitled to raise a child, either as a straight or gay/lesbian couple?


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> Since when was it a "human right" to be entitled to raise a child, either as a straight or gay/lesbian couple?



It is a human right to be equal under the law. The rest follows from that.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Nature says man+woman MAKE child.
> Nature says nothing about who raises a child.




Nature doesn't write things down for us, we should follow through to our own conclusions. As a species we have become corrupt and greedy and that can be put down to evolution or whatever, i'm just stripping the argument back to its core.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Nature doesn't write things down for us, we should follow through to our own conclusions.


 
If those conclusions lead to discrimination then perhaps we need to re-examine how we got to those conclusions?


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

The discussion is just silly at this stage.


----------



## Latrade (5 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> The discussion is just silly at this stage.


 
It could get sillier, has anyone mentioned gay penguin parents yet?


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

truthseeker said:


> If those conclusions lead to discrimination then perhaps we need to re-examine how we got to those conclusions?



Definitiely, we should always be open to re-examining how we approach core aspects of human life. 
Discrimination has many guises and is too easily bandied about, we are not all equal even though we claim equality is of paramount importance. 
You can take the moral high ground and I can walk in the real world. 
I'm comfortable with my conclusions but I am always open to the possibility that my thoughts on all subjects can change.


----------



## ludermor (5 Jul 2010)

Nature has provided a lot of things that humans can use , do you have any problem with people smoking grass/magic mushrooms/ licking toads  etc?


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> It could get sillier, has anyone mentioned gay penguin parents yet?


 
Well I was going to bring up the fact that dolphins are simply gay sharks but I thought better of it!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dolphins-are-gay-sharks/178127818513


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> we are not all equal even though we claim equality is of paramount importance.


Equality is not based on the assumption that everyone is equal. It is about making sure that everyone has equal rights, and equal access to employment and services.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> Equality is not based on the assumption that everyone is equal. It is about making sure that everyone has equal rights, and equal access to employment and services.


It is still a flawed ideal, but we are getting even more OT


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> It is a human right to be equal under the law. The rest follows from that.


 
So if one couple is entitled to adopt a child, then every couple is equally entitled?

Why bother with screening processes then?

AFAIK there is no "right to raise a child" enshrined in any law in this country, except for those covering natural birth parents/children (if indeed they exist)


----------



## Sunny (5 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> So if one couple is entitled to adopt a child, then every couple is equally entitled?
> 
> Why bother with screening processes then?
> 
> AFAIK there is no "right to raise a child" enshrined in any law in this country, except for those covering natural birth parents/children (if indeed they exist)


 
That's not what is saying. He is saying every couple is entitled to try and adopt. That's not to say that every couple is suitable to adopt but their sexuality shouldn't preclude them from trying or be successful if they are deemed suitable parents.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> So if one couple is entitled to adopt a child, then every couple is equally entitled?
> 
> Why bother with screening processes then?
> 
> AFAIK there is no "right to raise a child" enshrined in any law in this country, except for those covering natural birth parents/children (if indeed they exist)


This is nonsense. No-one is suggesting that anyone has an absolute right to adopt a child. 

What people are suggesting is that sexual preference has no relevance to the adoption process. So screen away, but don't use sexual preference to screen.


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2010)

I never said a couple's sexuality should preclude them from trying to adopt (or do anything for that matter)

Are gay and/or lesbian couples currently excluded under law from adopting in this country or do they go through the same screening processes that straight couples do?


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> It is still a flawed ideal, but we are getting even more OT


Hey, you brought it into the topic, so don't be surprised when someone points out the flaws in your arguments.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> Hey, you brought it into the topic, so don't be surprised when someone points out the flaws in your arguments.




Not surprises me here especially the ability for people to get the wrong end of the stick and try to twist arguments that attack the poster and not the subject matter.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Not surprises me here especially the ability for people to get the wrong end of the stick and try to twist arguments that attack the poster and not the subject matter.


I don't think I've seen any personal attacks on this thread. If you did see any, click the red triangle and report it to the moderators.


----------



## MrMan (6 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> I don't think I've seen any personal attacks on this thread. If you did see any, click the red triangle and report it to the moderators.



I have developed a thick skin over the years so I can take the fact that yourself and others claimed that I was posting dishonestly aka. lying without the need to go clicking on a triangle.


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I have developed a thick skin over the years so I can take the fact that yourself and others claimed that I was posting dishonestly aka. lying without the need to go clicking on a triangle.


I've just gone back over my posts on the thread. I never claimed that you were lying. I never attacked you personally instead  - just your posts. I didn't notice anyone else doing this either.


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2010)

I do think that it has been strongly implied that MrMan is homophobic and just won't admit it. That is unfair and adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> I do think that it has been strongly implied that MrMan is homophobic and just won't admit it. That is unfair and adds nothing to the discussion.


 


MrMan said:


> *The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live. It is but one opinion just as valid as your own.*


 
I said that comment was homophobic and I stick by it. I don't know if he is homophobic or not. Maybe he just mis-spoke but the implication that homosexual couples are in some way acting in an un-natural way by engaging in same sex partnerships or that they shouldn't have the same rights as hetrosexual couples because they don't live the type of life he thinks we are 'meant to live' is offensive.

Nobody has still given one decent argument as to why same sex couples should have to forfeit their maternal and paternal instincts because they can't 'procreate naturally' despite the fact that thousands of hetrosexual couples get help to conceive every single day.

We can dress this up as much as we like and it was the same on the Frontline last night but the conclusion is the same. Catholic Church teachings on homosexuality still intrude on this debate every single time it is discussed.


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> I do think that it has been strongly implied that MrMan is homophobic and just won't admit it. That is unfair and adds nothing to the discussion.


 
I'm one who did so and you're right it doesn't add to the debate. But as Sunny said  the "not natural" argument only applies to same sex couples, I and others couldn't follow the logic behind that restriction. In addition, the quote provided by Sunny does read as having an issue with the whole issue of homosexuality not just them being parents.


----------



## Mpsox (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Nobody has still given one decent argument as to why same sex couples should have to forfeit their maternal and paternal instincts because they can't 'procreate naturally' despite the fact that thousands of hetrosexual couples get help to conceive every single day.
> 
> .


 
I've no doubt that plenty of gay couples are well capable of being good parents and most certainly can't do worse then some of the parents raising ferral kids in Ireland at the minute.
However I do have a concern in the longer term as to what happens when they grow up and ask "what happened my Mammy/Daddy" only to be told that their biological father/mother was a surrogate or donor, perhaps money had been involved etc etc. Same applies for straight couples in that situation BTW. 
Also should we consider the rights of the donor. What happens for example, if the donor suddenly wants access and is denied such rights.

I'm far from convinced society has thought this through fully.

It also depresses me to think of the thousands of men denied their human rights of access to their own children after a relationship breaks down. That should be given a higher priority.


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2010)

Mpsox said:


> they grow up and ask "what happened my Mammy/Daddy" only to be told that their biological father/mother was a surrogate or donor, perhaps money had been involved etc etc. Same applies for straight couples in that situation BTW.


I'm not so sure that this is a major problem . The same problem exists for any adopted child.



Mpsox said:


> Also should we consider the rights of the donor. What happens for example, if the donor suddenly wants access and is denied such rights.



This is a huge issue, and there has been at least one big case on this already;
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gay-sperm-donor-granted-access-to-child-107627.html
This shows the dangers of informal approaches which have not been fully thought through.


----------



## MrMan (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> I said that comment was homophobic and I stick by it. I don't know if he is homophobic or not. Maybe he just mis-spoke but the implication that homosexual couples are in some way acting in an un-natural way by engaging in same sex partnerships or that they shouldn't have the same rights as hetrosexual couples because they don't live the type of life he thinks we are 'meant to live' is offensive.
> 
> Nobody has still given one decent argument as to why same sex couples should have to forfeit their maternal and paternal instincts because they can't 'procreate naturally' despite the fact that thousands of hetrosexual couples get help to conceive every single day.
> 
> We can dress this up as much as we like and it was the same on the Frontline last night but the conclusion is the same. Catholic Church teachings on homosexuality still intrude on this debate every single time it is discussed.



Luckily you have highlighted what i have said and now maybe you can read it again. Nature has equipped us to pro-create naturally without aid by one means only, I think we have all agreed on this. To then make the leap from saying that my sentence equates to my believing that homosexual acts are un-natural astounds me. 
If I wear a condom i know that it will prevent pregnancy if i have sex with a woman (most of the time) and I don't believe that to be un-natural. Gay men and woman know that they won't conceive by having sex with the same sex as their own, there is no difference in my eyes. You go into things as adults aware of the consequences or lack therof of your actions.
Your assumptions that I 'mis-spoke, was homophobic in my comments and have based my input to this debate on Catholic teachings are all way off the mark.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Luckily you have highlighted what i have said and now maybe you can read it again. Nature has equipped us to pro-create naturally without aid by one means only, I think we have all agreed on this. To then make the leap from saying that my sentence equates to my believing that homosexual acts are un-natural astounds me.
> If I wear a condom i know that it will prevent pregnancy if i have sex with a woman (most of the time) and I don't believe that to be un-natural. Gay men and woman know that they won't conceive by having sex with the same sex as their own, there is no difference in my eyes. You go into things as adults aware of the consequences or lack therof of your actions.
> Your assumptions that I 'mis-spoke, was homophobic in my comments and have based my input to this debate on Catholic teachings are all way off the mark.


 
Seriously???

This is the following sentence to the one I quoted above

*Nobody is suggesting that we have a perfect society, but if we all lived as we should and as nature intended then things would be better.*


Again, you use the phrase 'live as we should' and as 'nature intended'. What the hell does that mean? 

Maybe I have taken you up wrong and if so I apologise but I think alot of people would agree with my readings into those two sentences.


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2010)

Mpsox said:


> It also depresses me to think of the thousands of men denied their human rights of access to their own children after a relationship breaks down. That should be given a higher priority.


I agree with you there. Men are second class in Irish society now.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2010)

I dont understand what all the fuss is about. There is no law against gay people raising children, and as has been pointed out, there are gay people with children. My understanding is that these children and their parents have exactly the same rights as any other children and their parents? There are many couples out there who have children with people other than their current partners.

The undercurrent to the current debate seems to be that gay couples are seeking a change in law whereby if one of them has a child, then the other one automatically gets guardianship/parental rights. This would be a more favourable position than currently exists with other parents in second relationships (or maybe had no relationship with other parent of child). Essentially, this would mean that if one parent of a child entered into a gay relationship (or is already in one), then the other parent would lose their guardianship. This is unfair. Both parents should always have equal rights to guardianship and parental responsibilities.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> I dont understand what all the fuss is about. There is no law against gay people raising children, and as has been pointed out, there are gay people with children. My understanding is that these children and their parents have exactly the same rights as any other children and their parents? There are many couples out there who have children with people other than their current partners.
> 
> The undercurrent to the current debate seems to be that gay couples are seeking a change in law whereby if one of them has a child, then the other one automatically gets guardianship/parental rights. This would be a more favourable position than currently exists with other parents in second relationships (or maybe had no relationship with other parent of child). Essentially, this would mean that if one parent of a child entered into a gay relationship (or is already in one), then the other parent would lose their guardianship. This is unfair. Both parents should always have equal rights to guardianship and parental responsibilities.


 
The original post in this thread stated that only couples who can 'procreate naturally' should be allowed to have children. 

Doesn't really have much to do with civil partnership legislation. It's to do with do people think same sex couples (or couples with fertility problems as it happens) should be entitled to try and have children if they so wish.


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Nature has equipped us to pro-create naturally without aid by one means only,


Nature has also given us homosexuality, and IVF, and adoption, and surrogacy and all those other complications that don't fit nicely in the Mr & Mrs Jones model.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2010)

> The original post in this thread stated that only couples who can 'procreate naturally' should be allowed to have children.


 
In my mind, it all comes down to genetics. With standard IVF/fertility treatment, the genetic parents are the couple undergoing the treatment - there is no 3rd party involvement.

With sperm/egg donations, then only one of the couple is the parent - there is another parent out there i.e. whoever made the donation. One of the couple is not the biological parent. 

The facts are that, even with scientific/medical intervention, it is not possible for a gay couple to have children. The best they can hope for is one being the biological parent with a third party being the other parent. There is absolutely no point in us bringing in laws for things which are currently impossible - its a waste of Oireactas time. 

Again, they are in no different a position under Law than any other couple who have had a child with donated sperm/eggs. You still have a third party out there who is the biological parent and who has rights if they wish to exercise them and who may be forced to contribute by the State i.e. child maintenance. 

As for the "right" to have or "entitlement" to have children - there is no law against becoming a parent. Anyone, no matter how good or bad a parent they will become, can do it provided another party of op sex agrees to contribute, even if this contribution is only donated sperm/egg. Straight and gay people are in no different a position in this regard.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> The facts are that, even with scientific/medical intervention, it is not possible for a gay couple to have children. The best they can hope for is one being the biological parent with a third party being the other parent. There is absolutely no point in us bringing in laws for things which are currently impossible - its a waste of Oireactas time.
> regard.


 
The problem is as far as I know (open to correction), a* gay couple* can't even adopt as only married couples or single applicants are allowed to adopt.
Also, if one half of a lesbian couple uses treatments such as sperm donor and gets pregnant, her partner has no recognised  rights.


----------



## MrMan (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Seriously???
> 
> This is the following sentence to the one I quoted above
> 
> ...



Ok lets look at it this way, most people would say that to be gay is not a choice and that you are born that way, yes/no? If yes you agree then they are naturally gay and will naturally look for love and pleasure with someone of their own sex. Ditto for hetero people except their path can lead to pro-creation. Both very natural acts by very natural people.

By saying that if we lived as nature intended was naive as I can't say for sure what that is. i can only point at one aspect (man+woman =child) and ask is there any merit in the fact that without intervention nature has us equipped in a definitive way to create life. It's just a theory that is being put out there hence the multitude of 'maybes' in my posts. I know I'm not dealing in absolute fact, but it is obvious that these debates are coloured by what we have written in other threads and that is unfortunate. Anyways it's not so much the insinuation that I am a homophobe for holding a viewpoint that annoys me, it's more that another debate gets thrown off course with statements such as 'homphobe, racist' etc when i believe that until an argument is drawn to a close no conclusion should be made. I can be just as bad I'm sure but it annoys me nonetheless.


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> With sperm/egg donations, then only one of the couple is the parent - there is another parent out there i.e. whoever made the donation. One of the couple is not the biological parent.
> 
> The facts are that, even with scientific/medical intervention, it is not possible for a gay couple to have children. The best they can hope for is one being the biological parent with a third party being the other parent. There is absolutely no point in us bringing in laws for things which are currently impossible - its a waste of Oireactas time.


 
Again the point is that similar situations apply in straight couples, whether with biological partner absent for whatever reason. Why can't the new parent be recognised as such and have the rights to act as a parent if it's what everyone wants? Are they to be given those rights on the basis of they could be a parent in an ideal world because they're biologically able to in theory?

The answer is you can't and the government can't because it would be discrimination. So in order to achieve rights it has to be the same rights for everyone across all sexes, religions, sexualities, etc. This isn't just legislation to allow "gay adoption" IIRC it's to instil rights for the new societal views of "family".


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Ok lets look at it this way, most people would say that to be gay is not a choice and that you are born that way, yes/no? If yes you agree then they are naturally gay and will naturally look for love and pleasure with someone of their own sex. Ditto for hetero people except their path can lead to pro-creation. Both very natural acts by very natural people.
> 
> By saying that if we lived as nature intended was naive as I can't say for sure what that is. i can only point at one aspect (man+woman =child) and ask is there any merit in the fact that without intervention nature has us equipped in a definitive way to create life. It's just a theory that is being put out there hence the multitude of 'maybes' in my posts. I know I'm not dealing in absolute fact, but it is obvious that these debates are coloured by what we have written in other threads and that is unfortunate. Anyways it's not so much the insinuation that I am a homophobe for holding a viewpoint that annoys me, it's more that another debate gets thrown off course with statements such as 'homphobe, racist' etc when i believe that until an argument is drawn to a close no conclusion should be made. I can be just as bad I'm sure but it annoys me nonetheless.


 
I never said you were homophobic as a person. I just said those sentences seemed homophobic. I made a comment the other day that I considered innocent but a friend pulled me up by saying he considered it racist. I don't consider myself racist but freely admit that I have probably made comments in the past that were at best inappropriate on various issues and was grateful for the opportunity to explain myself. 
I have a family member who is gay so maybe I am over sensitive about these things. She had to leave Ireland to live her life (albeit is now talking about coming home because apparently the 'gay scene' in Ireland is great fun now!)

Anyway as you say, it distracts from the debate


----------



## TarfHead (6 Jul 2010)

Mpsox said:


> It also depresses me to think of the thousands of men denied their human rights of access to their own children after a relationship breaks down. That should be given a higher priority.


 
+1

According to Senator Ronan Mullen, the groups lobbying for the Civil Partnership Bill, '_jumped the queue_'.

Me and him on the same side of an argument ?
_Shiver_


----------



## MrMan (6 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> I never said you were homophobic as a person. I just said those sentences seemed homophobic. I made a comment the other day that I considered innocent but a friend pulled me up by saying he considered it racist. I don't consider myself racist but freely admit that I have probably made comments in the past that were at best inappropriate on various issues and was grateful for the opportunity to explain myself.
> I have a family member who is gay so maybe I am over sensitive about these things. She had to leave Ireland to live her life (albeit is now talking about coming home because apparently the 'gay scene' in Ireland is great fun now!)
> 
> Anyway as you say, it distracts from the debate




Fair enough, in the real world i'm a walking talking contradiction, but when I write things down I generally put more thought into it. I think I'll stick to the world cup thread.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2010)

TarfHead said:


> +1
> 
> According to Senator Ronan Mullen, the groups lobbying for the Civil Partnership Bill, '_jumped the queue_'.
> 
> ...


 
I don't understand why there is a queue. This should all have been dealt with at the same time. The Law Refrom Commission published a paper last year. Maybe if the politicians dealt with legislation rather than potholes in their local area, we might get something done.


----------



## Latrade (6 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Ok lets look at it this way, most people would say that to be gay is not a choice and that you are born that way, yes/no? If yes you agree then they are naturally gay and will naturally look for love and pleasure with someone of their own sex. Ditto for hetero people except their path can lead to pro-creation. Both very natural acts by very natural people.


 
We've established that one can lead to a child and the other can't. The question that this debate is around is whether the inability to naturally conceive means you are prohibited from adopting a child. 

I say no it shouldn't. That doesn't extend to everyone being able to own a child as if they were a commodity, it just means that your ability to conceive isn't the judge. Your ability to raise, support and love a child is the only judgement. 

So, is ability to naturally conceive an absolute barrier to being a parent (with all the options available today to facilitate this)? If you can't conceive naturally, you are not permitted to be a parent?


----------



## MrMan (6 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> We've established that one can lead to a child and the other can't. The question that this debate is around is whether the inability to naturally conceive means you are prohibited from adopting a child.
> 
> I say no it shouldn't. That doesn't extend to everyone being able to own a child as if they were a commodity, it just means that your ability to conceive isn't the judge. Your ability to raise, support and love a child is the only judgement.
> 
> So, is ability to naturally conceive an absolute barrier to being a parent (with all the options available today to facilitate this)? If you can't conceive naturally, you are not permitted to be a parent?



With Gay adoption my stance is I'm just not sure either way and until I'm convinced something is right then I don't believe in change for the sake of change.


----------



## pinkyBear (6 Jul 2010)

What I cant understand about this debate is who's business is it anyway if a gay couple decide to adopt a child? As it currently stands a gay person can adopt a child, but their partner cannot be granted guardianship.  

The most important thing in this debate is the wefare of the child, and it is worrying that a child that could be looked after by two parents, if the childs legal guardian died the child could be removed from the partner.. 

P..


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I don't believe in change for the sake of change.


I don't believe anyone is proposing change for the sake of change. How about change for the sake not being discriminated against based on your sexual preference.

Using sexual preference to assess the suitability of parents is like using philately to choose the members of the Irish rugby team.


----------



## MrMan (7 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> I don't believe anyone is proposing change for the sake of change. How about change for the sake not being discriminated against based on your sexual preference.
> 
> Using sexual preference to assess the suitability of parents is like using philately to choose the members of the Irish rugby team.



Nearly every situation can be construed to have an air of discrimination about it. I don't hear enough of a clamour for change to even consider it. What if 4 guys have lived together all their lives decide they want a baby in the house, do we say well if we don't say yes we are discriminating?


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> What if 4 guys have lived together all their lives decide they want a baby in the house, do we say well if we don't say yes we are discriminating?


 
Come on, you don't have to resort to arguments like that. The answer as you well know is that we don't have to say yes for the same reason we wouldn't give a baby to two men and two women or three women and one man.

The argument is about gay *couples *having the same rights as hetrosexual couples.


----------



## Complainer (7 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> What if 4 guys have lived together all their lives decide they want a baby in the house, do we say well if we don't say yes we are discriminating?


We say let them be evaluated based on their ability to parent, regardless of their gender or sexual preferences.

Equality doesn't mean that we'll be handing out babies willy nilly. It does mean that everyone gets a fair chance, based on their ability to parent.


----------



## MrMan (7 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> We say let them be evaluated based on their ability to parent, regardless of their gender or sexual preferences.
> 
> Equality doesn't mean that we'll be handing out babies willy nilly. It does mean that everyone gets a fair chance, based on their ability to parent.




So if they pass a test you are willing to let them adopt a child on the basis of equality?


----------



## MrMan (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Come on, you don't have to resort to arguments like that. The answer as you well know is that we don't have to say yes for the same reason we wouldn't give a baby to two men and two women or three women and one man.
> 
> The argument is about gay *couples *having the same rights as hetrosexual couples.



Just highlighting where the concept can go if we are opening up new avenues for people to adopt children that were not already in place. If the 4 guys have a loving understanding going on surely 4 parents are better than two crappy ones etc etc.


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Also, if one half of a lesbian couple uses treatments such as sperm donor and gets pregnant, her partner has no recognised rights.


 
Rightly so. If one half of a lesbian couple has a child with a third party, then the child's father has the "recognised rights". No different to any other situation whereby a woman in a relationship has a child with someone else. This is one of the points I was making earlier. People are proposing that e.g. the lesbian couple's partner get automatic rights at the expense of the childs father. A child's parents should always have the automatic rights.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Just highlighting where the concept can go if we are opening up new avenues for people to adopt children that were not already in place. If the 4 guys have a loving understanding going on surely 4 parents are better than two crappy ones etc etc.


 
Are you seriously resorting to this argument? Legally it couldn't happen because only couples or single applicants can adopt. Giving gay couples the same rights as hetrosexual couples won't change that


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> Rightly so. If one half of a lesbian couple has a child with a third party, then the child's father has the "recognised rights". No different to any other situation whereby a woman in a relationship has a child with someone else. This is one of the points I was making earlier. People are proposing that e.g. the lesbian couple's partner get automatic rights at the expense of the childs father. A child's parents should always have the automatic rights.


 
Nobody is saying the father hasn't got rights or loses his rights. The fact remains that the gay partner get's no rights even if the father is not on the scene. If an emergency happened and the mother wasn't around, her partner could not be able to give her consent for emergency medical treatment as she is not a family member. This doesn't happen if hetrosexual couples marry as the step father is considered family even if the original father still has rights.


----------



## Complainer (7 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> So if they pass a test you are willing to let them adopt a child on the basis of equality?


If the pass the same test as everyone else, then yes, I am willing to let them adopt a child. Not the basis of 'equality', but on the basis of good parenting.

Having said that, it is a fairly silly example, and I can't foresee any arrangement of 4 lads in a house that would lead to good parenting - but that's a matter for whatever test is applied.


----------



## Shawady (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Legally it couldn't happen because only couples or single applicants can adopt.


 
Someone on another thread was looking to get married abroad quickly as he wanted to adopt. This would imply that hetrosexual couples that are not married cannot adopt? Also, on the Pat Kenny show during the week one of the contributors said that although it is technicallty possible for a single person to adopt in Ireland, in practice it is virtually impossible to do it (although he conceeded a small number of people had).

In reality, it is probably only married couples that are succesful in adopting in Ireland.


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Nobody is saying the father hasn't got rights or loses his rights. The fact remains that the gay partner get's no rights even if the father is not on the scene. If an emergency happened and the mother wasn't around, her partner could not be able to give her consent for emergency medical treatment as she is not a family member. This doesn't happen if hetrosexual couples marry as the step father is considered family even if the original father still has rights.


 
I'm sure step fathers have no rights - legally regarded as strangers and cant sign consent forms etc. in hospital.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

Shawady said:


> Someone on another thread was looking to get married abroad quickly as he wanted to adopt. This would imply that hetrosexual couples that are not married cannot adopt? Also, on the Pat Kenny show during the week one of the contributors said that although it is technicallty possible for a single person to adopt in Ireland, in practice it is virtually impossible to do it (although he conceeded a small number of people had).
> 
> In reality, it is probably only married couples that are succesful in adopting in Ireland.


 
Sorry, yeah only married couples can adopt. 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/c...ships/adoption-and-fostering/adopting_a_child

But of course since marriage is not open to gay couples, they can't adopt as a couple.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> I'm sure step fathers have no rights - legally regarded as strangers and cant sign consent forms etc. in hospital.


 
Yeah, you are right. I should have said that the avenue of adoption is open to the step father to gain the rights but the same right is not available to the gay partner.


----------



## Shawady (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Sorry, yeah only married couples can adopt.


 
It seems strange that in some circumstances a single person may adopt but a co-habiting couple can't. 

"_*A sole applicant who is not in one of the categories listed above may only adopt where the Adoption Board is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable. It is not possible for two unmarried persons to adopt jointly*._"

I wonder if the principle of gay couples adopting should be dealt with it in a new adoption bill rather than the current civil partnership bill? i.e. Allow gay couples to form a civil partnership first and then look to have the adoption critera changed in a separate bill to allow for gay couples and non-married heterosexual couples.


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2010)

It seems that the big issue is adoption rights?


----------



## foxylady (7 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> I listened to the debate on The Last Word today about the right of same sex couples to have children.
> 
> Now I have always had fairly strong views on this over the years, yet I still do not consider myself a homophobe which is always thrown at you if you hold the view I do.
> 
> ...


 
On that reasoning so , you dont agree with heterosexual couples adopting when they cant conceive themselves.


----------



## michaelm (7 Jul 2010)

Firstly, there is no human right to have a child.    Whenever possible a child should not be denied the right to both a  mother and father and the State should not implement policies, for the  sake of modernity, which create artificial constructs where a child will  be fatherless or motherless. 

As per Vanilla's link highlights all this has happened before and all this will happen again (BSG rather than LBG reference ).

Christmas cracker Joke: Why was the Egyptian boy confused?
A: His Daddy was a Mummy.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> Whenever possible a child should not be denied the right to both a mother and father and the State should not implement policies, for the sake of modernity, which create artificial constructs where a child will be fatherless or motherless.


 
There are plenty of circumstances where the State intervenes through law to deny the right of a child and it's Father for example. The law is currently all on the Mother's side. 

A child should not be denied the right to both it's *parents* whether that be a mother and father, two mothers or two fathers.


----------



## DB74 (7 Jul 2010)

How can a child have 2 fathers or 2 mothers?

I mean surely they have to have at least one of each as a bare minimum anyway


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> How can a child have 2 fathers or 2 mothers?
> 
> I mean surely they have to have at least one of each as a bare minimum anyway


 
Fine. two female parents or two male parents. Unless you believe you can't be a parent unless you have personally conceived the child.


----------



## MrMan (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Fine. two female parents or two male parents. Unless you believe you can't be a parent unless you have personally conceived the child.




It comes back to who would the change benefit and who is the change being brought about for. The childs needs are taking a back seat to those of the adult gay community.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> It comes back to who would the change benefit and who is the change being brought about for. The childs needs are taking a back seat to those of the adult gay community.


 
How are the childs needs taking a back seat to those of the adult gay community unless you believe that Gay people only want to adopt or have children for selfish reasons and wouldn't be as good parents as straight couples?


----------



## DB74 (7 Jul 2010)

Suppose you have a lesbian couple who want to have a child. They find a man who is willing to provide sperm but who also wants to be a part of the child's life. One of the lesbians decides to get pregnant by this man (through IVF or naturally or whatever)

Then suppose the woman who bore the child dies.

Who should get custody of the child?


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> Suppose you have a lesbian couple who want to have a child. They find a man who is willing to provide sperm but who also wants to be a part of the child's life. One of the lesbian's decides to get pregnant by this man (through IVF or naturally or whatever)
> 
> Then suppose the woman who bore the child dies.
> 
> Who should get custody of the child?


 
Same as if man and woman get married, woman has child with other man (by whatever means) and who wants to stay involved but the child is brought up mainly by the woman and her husband. The woman dies 9 years later. Who gets custody?

The sexual orientation of the couple shouldn't come into it. ( I realise that this is not realistic)


----------



## DB74 (7 Jul 2010)

That's fair enough Sunny

However, I'm just curious about what people think should happen


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> That's fair enough Sunny
> 
> However, I'm just curious about what people think should happen


 
Guess it is just one of those horror stories you hear about sometimes in family courts. Wouldn't like to be a judge!


----------



## MrMan (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> How are the childs needs taking a back seat to those of the adult gay community unless you believe that Gay people only want to adopt or have children for selfish reasons and wouldn't be as good parents as straight couples?



I presume everyone who wants to adopt is doing it for selfish reasons. People want a child, i doubt if many would say that I want to adopt purely because a child will be better off with me than without. Why would a gay couple want to adopt if not for the fact that they want a family for themselves.


----------



## RMCF (7 Jul 2010)

DB74 said:


> *Suppose you have a lesbian couple who want to have a child*. They find a man who is willing to provide sperm but who also wants to be a part of the child's life. One of the lesbians decides to get pregnant by this man (through IVF or naturally or whatever)
> 
> Then suppose the woman who bore the child dies.
> 
> Who should get custody of the child?



They accept that they physically can't? That is my opinion, whether most think I'm homophobic or not.

This harks back to the 'I want' attitude that most of the population is developing. People all seem to think they are entitled to anything they want.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I presume everyone who wants to adopt is doing it for selfish reasons. People want a child, i doubt if many would say that I want to adopt purely because a child will be better off with me than without. Why would a gay couple want to adopt if not for the fact that they want a family for themselves.



That is just bizarre. How are people who adopt or go through fertility treatment selfish because they want a family? Why isn't everyone who wants a family selfish?


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> They accept that they physically can't? That is my opinion, whether most think I'm homophobic or not.
> 
> This harks back to the 'I want' attitude that most of the population is developing. People all seem to think they are entitled to anything they want.



But you still haven't answered the question as to why the lesbian couple are any different to any heterosexual couple who physically can't have kids. 
This thread has gone around in circles so am giving up.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> People all seem to think they are entitled to anything they want.


 No, people want to be equal under the law when attempting to gain access to the things they want.


----------



## Yachtie (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> No, people want to be equal under the law when attempting to gain access to the things they want.


 
I don't think that it is even about 'want' it's about equal rights to something you have emotionally invested in. I watched The Frontline the other night and the main gay / lesbian argument was about recognition of non-parent partner as a family member in case of medical emergency, parent's death, etc. Subsequently, this kind of recognition would bring on a different set of rights relating to pensions, inheritance, etc. 

Imagine the scenario (all hypotetical, I am happily married most days): my husband walks out on me and our baby son and has no interest in having access or contact. Five years down the line, I end up in a stable, loving lesbian partnership and my new lesbian partner is my son's best friend, enormous support and generally a fantastic replacement for a lousy father who walked away. Another five years on, I die and my loving, caring lesbian partner has to hand over my son to either un-interested father or the state? How is this fair and in better interest of my son than him being adopted and cared for by my lesbian partner?


----------



## MrMan (8 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> That is just bizarre. How are people who adopt or go through fertility treatment selfish because they want a family? Why isn't everyone who wants a family selfish?


 
They are I didn't exclude anyone in my post you might notice. If I want to start a family it is because I want one, therefore the action is to benefit me initially.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> They accept that they physically can't? That is my opinion, whether most think I'm homophobic or not.
> 
> This harks back to the 'I want' attitude that most of the population is developing. People all seem to think they are entitled to anything they want.


 

Does this also apply to the infertile heterosexual couple?


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> They are I didn't exclude anyone in my post you might notice. If I want to start a family it is because I want one, therefore the action is to benefit me initially.


 
I'd say the want to start a family is at a deeper emotional level than selfishness, but that's a different more philosophical argument. Though a person who may agree with the selfish argument is Dawkins with the whole selfish gene thing. But then that would make the urge to be a parent natural and we've already opened up the nature can of worms.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> I presume everyone who wants to adopt is doing it for selfish reasons. People want a child, i doubt if many would say that I want to adopt purely because a child will be better off with me than without. Why would a gay couple want to adopt if not for the fact that they want a family for themselves.


 


MrMan said:


> They are I didn't exclude anyone in my post you might notice. If I want to start a family it is because I want one, therefore the action is to benefit me initially.


 
You only talked about adoption. So if myself and wife decide to start a family, we are doing it for selfish reasons and our own satisfaction? So for someone who based their arguments on nature and natural procreation, you think that nature gave us tools to procreate but didn't give us the natural desire to procreate. That's just down to human selfishness?

Anyway, I will agree to disagree! It has run its course


----------



## Purple (8 Jul 2010)

Yachtie, I agree. I made the same point a few pages back.


----------



## csirl (8 Jul 2010)

> Imagine the scenario (all hypotetical, I am happily married most days): my husband walks out on me and our baby son and has no interest in having access or contact. Five years down the line, I end up in a stable, loving lesbian partnership and my new lesbian partner is my son's best friend, enormous support and generally a fantastic replacement for a lousy father who walked away. Another five years on, I die and my loving, caring lesbian partner has to hand over my son to either un-interested father or the state? How is this fair and in better interest of my son than him being adopted and cared for by my lesbian partner?


 
The situation would be no different if your second relationship was a heterosexual one. So, why should a lesbian partner have more rights than a heterosexual partner?


----------



## Purple (8 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> The situation would be no different if your second relationship was a heterosexual one. So, why should a lesbian partner have more rights than a heterosexual partner?



They shouldn't, they should have the same rights.


----------



## RMCF (8 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> But you still haven't answered the question as to why the lesbian couple are any different to any heterosexual couple who physically can't have kids.
> This thread has gone around in circles so am giving up.



Well I will answer it now, as I thought I had made my opinions clear in my replies before, I believe that a child should have a mother and a father, not 2 mums or 2 dads. Thats my belief. End of. Answered now?


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> They accept that they physically can't? That is my opinion, whether most think I'm homophobic or not.
> 
> This harks back to the 'I want' attitude that most of the population is developing. People all seem to think they are entitled to anything they want.


 


RMCF said:


> Well I will answer it now, as I thought I had made my opinions clear in my replies before, I believe that a child should have a mother and a father, not 2 mums or 2 dads. Thats my belief. End of. Answered now?


 
That's fine. You don't agree with gay people being parents. You should just say that instead of saying only people who can physically have children should be parents. Everyone can have children in this day and age through one form or another.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> Well I will answer it now, as I thought I had made my opinions clear in my replies before, I believe that a child should have a mother and a father, not 2 mums or 2 dads. Thats my belief. End of. Answered now?


 
Where does that leave single parents where the other parent has gone off and not interested in the child?
Should they not be allowed to keep their kids?


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2010)

RMCF said:


> Well I will answer it now, as I thought I had made my opinions clear in my replies before, I believe that a child should have a mother and a father, not 2 mums or 2 dads. Thats my belief. End of. Answered now?


 
It's not 2 dads, but surely this proves that not only can same sex parentage work, but that we all learn important moral lessons about ourselves in the process.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> It's not 2 dads, but surely this proves that not only can same sex parentage work, but that we all learn important moral lessons about ourselves in the process.


----------



## foxylady (8 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> They are I didn't exclude anyone in my post you might notice. If I want to start a family it is because I want one, therefore the action is to benefit me initially.


 

Well if people are selfish for wanting kids well thank god for selfish people otherise the human race would be long since over.


----------



## Yachtie (8 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> The situation would be no different if your second relationship was a heterosexual one. So, why should a lesbian partner have more rights than a heterosexual partner?


 
If second relationship is a heterosexual marriage, step-parent can adopt a child at any time which is not the case with homosexual relationship. 

You can argue all you like that this has nothing to to with Catholic teachings BUT in this country, in 21st century an un-married father still has less rights than the married one, even though a marriage cert is by no means a qualification to parent.


----------



## csirl (8 Jul 2010)

> If second relationship is a heterosexual marriage, step-parent can adopt a child at any time which is not the case with homosexual relationship.


 
Wrong - the step-parent has no automatic rights to adopt the child. Legally speaking, they are strangers to the child etc. By Law, the childs father automatically becomes the sole guardian when the mother dies. If he is not on the scene or not able, then the child becomes a Ward of Court.


----------



## secman (8 Jul 2010)

I used to be a dinosaur too, but I am no longer one. I was extremely biased, homophoebic, a complete bigot towards gay people . Thats a side of me that I totally totally, regret. In all walks of life there are brilliant parents, okish ones and then there are absolutely apalling ones. This would apply to all people irrespect of their sexuality. 

The law being brought in simply is to acknowledge that we in law have equal rights irrespect of our sexuality. Plain and simple. I heard an interview with Colm O'Gorman some time ago, it was a facinating listen. He and his partner have one or two children whose mother was a dear friend of Colm, who unfortunately died of cancer. It was a real eye opener, very frank and facinating interview. At the end of the interview I was of the opinion that the children involved were extremely lucky to have a loving family to care for them especially having lost their mother. 

I have 2 simple rules in life now:

1. Do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you.
2. Too much of anything, I mean anything is not good for you.

Just my tuppence worth.

Secman


----------



## DB74 (8 Jul 2010)

Emily Logan (Children's Ombudsman) reckons that the new legislation doesn't take children's rights into account

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> Wrong - the step-parent has no automatic rights to adopt the child. Legally speaking, they are strangers to the child etc. By Law, the childs father automatically becomes the sole guardian when the mother dies. If he is not on the scene or not able, then the child becomes a Ward of Court.


 
But the opportunity exists for the step-father to adopt when in a relationship with the mother. That option isn't there for the gay partner.


----------



## MrMan (8 Jul 2010)

foxylady said:


> Well if people are selfish for wanting kids well thank god for selfish people otherise the human race would be long since over.


 
I'm not for a minute stating that selfishness is bad. I am selfish and have been most of my life. I have a woman that I love and I try to be as good to her as possible, but partly because I love how I feel being with her. I bought the car I want and the house I wanted even though had she said no I wouldn't have bought either. We all do things that we want because that is natural. We both want children for many reasons and alot of them are selfish ie. watching your offspring grow and achieve, sharing new memories etc.
To suggest that adopting a child or conceiving a child is first and foremost for the good of the child is incorrect imo.


----------



## foxylady (8 Jul 2010)

secman said:


> I used to a dinosaur too, but I am no longer one. I was extremely biased, homophoebic, a complete bigot towards gay people . Thats a side of me that I totally totally, regret. In all walks of life there are brilliant parents, okish ones and then there are absolutely apalling ones. This would apply to all people irrespect of their sexuality.
> 
> The law being brought in simply is to acknowledge that we in law have equal rights irrespect of our sexuality. Plain and simple. I heard an interview with Colm O'Gorman some time ago, it was a facinating listen. He and his partner have one or two children whose mother was a dear friend of Colm, who unfortunately died of cancer. It was a real eye opener, very frank and facinating interview. At the end of the interview I was of the opinion that the children involved were extremely lucky to have a loving family to care for them especially having lost their mother.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMan (8 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> You only talked about adoption. So if myself and wife decide to start a family, we are doing it for selfish reasons and our own satisfaction? So for someone who based their arguments on nature and natural procreation, you think that nature gave us tools to procreate but didn't give us the natural desire to procreate. That's just down to human selfishness?
> 
> Anyway, I will agree to disagree! It has run its course


 
You got me! I did mean everyone though. The natural desire is there alright but again if you decide that you want to raise a family, it is a want you have and a choice you make to give you what you want. Selfishness in the strictest terms and as Foxylady says luckily we all have the capability to be selfish.


----------



## csirl (8 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> But the opportunity exists for the step-father to adopt when in a relationship with the mother. That option isn't there for the gay partner.


 
Step-fathers do not have the "option" of adopting their wife's children. The natural father retains parental rights unless he gives them up. A step-father cannot adopt at the expense of a natural father. Where step-fathers adopt, it is by agreement with the father and the process is the same as any adoption whereby parent(s) voluntarily give up their child to adoption to a third party who is known to them.

Personally, I think a lot of the adoption stuff is a red herring. There are other legal ways in which step parents and gay partners can be given responsibility for their partners children - the principal of _in loco parentis_ applies to them in certain circumstances. People keep on trotting out the example of an emergency where the parent must sign hospital consent forms. Well, if your kid is in a foreign country on a school tour, you will not be there to sign consent forms - in such cases, the teachers assume_ in loco parentis_ status and sign the forms.


----------



## dereko1969 (8 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> With Gay adoption my stance is I'm just not sure either way and until I'm convinced something is right then I don't believe in change for the sake of change.


 
How does this directly affect you though?


----------



## MrMan (8 Jul 2010)

dereko1969 said:


> How does this directly affect you though?


 
I'm a member of society, if we only have an input into things that directly affect us then we would be going down the wrong path.


----------

