# Gay Marraige For or Against



## Smashbox

If you've been around any US Gossip sites recently (like me!) you may have heard about Miss California stating that she didn't believe in Gay Marraige to Perez Hilton, a gossip website owner who is gay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0

Just wondering in an age where people aren't so strict with Religion anymore, are you guys for or against gay marraiges?

Oh, and please don't make this into a Religious fight.


----------



## baldyman27

Smashbox said:


> are you guys for or against gay marraiges?


 
I'm firmly in the 'undecided' camp. Not that I'm camp.


----------



## Caveat

I think gay people should have the same rights (civil, legal or otherwise) as heterosexuals.  No more or no less. 

I think it's just fair and common sense, so I'm definitely for.


----------



## Caveat

baldyman27 said:


> I'm firmly in the 'undecided' camp.


 
Now that could be construed as being very, eh, enthusiastic about the bisexual community


----------



## baldyman27

Caveat said:


> Now that could be construed as being very, eh, enthusiastic about the bisexual community


 
Yes, I am a great fan of bi-sexual ladies.


----------



## Smashbox

I have to say I'm with Cav on this one. I do believe that 'equal rights' should include homosexual people, who after all are no different than Mr & Mrs whoever down the street.

I know a lot of gay/bisexual people and wish there were an option for them to be like 'normal' couples and have the choice.


----------



## Smashbox

baldyman27 said:


> Yes, I am a great fan of bi-sexual ladies.


 
And what about the gents?!


----------



## baldyman27

Smashbox said:


> And what about the gents?!


 
No, anywhere but the gent's. A bedroom preferably.


----------



## Smashbox

Ah, a romantic. How nice.


----------



## MrMan

I could be wrong, but I always believed that marriage was for the union of man and woman to form a family unit, I don't see the benefits in legalising gay marriage except maybe financially for the gay couple, which isn't enough to constitute allow it imo. It's not an anti gay thing I just don't see the real need for it. I would generally be liberal but would prob vote against it should it ever come to that.


----------



## Purple

I am 100% in favour or a civil union that gives the same property rights, inheritance rights, taxation benefits, pension rights etc but I am unsure about the adoption rights that would follow. In theory I have no problem with a gay couple adopting a child but life is hard enough for kids without putting them in a position where they will be open to the biases of other and the ridicule of their peers. I also believe that the best environment for a child to grow up in is with its father and mother. To me there is a clear conflict between these issues and I don’t know what the right answer is.


----------



## huskerdu

I think that the issue of adoption rights for homosexuals is a totally separate issue,
and muddies the issues of marraige rights. I

I know I am stating the obvious, but it is possible to have children without being married and lots of married people dont have kids, so marraige is not strictly about having children either. 

Some people are religious and marraige in their religion has a religious significance for those people, but marraige, in the eyes of the law is a legal contract which seriously affects peoples tax and inheritance situation, so it very much about money. It makes no sense to bar homosexuals from this legal contract.


----------



## burger1979

I would be in favour of gay couples to have civil unions, indeed marriages. but i think some of the problems are in the definition of the word marriage from the dictionary it states (this is just one meaning):

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

marriage is so explicitly linked to a religious ceremony that i think this makes it sacred to alot of people who are opposed to gay marriages, however if you take the meaning above it also states that legal commitments can also be seen as marriage. i think the definition/meaning of the word is so built around man/woman because it has been like that for so long that it will be hard to change peoples views on the subject. 

BTW she was HOT!!!!!


----------



## Purple

huskerdu said:


> I think that the issue of adoption rights for homosexuals is a totally separate issue,
> and muddies the issues of marraige rights.



No, the word "marriage" muddies the real issue which is civil union. Marriage automatically bestows certain adoption rights, the two are interlinked. Marriage and the family, and therefore children, are associated in the constitution. 
This Wiki article gives a good outline of the whole position here.


----------



## Firefly

Caveat said:


> I think gay people should have the same rights (civil, legal or otherwise) as heterosexuals. No more or no less.
> 
> I think it's just fair and common sense, so I'm definitely for.


 

+1

Seems unfair she lost given that she only gave her view on a subject that has little to do with a beauty contest. Then again, apparently she chose the judge to be questioned, so it shows that she's not the brightest (again though, not really relevant to a beauty contest!).


----------



## Smashbox

Firefly said:


> Then again, apparently she chose the judge to be questioned, so it shows that she's not the brightest (again though, not really relevant to a beauty contest!).


 
She chose him through a random draw, has to be pointed out.


----------



## Smashbox

Purple said:


> I also believe that the best environment for a child to grow up in is with its father and mother


 
I know this is your opinion but to me this is not always true.


----------



## baldyman27

Purple said:


> I also believe that the best environment for a child to grow up in is with its father and mother.


 


Smashbox said:


> I know this is your opinion but to me this is not always true.


 
I'd have to agree with Purple on this one.


----------



## Smashbox

Yep, and its your right to have an opinion. But not all mothers and fathers deserve to be, sometimes a child is better off out of a certain environment where a parent might be abusive/agressive/bullying whatever it is.

I have a friend who, along with her sister, was raised by her mother alone, back in the 80s when it was pretty much frowned upon, because her father was not fit to be a parent. Her mother was courageous for leaving, and her daughters turned out to be two lovely ladies. I think if the dad had stayed in the picture, it wouldn't have been the same case at all.


----------



## Smashbox

Oh, and for anyone interested, as always, there's a petition online run by 'The Right Campaign' looking for 8,000 people to sign. 

_Here's what they say_ : 

The Irish Government promised us that 2009 would see the introduction of 'Civil Unions' for same-sex couples.  Yet, 2009 is well underway and still no action has been taken by our govenment.

This petition aims to not only push the government into action, but also to say that these vague 'unions' aren't good enough.
We demand *equal rights* to civil marriage as any heterosexual couple.  *Denying* us this, denies us our right to equality.


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/gay-ireland


----------



## Purple

Smashbox said:


> I know this is your opinion but to me this is not always true.



I agree that it's not always true but legislation cannot be based on the exception.


----------



## Smashbox

I know that Purple, I just believe there are some really unfit parents out there. I'm sure there there are great gay couples who can offer a lot to a child, however if there is gonna be ridicule towards them (as it would be with some peoples stance on this) then perhaps it shouldnt be allowed. 

In the same breath, if you mam is a drug addict or your dad an alcoholic, you will probably get the same abuse veered at you for that.


----------



## Vanilla

This is a no-brainer for me. Equal rights all the way, including adoption.


----------



## Mar123

I also think that same sex couples should have equal rights. At present same sex couples can foster children, so that right should also be extended to adoption.


----------



## RMCF

Gay Marriage: For.

Gay Couples being allowed to adopt children: Against.


----------



## gipimann

I'm in favour of equal rights for civil unions (whether you call it marriage or not) for everyone.

And that includes adoption - if the adoption rules are followed, then only suitable parents (of whatever sex) should be selected to adopt a child.

I wonder if the "stigma" which may attach to an adopted child is greater if the gay parents are male as opposed to female?  Selective discrimination?


----------



## bullbars

Firmly against both.


----------



## Smashbox

Would you like to elaborate on that bullbars or would you rather not?


----------



## MrMan

Do gay couples wish to have the same rights for the security/financial side of things or because they believe in what a marriage represents? I don't see the argument of 'some straight couples are brutal parents' as being an opening to allowing same sex couples the rights to adopt. Unfortunately bad parents can have children because they have the ability to physically do so as nature intended, the adoption route should be very strict and ensure that there is a balance in the couple.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> ... the the adoption route should be very strict and ensure that there is a balance in the couple.


 
Well it is AFAIK - and I assume the same would apply to gay couples too.


----------



## Smashbox

I guess gay couples just want the chance to have the options like straight couples, have a choice, like have equal rights in every aspect.


----------



## Teatime

RMCF said:


> Gay Marriage: For.
> 
> Gay Couples being allowed to adopt children: Against.


 
Same here. Not fair on the kids.


----------



## TarfHead

IMHO

Marriage = Man + woman + church + priest

No substitutions

I was in a hall in Gretna Green 2 years ago seeing my sister in law and her bloke and some other bloke in a suit and something that looked like an anvil. I still can't bring myself to refer to it as a marriage.

Same sex couples ..
- civil union - fine
- property & inheritance rights - fine
- adoption - hmmmm


----------



## S.L.F

baldyman27 said:


> I'd have to agree with Purple on this one.


 
+1



Smashbox said:


> Yep, and its your right to have an opinion. But not all mothers and fathers deserve to be, sometimes a child is better off out of a certain environment where a parent might be abusive/agressive/bullying whatever it is.
> 
> I have a friend who, along with her sister, was raised by her mother alone, back in the 80s when it was pretty much frowned upon, because her father was not fit to be a parent. Her mother was courageous for leaving, and her daughters turned out to be two lovely ladies. I think if the dad had stayed in the picture, it wouldn't have been the same case at all.


 
My experiences of familes breaking up back in those days is the mother got it all and the father was *always* the bad guy.



Smashbox said:


> I know that Purple, I just believe there are some really unfit parents out there. I'm sure there there are great gay couples who can offer a lot to a child, however if there is gonna be ridicule towards them (as it would be with some peoples stance on this) then perhaps it shouldnt be allowed.
> 
> In the same breath, if you mam is a drug addict or your dad an alcoholic, you will probably get the same abuse veered at you for that.


 
You are quite correct Smashbox but the reverse holds true too.

Some of the worst Nazis were homosexual.


----------



## Caveat

I think arguably yes, the most stable environment for children to be brought up in is with a father and mother.

However, to be blunt, on a regular basis I see "parents" who TBH, if there is any justice, should be sterilised. Nothing stops them or many like them having as many children as they want. 

At least with adoption, parents are fairly thoroughly vetted and are much less likely to be terrible parents like the above mentioned - the same would apply to gay couples.


----------



## TarfHead

Smashbox said:


> In the same breath, if you mam is a drug addict or your dad an alcoholic, you will probably get the same abuse veered at you for that.


 
.. or if they worked for a Bank  !


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> I think arguably yes, the most stable environment for children to be brought up in is with a father and mother.
> 
> However, to be blunt, on a regular basis I see "parents" who TBH, if there is any justice, should be sterilised. Nothing stops them or many like them having as many children as they want.
> 
> At least with adoption, parents are fairly thoroughly vetted and are much less likely to be terrible parents like the above mentioned - the same would apply to gay couples.


 
But as has been said the bad parents shouldn't be part of the debate as they can physically create life naturally, so 'we' really can't stop them pre-creating. A good balance is a strong mother and father, if you have a father and father it does complicate things for the child and that is who we care about here not the adults. 
What happens in a break up? the mother usually has the rights to the child, which father will have more rights?


----------



## coolaboola

I'm Christian (I associate the word 'religious' with a lot of hypocritical behaviour and attitudes so I'm reluctant to use it, but I go to Mass every week).

I'm married (10 years next week - and still haven't killed each other!).  I got married in a church, with a priest, the whole thing.  

I also got married knowing (and being fully open about it) that I didn't want to have kids. 

Friends of mine, a couple (both women), are also married and have recently had a baby.   I'm very happy for them and am glad the baby will grow up in a happy, stable home.   

I'm definitely for same-sex marriage.  And not just the legal bit.   I got married in a church because it meant a lot to me to have my union blessed by God and my community.    I'm guessing that for spiritual gay and lesbian couples such a blessing would be important to them too.    The only difference between their marriage and mine is plumbing - I chose not to put mine to the purpose that nature intended, just as a couple without the necessary combination of 'plumbing' can choose to get around that problem - with the medical science or by adopting.  

To be honest, I've more of a problem with hetrosexual people too careless with their ability to make babies, making unplanned babies outside of the support and security of a permanent, commited relationship, which is difficult for everyone involved.   Or those who choose to marry in a church for whom the ceremony has no spiritual meaning - why not have your wedding ceremony reflect your beliefs and values?   

Anything that supports promotes stable, secure relationships (regardless of the plumbing of the people involved!) and allows people to celebrate their relationships is a good thing by my book.


----------



## wavejumper

Vanilla said:


> This is a no-brainer for me. Equal rights all the way, including adoption.



Same here.  Marriage was a way to further demonstrate my parner my commitment to our relationship and to avail ourselves of the legal rights afforded to married couples.  To deny the same rights to homosexual couples is discrimination based on prejudice and ignorance, like all other forms of discrimination.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> But as has been said the bad parents shouldn't be part of the debate as they can physically create life naturally, so 'we' really can't stop them pre-creating. A good balance is a strong mother and father, if you have a father and father it does complicate things for the child and that is who we care about here not the adults.
> What happens in a break up? the mother usually has the rights to the child, which father will have more rights?


 
No, it shouldn't be part of the debate - but 'bad parents exist' is the only point I'm making - gay or straight. Being gay in itself doesn't necessarily mean that any or all parenting skills will be lacking.

Obviously things may not be straightforward for a child with same sex 'parents' but I think as the world moves on this will become less and less of an issue.

Yes, maybe some gay people only want to get married because of the financial/security aspect and not because they feel strongly about the concept of marriage but so what? Plenty of straight people do the same thing - I know one such couple who happily admit this.

The break up question is a good point - but this is something that can surely be worked out/addressed in some way - it shouldn't represent an obstacle to gay marriages anyway.


----------



## ney001

rmcf said:


> gay marriage: For.
> 
> Gay couples being allowed to adopt children: Against.



+ 1


----------



## bren1916

Definitely not anti-gay , but I do not believe marraige should be recognised and certainly no adoption of children to gay couples..


----------



## wavejumper

bren1916 said:


> Definitely not anti-gay , but I do not believe marraige should be recognised and certainly no adoption of children to gay couples..



So what rights would you allow them?


----------



## Vanilla

It's ironic that some posters' objections to gay adoption relates to the prejudice the child might experience. And rather sad too since this is self-perpetuating.


----------



## Caveat

Vanilla said:


> It's ironic that some posters' objections to gay adoption relates to the prejudice the child might experience. *And rather* *sad too since this is self-perpetuating*.


 
In a lot of cases, yes, I agree - well put.


----------



## Chocks away

The OP was asking about gay marriage! What's the problem! Get the legalities over with and hit the sack!  But since we have arrived here, here is what I think. If you ask yourself the questions, "Would I like two Mammies?", "Would I like two Daddies?", "Would I like a Mammy and a Daddy?". Then your answer is your true belief. No posturing, PC guff or moral dilemma.


----------



## Firefly

I think it will happen here after it happens in other countries and just like condoms/divorce the next generations will wonder what all the fuss was about.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I think it will happen here after it happens in other countries and just like condoms/divorce the next generations will wonder what all the fuss was about.


 You are probably right. I have friends and family members that are gay and I find it interesting that their views on the matter vary widely.


----------



## MrMan

Vanilla said:


> It's ironic that some posters' objections to gay adoption relates to the prejudice the child might experience. And rather sad too since this is self-perpetuating.


 
So do you not think that the childs interests should come first and foremost? It is way to easy to simply say that we should accept everyone as they are but until the majority do accept different lifestyles then adoption for same sex couples is out imo. We should use children to pioneer a new movement just because we think that in years to come it will be the norm. 
Same sex couples were never intended to have children as they do not have the physical atributes to do so and maybe that is natures way of making a call on it. Sterile opposite sex couples are unlucky in their make up and should be allowed adopt.


----------



## autumnleaf

Gay marriage: in favour.

Adoption rights: I don't believe they exist for anyone, gay or straight. 

Let me clarify. Adoption is not about finding children for childless adults; it is about finding parents for children who need them. Try adopting a baby in this country if you're over 40; it won't happen, unless you're a close relative. Sad for the older would-be parents, but their needs are secondary to those of the child.

I wouldn't rule out gay couples for adoption if circumstances decree that they are the best for the child. For example, say there's an orphaned 6-year-old girl and her closest relative is the gay uncle she adores. But this is about the child's "right to a family"; lets not talk about some nonsense "right to adopt".


----------



## Purple

MrMan said:


> Same sex couples were never intended to have children as they do not have the physical atributes to do so and maybe that is natures way of making a call on it. Sterile opposite sex couples are unlucky in their make up and should be allowed adopt.


I completely disagree that any group was “meant” to have or not have anything. That implies some divine plan or orchestration. That, IMO, is rubbish. I am in favour of equal rights for everyone in society. If I make that statement then I have to accept that same sex couples must be allowed to adopt children but I can see that there are practical implications for the adopted children of same sex couples, many of which are negative. I can’t square these two things in my mind but I find it far more objectionable that if the biological mother of a child dies her partner, who for all practical purposes is the child’s other parent, has no rights to keep that child and her relationship with that child is at the whim of her deceased partners legal next of kin.


----------



## Vanilla

MrMan said:


> So do you not think that the childs interests should come first and foremost? It is way to easy to simply say that we should accept everyone as they are but until the majority do accept different lifestyles then adoption for same sex couples is out imo. We should use children to pioneer a new movement just because we think that in years to come it will be the norm.
> Same sex couples were never intended to have children as they do not have the physical atributes to do so and maybe that is natures way of making a call on it. Sterile opposite sex couples are unlucky in their make up and should be allowed adopt.


 
I do think the childs' interests should always come first.

You say that same sex couples were never intended to have children as they don't have the physical attibutes to do so, but that is clearly wrong. They do. Gay men have sperm, gay women have wombs. Now they may not be able to get pregnant with their partner, but then many heterosexual couples cannot either. So physically there is nothing preventing gay couples having children, just not with each other.
Plenty of them already are, with the aid of friends, turkey basters or clinics!

Our society has evolved with hetero couples having children as the norm. But there are many other cultures where this is not the case. And cultures are constantly evolving. Ours is too. Gay couples were once frowned on, in fact gay sexual activities were illegal. That's no longer so. And I think that's for the better. I hope that our society will evolve to consider gay couples with children also the norm.

Gay or hetero, the adoption process would be the same grilling and rigorous inspection.

Gay or hetero, there are good and bad parents. For the bad ones there's already state protection, it shouldn't make a difference if you are gay or not.


----------



## Chocks away

So, Vanilla! Would you rather have gay or hetero parents?


----------



## Vanilla

Chocks away said:


> So, Vanilla! Would you rather have gay or hetero parents?


 
I had the parents I had. Maybe gay parents would have been better! I could have developed a love of Barbara Streisland, a better sense of fashion or been a better dancer?  Sorry, can't take that question seriously. Children love the parents they HAVE ( mostly).


----------



## Chocks away

Vanilla said:


> I had the parents I had. Maybe gay parents would have been better! I could have developed a love of Barbara Streisland, a better sense of fashion or been a better dancer?  Sorry, can't take that question seriously. Children love the parents they HAVE ( mostly).


 OK. If you had the choice, which set (of the said parents ) would you rather have had? This has nothing to do with your loving parents. It is in relationship to the sexuality of a theoretical set of parents.


----------



## Vanilla

Chocks away said:


> OK. If you had the choice, which set (of the said parents ) would you rather have had? This has nothing to do with your loving parents. It is in relationship to the sexuality of a theoretical set of parents.


 
I'm going to answer that with a question. If children of a gay couple are at a disadvantage because of some peoples prejudice against gays, what is the problem- the gay couple who have children, or the people who are prejudiced?

If children of people of colour are at a disadvantage because of some peoples prejudice, should people of colour not be allowed to have children? And so on.


----------



## Purple

Vanilla said:


> I'm going to answer that with a question. If children of a gay couple are at a disadvantage because of some peoples prejudice against gays, what is the problem- the gay couple who have children, or the people who are prejudiced?
> 
> If children of people of colour are at a disadvantage because of some peoples prejudice, should people of colour not be allowed to have children? And so on.



very good point.


----------



## Chocks away

Vanilla said:


> I'm going to answer that with a question. If children of a gay couple are at a disadvantage because of some peoples prejudice against gays, what is the problem- the gay couple who have children, or the people who are prejudiced?
> 
> If children of people of colour are at a disadvantage because of some peoples prejudice, should people of colour not be allowed to have children? And so on.



OK! Supposing the peoples of the world have been racialy homogenised. Then would you rather to have a Mammy and Daddy bringing you up or two Mammies/Daddies? 
 You live in a nice respectable area. You would like your kids to have the same or better. One day while driving to the supermarket you see your son in more than friendly terms with the daughter of a known criminal/bad egg. You have a major word with him that night. No apparent problem here. It's nature taking it's course. After all, the survival of the human race depends on couples getting it on. Should the boys parents not try to, er, put him off? Is this not prejudice?   _What is wrong here?  The courting couple or the parents prejudice?_
 As regards people being disadvantaged becauses of other peoples prejudices? How many children of low lifes mix socially with the children of movers and shakers. How many people would gladly have people of a perceived lower order moving in next door. Why are there cars that cost e100,000 and some that coste12,000? This is so the owner can distinguish himself. We are not talking caste system. The local golf club or the local darts team. Sandy Lane or a three star in Kusadasi. Krystal or Tennants Super. C'est la vie! Back to the question at the top of page.


----------



## MrMan

Purple said:


> I completely disagree that any group was “meant” to have or not have anything. That implies some divine plan or orchestration. That, IMO, is rubbish. I am in favour of equal rights for everyone in society. If I make that statement then I have to accept that same sex couples must be allowed to adopt children but I can see that there are practical implications for the adopted children of same sex couples, many of which are negative. I can’t square these two things in my mind but I find it far more objectionable that if the biological mother of a child dies her partner, who for all practical purposes is the child’s other parent, has no rights to keep that child and her relationship with that child is at the whim of her deceased partners legal next of kin.


 
Look at the biological facts. Surely taking into account that everything has a purpose to a point it would be logical to follow that through to the point where a man cannot in any circumstance pregnate his partner if that partner is also a man. If we could all have what we want that would be great but nature and life tends to dictate whether we like it or not, I'm not speaking about any divine plan so if you feel that there is a religious slant to my argument then you are mistaken.
I don't think that you can have equal rights right across the board at all costs no matter how idealistic that view may be.


----------



## MrMan

Vanilla said:


> I do think the childs' interests should always come first.
> 
> You say that same sex couples were never intended to have children as they don't have the physical attibutes to do so, but that is clearly wrong. They do. Gay men have sperm, gay women have wombs.


 
I dont know if you missed the point or not but it is the 'same sex couple do not have whats required' part i.e what that couple have between their partnership is not adequate in nature to procreate. 
As regards societies ills and peoples prejudices they are a fact of life so if you feel that allowing same sex couples adopt will knock down some walls fair enough, I just don't agree with letting children be the ones to experience the initial prejudice.


----------



## Chocks away

Vanilla said:


> You say that same sex couples were never intended to have children as they don't have the physical attibutes to do so, but that is clearly wrong. They do. Gay men have sperm, gay women havewombs.



Vanilla, good morning.Hope you've had your espresso/cappucino. Re above ...... AFAIK gay men don't have wombs or gay women dangly bits. Nature did have a go but hermaphrodites obviously did not cut the mustard as nature intended. Now if a gay man got to grips with a gay woman and impregnated her, that's fine. But I'd look for an alternative definition for the word 'gay'.


----------



## Smashbox

I think kids would be blessed to have two parents, be they male and female, two females or two males - I'm sure they would be equally loved the same.

So if kids are gonna get bullied in school because they have two moms or two dads, the gay couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

What about people of interracial relationships, say one parent is black and one white. Do you think that kid is gonna be equally bullied? I would think so. Race is another thing frowned upon it would seem. So perhaps there should be a ban on mixed races coming together and having kids or adopting?

Not wanting to go down the religion route but I have to make a point. If one parent is of one religion, and the other of another, will that kid be equally as bullied as the two above? So perhaps different religions shouldnt come together either. I mean, people have died for two families of different religions coming together, right on our doorstep.

So, ban on gay people having kids. Where is the ban on race and religion too? 

It doesn't matter about 'plumbing', or who has what. Surely someones love for another can't be helped, the way you have falled for your partner of choice, be them a man or a woman.


----------



## Pique318

I have to admit, I'm quite surprised by the opinions put forward by some of the posters here. It seems to be a case of "I don't mind the gays, but no way can they have a family, the durty feckers. Down with that sort of thing!"

Sad really that seemingly intelligent people still carry a prejudice (and be under no illusions, that's exactly what it is) against homosexuals.

I think the double standards as highlighted by Smashbox in her last post is very important. No-one would condone preventing mixed-race or mixed-religion couples the right to adoption. Yet not so very long ago, they were not allowed to marry.

It shows an archaic p.o.v. still permeates Irish society on issues such as this. 
I remember years ago being at mass and the priest venting from the pulpit (again) about the 'evils' of our society. Abortion, Contraception, Divorce, Homosexuality, extra-marital sex etc... I was secretly laughing to myself that this man was so out of touch with modern day life. "No-one can seriously sign up to this rubbish" I thought. Seems I was (and still am) wrong....sadly !

Conversations like this will be looked upon with a mixture of bewilderment and disdain by future generations.


----------



## Vanilla

I don't have anything to add to my previous posts and to the excellent posts above by jaybird, smashbox and pique318.


----------



## Firefly

To break it down further...assuming gay people could adopt, how do you think people would view 2 gay women adopting a child vs 2 gay men? Personally, I think society in general would find it easier to accept 2 gay women adopting.

I'm in favour of gays being able to adopt by the way, assuming they are married and meet the already strict adoption guidelines.


----------



## RMCF

Pique318 said:


> I have to admit, I'm quite surprised by the opinions put forward by some of the posters here. It seems to be a case of "I don't mind the gays, but no way can they have a family, the durty feckers. Down with that sort of thing!"
> 
> Sad really that seemingly intelligent people still carry a prejudice (and be under no illusions, that's exactly what it is) against homosexuals.
> 
> I think the double standards as highlighted by Smashbox in her last post is very important. No-one would condone preventing mixed-race or mixed-religion couples the right to adoption. Yet not so very long ago, they were not allowed to marry.
> 
> It shows an archaic p.o.v. still permeates Irish society on issues such as this.
> I remember years ago being at mass and the priest venting from the pulpit (again) about the 'evils' of our society. Abortion, Contraception, Divorce, Homosexuality, extra-marital sex etc... I was secretly laughing to myself that this man was so out of touch with modern day life. "No-one can seriously sign up to this rubbish" I thought. Seems I was (and still am) wrong....sadly !
> 
> Conversations like this will be looked upon with a mixture of bewilderment and disdain by future generations.



I am one of those that is ok with gay marriage but not ok with them adopting children.

Currently this is probably based on the fact that I have imagined what it would be like for a child to head off to school if they had two dads/two mums, and the amount of abuse they would get for it. Many would suffer terribly because of it. OK so it would be wrong for it to happen, but it probably would happen.

Now if 50 years in the future it was a very common thing then it might be more widely accepted by people like myself (in 50yrs I'll not have to worry about it!) and by society in general, but in this current age I simply can't accept it. They can be married but they have to accept that if they have no ability to conceive themselves then they will have to live without children.


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> I have to admit, I'm quite surprised by the opinions put forward by some of the posters here. It seems to be a case of "I don't mind the gays, but no way can they have a family, the durty feckers. Down with that sort of thing!"
> 
> Sad really that seemingly intelligent people still carry a prejudice (and be under no illusions, that's exactly what it is) against homosexuals.
> 
> I think the double standards as highlighted by Smashbox in her last post is very important. No-one would condone preventing mixed-race or mixed-religion couples the right to adoption. Yet not so very long ago, they were not allowed to marry.
> 
> It shows an archaic p.o.v. still permeates Irish society on issues such as this.
> I remember years ago being at mass and the priest venting from the pulpit (again) about the 'evils' of our society. Abortion, Contraception, Divorce, Homosexuality, extra-marital sex etc... I was secretly laughing to myself that this man was so out of touch with modern day life. "No-one can seriously sign up to this rubbish" I thought. Seems I was (and still am) wrong....sadly !
> 
> Conversations like this will be looked upon with a mixture of bewilderment and disdain by future generations.


 
I am also one of those who believes they should have the right to marry but not adopt.

Perhaps you would like to point out where anyone said anything like, _"I don't mind the gays, but no way can they have a family, the durty feckers. Down with that sort of thing!"._

I don't have a prejudice against anything or anyone.

To me a family unit is mother, father and if lucky kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c


----------



## bren1916

*Gay Marraige For or Against* :

Doesn't really bother me...but as for the debate on adoption - as previously stated l have no problem with gay couples..I do, however personally believe that it is fundamentally wrong and that children ideally should have a balanced upbringing with both a Mother & Father.
If it's not 'pc' to express this opinion on AAM then my utmost apologies..


----------



## Smashbox

RMCF said:


> I am one of those that is ok with gay marriage but not ok with them adopting children.
> 
> Currently this is probably based on the fact that I have imagined what it would be like for a child to head off to school if they had two dads/two mums, and the amount of abuse they would get for it. Many would suffer terribly because of it. OK so it would be wrong for it to happen, but it probably would happen.
> 
> Now if 50 years in the future it was a very common thing then it might be more widely accepted by people like myself (in 50yrs I'll not have to worry about it!) and by society in general, but in this current age I simply can't accept it. They can be married but they have to accept that if they have no ability to conceive themselves then they will have to live without children.


 
So are you saying that only kids with gay parents will or do get bullied in school? LOADS of people get bullied at school regardless of whether they have gay parents or not!


----------



## Smashbox

bren1916 said:


> If it's not 'pc' to express this opinion on AAM then my utmost apologies..


 
Bren, who said you can't express opinion?

Its a forum. People are debating with both sides of the arguement.


----------



## MrMan

Smashbox said:


> I think kids would be blessed to have two parents, be they male and female, two females or two males - I'm sure they would be equally loved the same.
> 
> So if kids are gonna get bullied in school because they have two moms or two dads, the gay couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
> 
> What about people of interracial relationships, say one parent is black and one white. Do you think that kid is gonna be equally bullied? I would think so. Race is another thing frowned upon it would seem. So perhaps there should be a ban on mixed races coming together and having kids or adopting?
> 
> Not wanting to go down the religion route but I have to make a point. If one parent is of one religion, and the other of another, will that kid be equally as bullied as the two above? So perhaps different religions shouldnt come together either. I mean, people have died for two families of different religions coming together, right on our doorstep.
> 
> So, ban on gay people having kids. Where is the ban on race and religion too?
> 
> It doesn't matter about 'plumbing', or who has what. Surely someones love for another can't be helped, the way you have falled for your partner of choice, be them a man or a woman.


 
In certain countries I would not allow mixed religion adoption as it would be dangerous for child and parents, but in this country which I'm presuming we are talking about, it would not be a problem considering so many people have such an obvious disdain for religion and the predominant religion of Catholicism is pretty passive so its not like for like. 
Regarding mixed race adoption there would be a case for bullying of course but there are already many mixed race children well established in our society and again isn't like for like.
If you could name a gay couple who have had a child naturally themselves then there would be precedent for gay parents but as I've said nature doesn't permit.


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> So its biological determinism that decides? What then of an infertile woman, her male partner cannot impregnate her, so she shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Doesn't really follow, does it? Nature alone does not dictate who can have children, with medical intervention, or if that fails, then via adoption. If straight couples can adopt, or use surrogates, the only barrier to gay couples following suit is moral or ethical, rather nullifying the biological element.


Well by reading my previous post through the conclusion that you could come to would be that sterile couples are 'unlucky'  Nature alone does dictate who can have children naturally. If a woman is sterile her male partner could still have a child with another woman. A gay man won't have a child with another man no matter how hard he tries.


----------



## Pique318

S.L.F said:


> Some of the worst Nazis were homosexual.


But Hitler himself was a devout Christian...

So your point is ?



If all anyone can say against homosexuals adopting is that;
a. The kids may get bullied about it (lamest excuse ever...sure leave them in an orphanage then, they'll be better off)
b. A 'Family' is Mammy & Daddy and kiddies...that's the way it's always been;
then the argument is lost. 

It reminds me of the old story about monkeys in a cage


> Start with a cage containing five monkeys.
> Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.  Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.  As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.
> After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.  Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
> Now, put away the cold water.  Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.  The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.  To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him.
> After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
> Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.  The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.  The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm!  Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.  Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.
> Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
> After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.
> Why not?
> 
> Because  that's the way it's always been.


----------



## MrMan

Smashbox said:


> Bren, who said you can't express opinion?
> 
> Its a forum. People are debating with both sides of the arguement.


 
I think Bren may have been alluding to responses by Purple and Pique which seemed to suggest that those who disagreed with yours and their views were backward or foolish. Purple described some views as rubbish and Pique tried to crudely put a slant that if people are not liberal enough to accept gay marriage and adoption then they are basically homphobe cavemen. 
I often find it funny to see the 'liberal' posters being the ones who are so slow to accept the views of others.


----------



## Smashbox

> If you could name a gay couple who have had a child naturally themselves then there would be precedent for gay parents but as I've said nature doesn't permit.


 
Many people (Both gay and straight) concieve through IVF and Sperm Doners all the time.


----------



## Chocks away

Chocks away said:


> The OP was asking about gay marriage! What's the problem! Get the legalities over with and hit the sack!  But since we have arrived here, here is what I think. If you ask yourself the questions, "Would I like two Mammies?", "Would I like two Daddies?", "Would I like a Mammy and a Daddy?". Then your answer is your true belief. No posturing, PC guff or moral dilemma.



Still no answer to the above question. To those who advocate homosexual/lesbian adoptive parents, why the silence?
 Somebody is playing the colour card. Why bring it up - it is irrelevant to this discussion. Why muddy the water. And to the PC/moral high ground brigade - watch out for vertigo


----------



## Pique318

OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.

Jack & Jill get married and have children.
Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.

Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?


----------



## Smashbox

> Whatever way people have children, accidentally, on purpose, via IVF, surrogacy, adoption, why does the sexuality of the parent have any bearing whatsoever on what kind of parent they would make? There are plenty of heterosexual married couples that make for terrible parents, they haven't got any qualifications purely because they can easily produce a child.


 
I agree with Jaybird. 

CHOCKS! I thought you had asked a particular poster, which was why I didn't answer! I think a person is lucky if they have two parents at all, I would just love to have two parents, and am glad I do. But if they were two dads, two moms, a mom and a dad, they would love you all equally. I wouldn't mind at all.


----------



## Chocks away

Smashbox said:


> I agree with Jaybird.
> 
> CHOCKS! I thought you had asked a particular poster, which was why I didn't answer! I think a person is lucky if they have two parents at all, I would just love to have two parents, and am glad I do. But if they were two dads, two moms, a mom and a dad, they would love you all equally. I wouldn't mind at all.


How on earth do you know?


----------



## MrMan

Smashbox said:


> Many people (Both gay and straight) concieve through IVF and Sperm Doners all the time.


 By themselves I meant that couple alone, but the point has been done to death so we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Chocks away

jaybird said:


> Ok, a simple question for those with this opinion.
> 
> If the ideal family is Mother, Father and children, what is the order of importance if this is not available/breaks down etc?
> Is a single mother better or worse than 2 lesbian parents? And better or worse than 2 gay parents?
> Is a single father better or worse than 2 lesbian/gay parents?
> Is a single mother on welfare better than 2 rich gay parents? etc etc
> 
> I'd like to know what the order of preference is?


 Why not try and keep to the core of the debate?


----------



## Smashbox

Chocks away said:


> How on earth do you know?


 
I know that I would be happy simply being in a family unit. *That is my opinion*.

Again going back to the adoption thing. There are plenty of kids in care, orphanages, on the streets. Should gay couples not be allowed to bring these in either?


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> "A gay man won't have a child with another man no matter how hard he tries"
> 
> Yet. Apparently the cloning process is nearly complete for humans, who knows how long it will be before men can in fact have children? Or perhaps next will be ectogenisis?
> 
> Whatever way people have children, accidentally, on purpose, via IVF, surrogacy, adoption, why does the sexuality of the parent have any bearing whatsoever on what kind of parent they would make? There are plenty of heterosexual married couples that make for terrible parents, they haven't got any qualifications purely because they can easily produce a child.
> Its nothing more than narrow minded prejudice against gay people, hiding behind concern for possible children.


 
Have an opinion that is different to yours doesn't make me narrow minded just different, isn't the irony of it great though!


----------



## Pique318

MrMan said:


> Pique tried to crudely put a slant that if people are not liberal enough to accept gay marriage and adoption then they are basically homphobe cavemen.


If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Remember folks, no-one is prejudiced against homosexuals here, they just think gay/lesbian couples have to abide by different rules because they're homosexuals, and not because of the 'content of their character'. 

If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.


----------



## Smashbox

Btw I don't think anyone is narrow minded. I just asked the question to see what peoples opinions are.

_Everyone_ is entitled to their opinions after all.


----------



## MrMan

Pique318 said:


> OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.
> 
> Jack & Jill get married and have children.
> Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
> Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
> One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.
> 
> Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
> If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?


 
Its a spanner in the works for poor Jack alright because he lost his wife, but he is the childrens father and has a legal and moral right to raise those kids. If he enters into a gay relationship then the consuqeuences (plus or minus) will have to be considered by him alone.


----------



## Smashbox

Pique318 said:


> If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.


 
*prej⋅u⋅dice*
*–noun *1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.3.unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.4.such attitudes considered collectively: _The war against prejudice is never-ending. _


----------



## Chocks away

Cappucino and bikkies anyone? OK! Follow me to the kitchen


----------



## Smashbox

Me me me!


----------



## Pique318

Chocks away said:


> Still no answer to the above question. To those who advocate homosexual/lesbian adoptive parents, why the silence?


Hhmmm, let me see. 2 parents or one....yup, I'll take 2 ! Any 2, as long as they love me and aren't bad parents. Gender, race, religion matters not a jot.



Chocks away said:


> Somebody is playing the colour card. Why bring it up - it is irrelevant to this discussion. Why muddy the water.


It's far from irrelevant. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation versus that based on race. One is OK, the other is not ?



Chocks away said:


> And to the PC/moral high ground brigade - watch out for vertigo


 Don't worry, the air is nice and fresh up here


----------



## Smashbox

jaybird said:


> whether they were a one-legged circus clown!


 
I think I wouldn't leave for that now, considering I have a fear of clowns!


----------



## MrMan

Pique318 said:


> If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
> 
> Remember folks, no-one is prejudiced against homosexuals here, they just think gay/lesbian couples have to abide by different rules because they're homosexuals, and not because of the 'content of their character'.
> 
> If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.


 
Nice spin. I believe that a family unit consists of mum dad and kids, I don't see dad, dad and kids being acceptable. My view may not be socially acceptable but its my view. I don't need an interpreter for my posts, I try to keep it plain and simple.


----------



## Pique318

MrMan said:


> Its a spanner in the works for poor Jack alright because he lost his wife, but he is the childrens father and has a legal and moral right to raise those kids. If he enters into a gay relationship then the consuqeuences (plus or minus) will have to be considered by him alone.


The question was, 





> Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
> If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?


----------



## Chocks away

MrMan said:


> Nice spin. I believe that a family unit consists of mum dad and kids, I don't see dad, dad and kids being acceptable. My view may not be socially acceptable but its my view. I don't need an interpreter for my posts, I try to keep it plain and simple.


 And so say all of us. Well, possibly, er, some of us.


----------



## Smashbox

Chocks away said:


> And so say all of us. Well, possibly, er, some of us.


 
 yes, some!

Edit : Just realised I'm post #100, didn't think it'd be this busy at all!


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> But Hitler himself was a devout Christian...
> 
> So your point is ?


 
I was answering a post by Smashbox she said if you had 2 loving and wonderful parents who were gay wouldn't that be better than 2 bad parents.

The point had had to be made that not all gay people are good people I know 99% of them are fine good people just like straight people.



Pique318 said:


> If all anyone can say against homosexuals adopting is that;
> a. The kids may get bullied about it (lamest excuse ever...sure leave them in an orphanage then, they'll be better off)


 
There is a very large waiting list for adoption it should be only families with a mammy and daddy. This is my view I don't believe it is unreasonable.



Pique318 said:


> b. A 'Family' is Mammy & Daddy and kiddies...that's the way it's always been;
> then the argument is lost.
> 
> It reminds me of the old story about monkeys in a cage


 
What does training monkeys got to do with adoption?



Pique318 said:


> OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.
> 
> Jack & Jill get married and have children.
> Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
> Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
> One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.
> 
> Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
> If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?


 
Jack is the childrens father so what choices he makes will affect his children for the rest of their lives I would hope he would choose wisely.



jaybird said:


> Ok, a simple question for those with this opinion.
> 
> If the ideal family is Mother, Father and children, what is the order of importance if this is not available/breaks down etc?
> Is a single mother better or worse than 2 lesbian parents? And better or worse than 2 gay parents?
> Is a single father better or worse than 2 lesbian/gay parents?
> Is a single mother on welfare better than 2 rich gay parents? etc etc
> 
> I'd like to know what the order of preference is?


 
Whatever is best for the child but it should be mother father first preference.



Pique318 said:


> If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
> 
> Remember folks, no-one is prejudiced against homosexuals here, they just think gay/lesbian couples have to abide by different rules because they're homosexuals, and not because of the 'content of their character'.
> 
> If that isn't a definition of Prejudice, I don't know what is.


 
Pique nobody has mentioned character at all.......except you.



Chocks away said:


> Cappucino and bikkies anyone? OK! Follow me to the kitchen


 
Do you have any low fat bikkies I'm putting on a bit of weight here so I'm trying to cut down.


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> Not all opinions are equal, "its my opinion" does not mean that is as valid an opinion as the next persons.
> If your opinion seeks to restrict the freedom of others to live their lives, you need to be able to robustly defend that opinion. Just because some prejudices and intolerances are still more socially acceptable than others does not make them not prejudices.


 
It isn't restricting others to live their lives it is restricting them from having control over the lives of another. It is not a legal right in this country so i would suggest that you would need to disprove what is considered right as of now and not the other way round. Consistently calling differing opinions prejudices and intolerances is cynical and does not add to a debate, which is what this is.


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> yes, some!
> 
> Edit : Just realised I'm post #100, didn't think it'd be this busy at all!


 
Typical always causing trouble


----------



## Smashbox

Shuddup you


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> Shuddup you


 
This is one of your better posts.


----------



## Smashbox

Thanks SLF, please stop going off topic on MY thread, like you do on your own.

Can't someone ban that guy?!


----------



## autumnleaf

jaybird said:


> Isn't baby the operative word there? There are plenty of children available for adoption and fostering, rather than babies, but unfortunately they aren't so cute and cuddly, and tend to have problems. Any people, gay, straight, married, single whatever should be able to welcome them if they are able for the challenge, subject to the proper checks. Or is it better to let these children grow up in care, rather than live in a loving home with committed parents of whatever sex?


 
No, care should be the last option. If there is no suitable hetero couple of the appropriate age prepared to adopt the child, then it is better for the child to grow up with a gay or elderly couple rather than in care. In the other case of "Tom" and his gay partner, yes it is probably best that the partner can adopt the children in case something happens to "Tom".

But this has nothing to do with the "right to adopt"; it has to do with the needs of the child. I still maintain that there is no such thing as the "right to adopt".

Why is nobody up in arms about the "rights" of older couples? They are "discriminated against" all the time by adoption boards, no matter how loving they are. Why is it ok to "discriminate" against 50-year-olds in this way but not against gay people?


----------



## Pique318

autumnleaf said:


> Why is nobody up in arms about the "rights" of older couples? They are "discriminated against" all the time by adoption boards, no matter how loving they are. Why is it ok to "discriminate" against 50-year-olds in this way but not against gay people?


I don't think that's as bad as it was, and age is no longer (officially anyway) a reason to refuse adoption.

To be fair, if we were to get up in arms about everything this country is messed up about, we'd need a lot of arms !!


----------



## Firefly

The Jack and Jill story happened to someone I know quite well. Marriage ended and she began a relationship with another woman. They both live together with her child who is now about 11 and he's a happy-go lucky kid. No bullying or the like AFAIK


----------



## Chocks away

Pique318 said:


> I don't think that's as bad as it was, and age is no longer (officially anyway) a reason to refuse adoption.
> 
> To be fair, if we were to get up in arms about everything this country is messed up about, we'd need a lot of arms !!



                  [broken link removed] 

Could this lady come to the rescue?


----------



## Purple

MrMan said:


> I think Bren may have been alluding to responses by Purple and Pique which seemed to suggest that those who disagreed with yours and their views were backward or foolish. Purple described some views as rubbish and Pique tried to crudely put a slant that if people are not liberal enough to accept gay marriage and adoption then they are basically homphobe cavemen.
> I often find it funny to see the 'liberal' posters being the ones who are so slow to accept the views of others.


I have stated that I have reservations about gay adoption (based on what societal resistance/bias that child would face). I said that reservations based on what nature/god/fate intended were rubbish.


----------



## autumnleaf

Pique318 said:


> I don't think that's as bad as it was, and age is no longer (officially anyway) a reason to refuse adoption.


 
Really? I thought there were restrictions based on age, de facto if not officially. 

And to be honest, I think it's fair enough that there should be such restrictions. All else being equal, a young child is better off with a couple who have the energy to look after it. Of course, all else is not always equal and you can have special circumstances e.g. the couple are the child's grandparents or the child is older. But again, the decision should be made according to the needs of the child and not of the adopters, even if this seems discriminatory.

I guess this makes me ageist


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> Well either we are all entitled to say what we like based on our own opinion, or we aren't. My opinion is that you come off as prejudiced. If you can give your opinion I can give mine, and thats mine.


 
Of course we are and i'm delighted that you offer your opinion and take on board your comments. I wouldn't be as narrow minded as to simply think that you were wrong because i disagreed with you.


----------



## truthseeker

Gay marriage - definitely for.

Gay couple raising children - absolutely!


----------



## Caveat

She's back!!

Welcome back oh curvy one


----------



## Simeon

truthseeker said:


> Gay marriage - definitely for.
> 
> Gay couple raising children - absolutely!



 Absolutely yes or absolutely no?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> Gay marriage - definitely for.
> 
> Gay couple raising children - absolutely!


 
good to see your back and we still disagree!


----------



## Complainer

Here's a mad idea - let's forget about gender or sexuality of potential parents. Let's focus on the parenting ability of potential parents.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> good to see your back and we still disagree!



Thanks  And we do!

I think parenting abilities are far more important than the sexuality or gender of the parents.

If a child is raised in a loving environment, with 2 people who love each other then I fail to see why their sexual proclivities should matter. Who among us has been influenced by what our parents get up to in the bedroom? Its not something that happens in front of a child, it is a private matter between 2 consenting adults.

The bullying argument is just irrelevant, children get bullied for all manner of things no matter what the sexuality of their parents.


----------



## Smashbox

Agree with you Truthseeker 

Welcome back


----------



## MrMan

Complainer said:


> Here's a mad idea - let's forget about gender or sexuality of potential parents. Let's focus on the parenting ability of potential parents.


Your right it is mad idea to narrow down the debate as it excludes the possibility that there may be more to raising a child than what goes on in the privacy of a home.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Your right it is mad idea to narrow down the debate as it excludes the possibility that there may be more to raising a child than what goes on in the privacy of a home.



So what are the important things that go into raising a child?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> So what are the important things that go into raising a child?


Well its a point that has been raised and shouted down, but I feel that society isn't ready for daddy/daddy families and it will have an impact on the child for sure. Posters have said that children get bullied for loads of things and if they were mixed race or mixed religion they could be bullied too, so does that make it ok? Sure the black kid will be bullied and the muslim kid will be bullied so the kid with the 2 dads will fit right in.
TBH I don't have any great moral objection to it, yes it does make me uncomfortable and yes I do accept that good parents are hard to find and 2 dads might be great, it just doesn't seem like the right fit. I don't think gay couples were ever meant to be parents for obvious reasons.
The nature element to my argument doesn't get much (any) backing here, but most things in nature have a purpose and we have evolved to our current state and that for me spells out the best case scenario is man/woman +child.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> daddy/daddy families


 
You've used this particular example a couple of times now - would you for instance feel any better about mammy/mammy families?


----------



## MOB

The intrinsic gayness of a household does not really strike me as a major hazard to children of itself; I am disinclined to express a view one way or the other - or perhaps I should say that the gayness issue is not the problem, and if it is a problem it is by no means the most pressing problem our children face in securing the right to a decent upbringing.  

A more pressing problem is this: sufficient studies have been carried out to allow us say without any real doubt that children suffer badly by not having a male role model\father figure in their lives.   I am sure the same would be true for children raised without a female role model, but we probably don't have sufficient data on this, because it is much less common.  I did a quick google for this informative link, but there are many more:
[broken link removed]

How can we address this problem without criticising the already entrenched trend of single motherhood? (because criticising single mothers is a big no no;  I accept this orthodoxy as unchangeable).   How do we deal with the problem of unmarried\separated\divorced fathers being denied ( or neglecting to take) the opportunity to participate fully as parents?   

Worrying about gay adoption is, with great respect to all contributors, to ignore the great big elephant already in the room.  All is not well by any means.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Well its a point that has been raised and shouted down, but I feel that society isn't ready for daddy/daddy families and it will have an impact on the child for sure.



I am a member of society. You dont speak for me when you say that 'society' isnt ready - only for yourself.



MrMan said:


> Posters have said that children get bullied for loads of things and if they were mixed race or mixed religion they could be bullied too, so does that make it ok? Sure the black kid will be bullied and the muslim kid will be bullied so the kid with the 2 dads will fit right in.



But you cant stop a child from being bullied even if he has the perfect home set up, is of the same race/religion as other children in the school. Fear of bullying is just not a good enough reason.



MrMan said:


> TBH I don't have any great moral objection to it, yes it does make me uncomfortable and yes I do accept that good parents are hard to find and 2 dads might be great, it just doesn't seem like the right fit.



What about it makes it not the right fit? Families come in many different constellations, single mothers/single fathers/widows/relations raising children etc....



MrMan said:


> I don't think gay couples were ever meant to be parents for obvious reasons.



In many heterosexual couples one or other are sterile or cannot reproduce for any number of reasons.



MrMan said:


> The nature element to my argument doesn't get much (any) backing here, but most things in nature have a purpose and we have evolved to our current state and that for me spells out the best case scenario is man/woman +child.



We may have evolved to our current state, but it is society and not nature that puts the restrictions on gay couples adopting. If we only did what nature intended we would not have contraception, adoption for sterile couples, fertility treatment and any number of other medical or scientific advances.


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> You've used this particular example a couple of times now - would you for instance feel any better about mammy/mammy families?


 
it just writes easier for me, I don't think it reads well if I put Daddy/Daddy, Mammy/Mammy each time i make a point.


----------



## MrMan

> I am a member of society. You dont speak for me when you say that 'society' isnt ready - only for yourself.


That is why I expressed it as a personal opinion (the 'I feel' bit).



> But you cant stop a child from being bullied even if he has the perfect home set up, is of the same race/religion as other children in the school. Fear of bullying is just not a good enough reason.


I take that fully into consideration, but you may also have problems with parents of other children and their reaction and possible restriction of interaction with that family. I don't accept that just because you or I would not create any problems for a gay couple and child it would not be the case for everyone. I don't think it is a simple live and let live situation, it should be examined in detail.




> In many heterosexual couples one or other are sterile or cannot reproduce for any number of reasons.


Which is widely known and understood i presume as is the fact that gay couples can never concieve a child together even if both are fertile and this to me does have some impact on my viewpoint.



> We may have evolved to our current state, but it is society and not nature that puts the restrictions on gay couples adopting. If we only did what nature intended we would not have contraception, adoption for sterile couples, fertility treatment and any number of other medical or scientific advances.


Nature has allowed us to develop to invent and further our medical advances, if we can 'evolve the state where mean can give birth then I'll change my mind.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> I take that fully into consideration, but you may also have problems with parents of other children and their reaction and possible restriction of interaction with that family. I don't accept that just because you or I would not create any problems for a gay couple and child it would not be the case for everyone. I don't think it is a simple live and let live situation, it should be examined in detail.



Again, parents restrict interaction with other families for a number of reasons, race, religion, narrow mindedness etc.... So I dont see how the gay parents family unit would suffer any worse than any other non mainstream family that people may feel are 'different' and therefore 'wrong types'. 



MrMan said:


> Which is widely known and understood i presume as is the fact that gay couples can never concieve a child together even if both are fertile and this to me does have some impact on my viewpoint.



But non fertile heterosexual couples are in the same boat as homosexual couples.



MrMan said:


> Nature has allowed us to develop to invent and further our medical advances, if we can 'evolve the state where mean can give birth then I'll change my mind.



Well women can give birth so does that make mammy/mammy more acceptable?

I dont see a strong case against at all, any of the points raised seem to be negated by other aspects of society (like infertile couples being able to adopt).

I think the strongest point raised is that perhaps there will be prejudice against the child from other families restricting interaction. But I think that this is also an issue that affects immigrant families, families of a particular religion, families of a particular race etc... 

Lets pretend for a minute that the adoptive parents live out in the boondocks and plan to homeschool the child and the only social interactions with other kids are with family - thereby removing the issue of bullying or restrictive social interactions) - in that situation would it be a problem for a child to be raised by gay parents?


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> Again, parents restrict interaction with other families for a number of reasons, race, religion, narrow mindedness etc.... So I dont see how the gay parents family unit would suffer any worse than any other non mainstream family that people may feel are 'different' and therefore 'wrong types'.


 
To my mind every child needs both a father figure and a mother figure in their lives



truthseeker said:


> But non fertile heterosexual couples are in the same boat as homosexual couples.


 
Not quite they are just unlucky not to be able to reproduce whereas a homosexual couple could reproduce if they got to gether with a member of the opposite sex.



truthseeker said:


> Lets pretend for a minute that the adoptive parents live out in the boondocks and plan to homeschool the child and the only social interactions with other kids are with family - thereby removing the issue of bullying or restrictive social interactions) - in that situation would it be a problem for a child to be raised by gay parents?


 
Then to me they would be bad parents whatever their sexual orientation.


----------



## Complainer

I'm wondering if there is a lot of fear of the unknown coming through here. Can those who would be opposed to gay parents parenting mention if they know any mature, settled gay couples among their circle of family and friends?


----------



## Pique318

or even mature, settled, straight couples with no problems ?

This thread is now at the 1% point...when people start focusing on the 1% of things that 'could' possibly make things worse for a kid in a gay marriage. Sheesh.


----------



## MrMan

> Again, parents restrict interaction with other families for a number of reasons, race, religion, narrow mindedness etc.... So I dont see how the gay parents family unit would suffer any worse than any other non mainstream family that people may feel are 'different' and therefore 'wrong types'.


So the argument here is they won't be alone in their suffering? Those other scenarios would also have children born into that life rather than chosen.



> But non fertile heterosexual couples are in the same boat as homosexual couples.


Yes they are but that is down to chance i.e if I get with a fertile woman and am infertile myself then we cannot conceive, if she hooked up with my fertile friend instead she could have kids. There is a 0% chance for a gay couple even if they change partner if they are of the same sex the same outcome will apply.



> Well women can give birth so does that make mammy/mammy more acceptable?


they can with the help of the opposite sex.


----------



## MrMan

Complainer said:


> I'm wondering if there is a lot of fear of the unknown coming through here. Can those who would be opposed to gay parents parenting mention if they know any mature, settled gay couples among their circle of family and friends?


 
Yes I have one family member that I know is gay, and would know one other gay couple. Most of the gay guys I know do not have long term partners. I wouldn't consider any of them my close friends though.


----------



## MrMan

Pique318 said:


> or even mature, settled, straight couples with no problems ?
> 
> This thread is now at the 1% point...when people start focusing on the 1% of things that 'could' possibly make things worse for a kid in a gay marriage. Sheesh.


 
Maybe we shouldn't look at all of the possibilities and probabilities, I sure hope an adoption agency would before they find a home for a child.


----------



## Pique318

MrMan said:


> Maybe we shouldn't look at all of the possibilities and probabilities, I sure hope an adoption agency would before they find a home for a child.


If they did, then no-one would be adopted....unless you know some 'perfect' couples out there would be infallible as parents ?


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> To my mind every child needs both a father figure and a mother figure in their lives



So all single mothers are bad parents?
I agree its a nice ideal, but not practical in many cases - regardless of the sexuality of the parents.



S.L.F said:


> Not quite they are just unlucky not to be able to reproduce whereas a homosexual couple could reproduce if they got to gether with a member of the opposite sex.



This line of reasoning is absurd. Of course 1 member of an infertile couple could reproduce with someone else, as could 1 member of a homosexual couple - but the comparison being drawn is between that of an infertile couple and that of a homosexual couple.



S.L.F said:


> Then to me they would be bad parents whatever their sexual orientation.



Why? In many remote areas of the world children are home schooled and dont have the kind of social interactions that city children have - I dont see why this constitutes bad parenting?


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> So the argument here is they won't be alone in their suffering? Those other scenarios would also have children born into that life rather than chosen.



No, the argument here is that there are a myriad of reasons why children may or may not be bullied - and even children with 'perfect' families may be bullied for having red hair or freckles or any other real or imagined reason - it is unfair to prevent a homesexual couple adopting based on the possibility that the child may be bullied for having gay parents. The child may not be bullied.



MrMan said:


> Yes they are but that is down to chance i.e if I get with a fertile woman and am infertile myself then we cannot conceive, if she hooked up with my fertile friend instead she could have kids. There is a 0% chance for a gay couple even if they change partner if they are of the same sex the same outcome will apply.



But you negate the original premise with that argument - the point is that for a given heterosexual couple who are infertile then they are in the same boat as a gay couple - if you start breaking up the couples to find new partners then the original comparison is no longer there.
What about surrogacy or donated sperm - either of which would allow 1 half or the gay couple (or the infertile couple) to conceive.



MrMan said:


> they can with the help of the opposite sex.



As can daddy/daddy - and as can one half of the infertile heterosexual couple.

Just to answer Complainers question (although I am not opposed to gay parenting), I know 1 long term lesbian couple both of whom were in heterosexual marriages in the past and have children (now grown) from them.
I know 3 long term male gay couples, 2 of which wish to marry so there is no doubt of the commitment they have to each other.


----------



## Chocks away

truthseeker said:


> So all single mothers are bad parents?


I'm sure that if SLF wanted to make that point he would have. He didn't, so why tilt it?








truthseeker said:


> Why? In many remote areas of the world children are home schooled and dont have the kind of social interactions that city children have - I dont see why this constitutes bad parenting?



Hey, we're talking the world we know about, not Outer Mongolia/Pradesh.


----------



## S.L.F

Complainer said:


> I'm wondering if there is a lot of fear of the unknown coming through here. Can those who would be opposed to gay parents parenting mention if they know any mature, settled gay couples among their circle of family and friends?


 
Hi Complainer, I'm not a homophobe I have gay friends and don't have a problem in telling them or anybody else my views on this subject.



Pique318 said:


> or even mature, settled, straight couples with no problems ?
> 
> This thread is now at the 1% point...when people start focusing on the 1% of things that 'could' possibly make things worse for a kid in a gay marriage. Sheesh.


 
Perhaps you would like to point us towards the post where someone said anything like that.



truthseeker said:


> So all single mothers are bad parents?
> I agree its a nice ideal, but not practical in many cases - regardless of the sexuality of the parents.?


 
Thanks you've made my night you have contradicted yourself.

The sexuality of the parents is set in stone 1 man + 1 woman.

*edit* To further my point I never said single mothers are bad parents, that's just a plain silly argument

What I do think is that a child needs the influence of a good man *and* a good woman, bit like a cup of tea normally has milk they go together very well.

Bacon and cabbage, Abbot and Costello, Little and Large.



truthseeker said:


> This line of reasoning is absurd. Of course 1 member of an infertile couple could reproduce with someone else, as could 1 member of a homosexual couple - but the comparison being drawn is between that of an infertile couple and that of a homosexual couple.?


 
Yes but as MrMan said for a gay partner to have a child it would mean having sex with a member of the opposite sex.



truthseeker said:


> Why? In many remote areas of the world children are home schooled and dont have the kind of social interactions that city children have - I dont see why this constitutes bad parenting?


 
Chocks stole my thunder here



Chocks away said:


> I'm sure that if SLF wanted to make that point he would have. He didn't, so why tilt it?


 
Can't wait to steal your thinder one day



Chocks away said:


> Hey, we're talking the world we know about, not Outer Mongolia/Pradesh.


 
Plus the fact that in those kind of places this kind of conversation would not take place unless you want a hail of stones before you are kicked out of the village.


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> Thanks you've made my night you have contradicted yourself.
> 
> The sexuality of the parents is set in stone 1 man + 1 woman.
> 
> *edit* To further my point I never said single mothers are bad parents, that's just a plain silly argument
> 
> What I do think is that a child needs the influence of a good man *and* a good woman, bit like a cup of tea normally has milk they go together very well.



I dont see the contradiction, perhaps you misunderstood my post?

If a child needs the influence of a good man and a good woman then where does that leave single parents?

I agree that in an ideal world all children would have 2 natural parents, one male and one female, but we dont live in an ideal world and given that premise, if a child has already lost out on the ideal - by being in a position of having NO parents and going up for adoption then I dont see why gay parents couldnt make just as good a go of it as non gay parents. 

Better than leaving a child to not be adopted at all? Yes - IMO. 

Better than an adoption by a straight couple? No, I dont think so.


----------



## Caveat

Slightly OT, but I have to say I'm always a bit skeptical when straight people say "Oh I have loads of gay friends"  or "many/most of my friends are gay"

Really. *Loads? *

You probably don't even have loads of _friends _never mind gay ones.

If all the straight people, trying to defend accusations of homophobia really had the loads of gay friends that they claim to have, I'm telling you, it would make this country about 40% gay as far as I can see 

(I'm not directing this at anyone here BTW, it's a general comment)


----------



## Purple

Caveat said:


> Slightly OT, but I have to say I'm always a bit skeptical when straight people say "Oh I have loads of gay friends"  or "many/most of my friends are gay"
> 
> Really. *Loads? *
> 
> You probably don't even have loads of _friends _never mind gay ones.
> 
> If all the straight people, trying to defend accusations of homophobia really had the loads of gay friends that they claim to have, I'm telling you, it would make this country about 40% gay as far as I can see
> 
> (I'm not directing this at anyone here BTW, it's a general comment)


Maybe all the homophobes have the same gay friends (who are ass holes and would make crap parents)?


----------



## Smashbox

Purple said:


> Maybe all the homophobes have the same gay friends (who are ass holes and would make crap parents)?


 
Maybe...


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> I dont see the contradiction, perhaps you misunderstood my post?


 
No you said "*regardless *of the sex of the parents" this doesn't make sense.



truthseeker said:


> If a child needs the influence of a good man and a good woman then where does that leave single parents?


 
This thread isn't about single parents.



truthseeker said:


> I agree that in an ideal world all children would have 2 natural parents, one male and one female, but we dont live in an ideal world and given that premise, if a child has already lost out on the ideal - by being in a position of having NO parents and going up for adoption then I dont see why gay parents couldnt make just as good a go of it as non gay parents.


 
The whole point is what is best for the child not whether or not someone can make a go of it.

I could make a go of being a female opera singer but it ain't going to happen



truthseeker said:


> Better than leaving a child to not be adopted at all? Yes - IMO.


 
Since the number of available children for adoption in this country is far below the numbers wanting to adopt your point is irrelevant



truthseeker said:


> Better than an adoption by a straight couple? No, I dont think so.


 
This is where we disagree and I think its best to agree to disagree.

Truthseeker I have read a great many of your posts and have enjoyed and agreed with many of them, as I have with other posters.

This is something I just don't agree with, I see us going round and round in circles so I'm leaving this thread and don't plan to comment anymore unless I see something worthwhile to comment on.


----------



## mathepac

Gay / Same Sex Marraige For or Against? - Against - its a contradiction in terms
Gay / Same sex Civil Unions? - For
Gay / Same Sex Adoptions? - Against - children need a balanced gender exposure in their formative years
Gay / Same Sex Inheritance Rights? - For


----------



## brodiebabe

I support the introduction of Same Sex Marriage and I also think Gay couples should have the same adoption rights as other non-gay couples.


----------



## MrMan

The same arguments are being made and seemingly misunderstood. My stance re: 'it's natures way' is that a man cannot impregnate a man and a woman cannot impregnate a woman, i am confident that this is correct thus my conclusion is that gay couples can never under any circumstances conceive a child by themselves. This has a bearing on my thoughts regarding the suitability of a same sex couple providing a balanced upbringing to a child.
We are also so hung up on 'if you disagree your a homophobe' and it's so like the race card, tacky in the extreme. The crux of the matter is after all what is the best scenario for the child and not wouldn't a gay couple be better than a bad straight couple. 
There will not be agreement on this issue because for some it simply doesn't feel rigght and for others the need for equality at all costs outweighs the need to examine things in detail for the betterment of society.


----------



## Smashbox

MrMan said:


> My stance re: 'it's natures way' is that a man cannot impregnate a man and a woman cannot impregnate a woman, i am confident that this is correct thus my conclusion is that gay couples can never under any circumstances conceive a child by themselves. This has a bearing on my thoughts regarding the suitability of a same sex couple providing a balanced upbringing to a child.


 
I still don't see why this would matter (my opinion)

An infertile man also cannot impregnant a woman. An infertile woman cannot be impregnanted. I don't really see the difference.


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> I still don't see why this would matter (my opinion)
> 
> An infertile man also cannot impregnant a woman. An infertile woman cannot be impregnanted. I don't really see the difference.


 
You are correct of course however it must be said people don't generally know they can't have kids till they try.

Gay couples can try all they like and still will never have kids.

Good God Smashbox I have just realised that I have posted after saying I won't be posting any more, well I suppose the rules in STB are more relaxed so........

*whistles (bad spelling again) off into the sunset*


----------



## Smashbox

> leaving this thread and don't plan to comment anymore unless I see something worthwhile to comment on.


 
I'm worthwhile. Thanks SLF.


----------



## roland

It strikes me that this is just one of those topics that we will all, in time, wonder what on earth all the fuss was about. 

A lot of time and effort is spent constructing arguments to hold back 'the gays' from their rush to adopt us all. But in reality these seem to me to be poorly disguised (or perhaps unrealised?) attempts to retain some element of difference between gay people and everyone else. It's not that long ago that society saw fit to subject gay people to horrific discrimination. In time we have come to realise the injustice of this. Women, coloured people, disabled people and all sorts of other minorities have been similarly treated by society. Time and time again society has come to realise that discrimination of this kind serves society no good. The objections to 'gays adopting' is just another step along this path. You don't have to go back centuries to reach a time when the mere mention of 'homosexual' probably struck fear into us all. As society has grown up, we have come to realise this was nothing other an irrational fear. In time, I believe this is also what will happen this debate about gays adopting.

On the adoption issue, the core point here is that the family unit is about love. Attempts to restrict the family model to the "father, mother and kids" one are misguided at best, and at worst an attempt to disguise prejudices against the gays. In reality it is not an argument in favour of the family - it is an argument that only seems designed to exclude gays. The only restriction I think worthy to place on the family unit is that it must contain love. Not that it must exclude gay parents. Love is what it's all about, and this is reflected in the marriage ceremony of every religion known to man. Love is the most powerful force in society and gradually society is getting used to the idea that gay people are no different to anyone else in this respect. Gradually society will realise that the primary need for children who need adoptive parents is that it is a loving environment. Not one that excludes gays. 

For those who are still fearful of the gays, let's get things into perspective. The reality is that there are not that many gays in society (<10%?). Of those, I really would struggle to think that many of those would want to adopt. Of those that do, are they not then subject to the exact same rules as everyone else. Change is always a struggle, but it's difficult to conceive what could come out of this other than something beneficial for society as a whole.


----------



## MrMan

Smashbox said:


> I still don't see why this would matter (my opinion)
> 
> An infertile man also cannot impregnant a woman. An infertile woman cannot be impregnanted. I don't really see the difference.


 
SLF answered this one, but to put it another way, a man and woman always have a chance of conceiving, same sex = no chance.


----------



## MrMan

> A lot of time and effort is spent constructing arguments to hold back 'the gays' from their rush to adopt us all. But in reality these seem to me to be poorly disguised (or perhaps unrealised?) attempts to retain some element of difference between gay people and everyone else.


So those against are immediately put into the ignorant bracket, nice. The only difference that I can see is that a same sex couple were never given the combined goods to create life, surely there is a difference in that respect?



> It's not that long ago that society saw fit to subject gay people to horrific discrimination. In time we have come to realise the injustice of this.


 
i hope you are not counting not allowing gay couples adopt to be a horrific injustice.



> Attempts to restrict the family model to the "father, mother and kids" one are misguided at best, and at worst an attempt to disguise prejudices against the gays.


Good to see such an open minded respect of a differing view. To restrict the family model to man+woman + child is basically falling into line with natural order.



> Love is what it's all about


With adoption I would argue that more than 'love needs to be considered. With raising a child you will need more than love, unfortunately.



> For those who are still fearful of the gays, let's get things into perspective.


 
For those whoesume that an opposing argument is based on fear and prejudice, please grow up and accept that some of us are different and will speak our mind regardless of how arcaic our views may seem to the learned.


----------



## MOB

MrMan said:


> Good to see such an open minded respect of a differing view. To restrict the family model to man+woman + child is basically falling into line with natural order.



The 'Natural Order' argument feels right for many, but is not a logical argument in favour of this arrangement.  I think the 'Natural Order' involved, for many tens of thousands of years, a more communal parenting model, and far greater involvement of older siblings and grandparents.  You could, for example, use the 'Natural Order' argument to say that one-child families are just wrong (and no - I am not going there).

The available data allow us to say the following:

1.   Man+woman+child is far superior to just woman+child as a model for raising children.

2.  Man + child: insufficient data for this model

3.  Man+ man + child OR woman+ woman + child - insufficient data for these models.

Where gay couples do adopt or otherwise have children, I think it is a safe bet that those couples will ( on average) be more committed to parenthood than the average (because they have had to do a lot more to be parents - be it AI, surrogacy or whatever).  I rather suspect that they will also probably be  wealthier than average.   

This means that data collected on gay-parent family units is inherently skewed - you cannot easily filter out variables like parental commitment and parental wealth.  I have no doubt that the politicisation of this issue means that such statistics will nevertheless be collated ( and probably already have been) and used to justify adoption rights for gay couples.   My own view is that the gayness variable is probably incapable of being isolated and analysed in a statistically reliable way.  

Bottom line is that we probably cannot draw any firm conclusions from available data about the effect on children of being raised by gay parents.   We are left with only one reliable finding - as at para. 1 above.


----------



## Smashbox

MrMan said:


> SLF answered this one, but to put it another way, a man and woman always have a chance of conceiving, same sex = no chance.


 
I still don't understand why that would come into it, sorry.


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> I still don't understand why that would come into it, sorry.


 
Someone else said gay couples are in the same boat as straight infertile couples, I made the point that infertile couples don't know they are infertile till they are told.

Gay couples can have as much "How's your father" as they like and *will never ever* become pregnant


----------



## S.L.F

roland said:


> It strikes me that this is just one of those topics that we will all, in time, wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.


 
In time if it is allowed people may well wonder why we were so stupid to allow this.



roland said:


> A lot of time and effort is spent constructing arguments to hold back 'the gays' from their rush to adopt us all. But in reality these seem to me to be poorly disguised (or perhaps unrealised?) attempts to retain some element of difference between gay people and everyone else.


 
But they are different, they will never reproduce with their partners.

That is set in stone nothing you say will ever change that.

It has been admitted by some of the misguided D) who are fighting for gay rights to adopt that the ideal family unit is 1 man 1 woman so why on earth should this be allowed.



roland said:


> It's not that long ago that society saw fit to subject gay people to horrific discrimination. In time we have come to realise the injustice of this. Women, coloured people, disabled people and all sorts of other minorities have been similarly treated by society. Time and time again society has come to realise that discrimination of this kind serves society no good. The objections to 'gays adopting' is just another step along this path.


 
This whole thread was supposed to be about gay marriage but has since turned into a question about gay rights to adopt.

There is no injustice to gays not being allowed to adopt, they are not a family unit and can never be a family unit.

I have said before this is about the children and that is my only concern.



roland said:


> You don't have to go back centuries to reach a time when the mere mention of 'homosexual' probably struck fear into us all. As society has grown up, we have come to realise this was nothing other an irrational fear. In time, I believe this is also what will happen this debate about gays adopting.


 
Society will never grow up till we realise that we can't change the laws of nature



roland said:


> On the adoption issue, the core point here is that the family unit is about love. Attempts to restrict the family model to the "father, mother and kids" one are misguided at best, and at worst an attempt to disguise prejudices against the gays.


 
No offence but that is a load of nonsense.



roland said:


> In reality it is not an argument in favour of the family - it is an argument that only seems designed to exclude gays. The only restriction I think worthy to place on the family unit is that it must contain love. Not that it must exclude gay parents. Love is what it's all about, and this is reflected in the marriage ceremony of every religion known to man. Love is the most powerful force in society and gradually society is getting used to the idea that gay people are no different to anyone else in this respect. Gradually society will realise that the primary need for children who need adoptive parents is that it is a loving environment. Not one that excludes gays.


 
That is all very well but do gays have the right ethos (not sure of the right phrase).

We all know that men and women are not the same.

We are different.

This difference is what is needed in the upbringing of a child.

Children need the balance



roland said:


> For those who are still fearful of the gays, let's get things into perspective. The reality is that there are not that many gays in society (<10%?). Of those, I really would struggle to think that many of those would want to adopt. Of those that do, are they not then subject to the exact same rules as everyone else. Change is always a struggle, but it's difficult to conceive what could come out of this other than something beneficial for society as a whole.


 
There we stand.

I'm not fearful of gays and never have been.

Using your own words



> are they not then subject to the exact same rules as everyone else.


 
this is the crux of the problem... what is more important the emotional development of children or the rights of gays to adopt.

For me it's easy...children


----------



## Pique318

S.L.F said:


> what is more important the emotional development of children or the rights of gays to adopt.
> 
> For me it's easy...children



How are they mutually exclusive ??

The 'ideal' family unit of yore being mother, father and 2.4 children is not always so ideal. Abusive parents, poverty, neglect etc. are all things that happen inside this 'ideal' world.

Adoptive parents (or those who undergo IVF, surrogacy etc) are more determined to be parents than those who concieve naturally (and sometimes unexpectedly) and so their priority is the wellbeing of the children, regardless of the parents sexuality.

I would even go so far as to say that those people who adopt (be they straight or gay) are possibly more aware of the need to do everything in their power to ensure that their children have as good an upbringing as is humanly possible. 
I am not in any way suggesting that parents of naturally concieved children do not do this, but the struggle to adopt when conception is impossible, or the ongoing trauma of failed IVF treatments until a successful one, would mean to me that if/when they do get a child, they would be more 'grateful' (not the correct word but the best I can think of at the moment) for their gift.


----------



## MrMan

> *Given by who or what? Your argument implies religious reasoning, and intelligent design. If you are going on what people are "given", then a woman born infertile should not adopt, as she wasn't given the tools to do it herself. I don't believe your argument is logical, since we have the technology and the means to circumvent biology and circumstances all the time. *


Jaybird, to suggest that my argument is based on religious beliefs is understandable but wrong. People often jump to conclusions on topics like this, but my argument was based on pure biological fact. We have learned from nature about most things and we are still learning, we do we need to complicate our society even further than it already is?



> *Again, natural order? Says who? Sounds like religious reasoning again. The nuclear family ideal of man woman and child is incredibly new in the scheme of human evolution, its practically a novelty. By no stretch of the imagination can you call the modern ideal of the nuclear family to be the natural order of anything.*


 
I will quote the bible to indicate if my argument is religious. I don't believe it is a stretch of the imagination to call man woman and child being the natural order of the family unit, i.e letting nature take its course allows only a man and a woman to conceive a child, is that correct? Do you not agree?



> *Really? What do you need? Do you need to have one perfect man and one perfect woman? What precisely is it that a male female couple has that a male/male or female/female couple intrinsincally lack?*


Of course you need more than love it would be naive to believe otherwise.

*



			You can speak your mind as much as you like, and you can base your opinions on whatever you like. But you must accept that to amny people you WILL come across as archaic and prejudiced. I'm not saying you are, but that is how you will appear to many. Its naive to expect otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

*I understand of course that some/many cannot rationalise an opposing argument and that they will see my viewpoint as being from the dark ages. I hope that in time the people that feel this way will mature to accept that while I am not always right, neither are they and in some arguments both sides have merit.


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> Someone else said gay couples are in the same boat as straight infertile couples, I made the point that infertile couples don't know they are infertile till they are told.
> 
> Gay couples can have as much "How's your father" as they like and *will never ever* become pregnant


 
I understand _that_ part SLF, I just don't see why that would be a point to argue.

And some people find out they are infertile long before they try.


----------



## S.L.F

The question I asked was _what is more important the emotional development of children or the rights of gays to adopt._



Pique318 said:


> are they mutually exclusive ??


 
Yes they are, children depend on us to make choices for them whereas gays make their own choices, there is a difference



Pique318 said:


> The 'ideal' family unit of yore being mother, father and 2.4 children is not always so ideal. Abusive parents, poverty, neglect etc. are all things that happen inside this 'ideal' world.


 
This is not an argument because the same applies to gay couples.



Pique318 said:


> Adoptive parents (or those who undergo IVF, surrogacy etc) are more determined to be parents than those who concieve naturally (and sometimes unexpectedly) and so their priority is the wellbeing of the children, regardless of the parents sexuality.


 
No argument from me here.



Pique318 said:


> I would even go so far as to say that those people who adopt (be they straight or gay) are possibly more aware of the need to do everything in their power to ensure that their children have as good an upbringing as is humanly possible.
> I am not in any way suggesting that parents of naturally concieved children do not do this, but the struggle to adopt when conception is impossible, or the ongoing trauma of failed IVF treatments until a successful one, would mean to me that if/when they do get a child, they would be more 'grateful' (not the correct word but the best I can think of at the moment) for their gift.


 
Not grateful...blessed


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> I understand _that_ part SLF, I just don't see why that would be a point to argue.
> 
> And some people find out they are infertile long before they try.


 
I'm not sure who brought the point up originally but basically someone compared infertile couples to gay couples and well modern science can help infertile couples but it will take one hell of a miracle for 2 gays to have a baby together.


----------



## Smashbox

You could if you were this man... 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Pique318

S.L.F said:


> Yes they are, children depend on us to make choices for them whereas gays make their own choices, there is a difference


What ??

That statement is still not mutually exclusive.
Yes, Children depend on us to make choices for them.
Yes, Gays make their own choices (as does every other compos mentis adult).

Why can a gay person not make choices for THEIR children ?


----------



## Sherman

Yes to gay marriage. Yes to adoption.


----------



## michaelm

Gay marriage is an oxymoron.  Marriage is the union of a man and woman.  Everyone has exactly the same rights to marriage in that they can marry anyone from the opposite sex who is agreeable to same, of sufficient age and not an immediate relative.  That's as equal as one can get.

I'm for some form of civil arrangement which is open to any two people regardless of gender, sexuality or relationship which confers all the rights of marriage excluding certain tax benefits(aimed at promoting family/children) and adoption.

Obviously adoption should be about the rights and best interests of the 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.


----------



## Mpsox

Frankly what 2 consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom should not be a deciding factor in whether or not 2 people get married. I know a number of gay couples in LTRs who are probably in a more honest and loving relationship then many "normal" married couples. 

As for children, how many children conceived and brought up in a "natural" marriage had to endure years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse.? The fact that a gay couple cannot have children naturally doesn't necessarily mean they will be any better or worse parents then a so-called normal couple. If anything, 2 people in a stable relationship have a better chance of providing a good upbringing for a child then many single parents who may be struggling financially and emotionally.


----------



## Caveat

michaelm said:


> Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Everyone has exactly the same rights to marriage in that they can marry anyone from the opposite sex who is agreeable to same, of sufficient age and not an immediate relative.


 
OK, fair enough but semantics aside, I think you know what everyone is talking about.




> Obviously adoption should be about the rights and best interests of the 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.


 
Just out of interest (and this is not an attempt at a point scoring exercise) a hypothetical situation for you (and anyone else for that matter)

A 12 year old child is available for adoption and let's say there are only two prospective sets of adopters that fit the profile for this child - one a heterosexual couple and one a gay couple.

Let's say also the child has a gay uncle that they get on well with (but for various reasons cannot care for the child) so is aware of sexuality differences.

What if, in cultural, geographic and socioeconomic terms, the gay couple were more suitable as adoptive 'parents', would you personally be in favour (ignoring the law for the minute) of them adopting?


----------



## michaelm

In your unlikely example and in the absence of any other relative to care for the child, I would think that the qualifying heterosexual couple, while not as cultural?, geographically convenient, or financially endowed will trump the gay couple by being able to provide the child with a mother and a father.  Or if the child can secure legal emancipation than they can do what they want.  

There are very few children available for adoption in Ireland and people go to the far East, and beyond, to adopt.  Even if it were legal here, gay couples wouldn't get a look in, if the best interests of the child were to be served, unless there were artificial PC quotas applied.


----------



## DavyJones

I'm for gay couples and their right to have the same legal standing as a married man and women.

Adoption is a very complex thing and should be dealt with on a case by case basis, I would not exclude a particular spectrum of soceity. It is quite hard to adopt here so if a couple are suitable they should be welcomed.


----------



## Caveat

michaelm said:


> cultural?


 
I meant it as a general term to mean lifestyle/attitude/ethos/customs etc. I didn't mean it as 'cultured' or in any way superior - just a better 'fit' for whatever reason.

But would _you personally_ be in favour? - never mind what you think would be decided or allowed in the admittedly unlikely (but not impossible) scenario.


----------



## MOB

jaybird said:


> I don't understand this obsession with the idealisation of one male and one female parent? What is so wonderful about that as an arrangment? Noone has offered an example as to WHY this arrangement is so brilliant, other than, its the natural order of things, which is debatable.
> Can someone explain to me in simple terms why one man one woman is the perfect arrangement, other than "it just is"?



You may have missed my earlier post on this exact point.  This is a topic which has been well researched and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the hypothesis that one male and one female parent is far better than just one female.  That is about as much as we can say has been fairly conclusively proven.


----------



## roland

michaelm said:


> Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. Everyone has exactly the same rights to marriage in that they can marry anyone from the opposite sex who is agreeable to same, of sufficient age and not an immediate relative. That's as equal as one can get.


 
To tell a gay person that they can marry anyone from the opposite sex who is agreeable to same, and then saying to them that this represents equality is nothing short of redundant nonsense.  Why would any gay person be interested in such a thing, and why would the other person agree to such.  Is that something that is considered good for society?  Tragic at best for all concerned.  I fear these strained arguments are becoming even more warped.  

The strongest bond in society is that between two people in love and it's the most natural family unit to which all adults are drawn.  Excluding gays from this does society no service.  What is the point of some lesser form such as 'a civil arrangement open to any two people' other than to exclude gay people.


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> I'm not sure who brought the point up originally but basically someone compared infertile couples to gay couples and well modern science can help infertile couples but it will take one hell of a miracle for 2 gays to have a baby together.



And you not supposed to be posting on this thread a whole 2 pages ago 

Not really that much of a miracle. A gay couple could use the sperm from 1 partner with a donated egg and a surrogate mother. Exactly how a straight couple in which the women was infertile could do it.


----------



## michaelm

Caveat said:


> But would _you personally_ be in favour? - never mind what you think would be decided or allowed in the admittedly unlikely (but not impossible) scenario.


No.  I don't favour manufactured situations where a child is unnecessarily deprived of either a mother and father.





jaybird said:


> I don't understand this obsession with the idealisation of one male and one female parent? What is so wonderful about that as an arrangment? Noone has offered an example as to WHY this arrangement is so brilliant, other than, its the natural order of things, which is debatable.  Can someone explain to me in simple terms why one man one woman is the perfect arrangement, other than "it just is"?


If you can't see it you won't see it.  A man can't mother a child and a woman can't be a father to a child. The onus of proof would be on those arguing against the notion that to have a mother and father raising a child is the best option.





jaybird said:


> And why is marriage by definition m+f? It isn't in my dictionary, which defines it as "a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally"


You must have got The Big PC Dictionary for Christmas, er, I mean for the Holiday Season.


----------



## roland

S.L.F said:


> Society will never grow up till we realise that we can't change the laws of nature


 
And what is more natural than the love of two adults drawn inextricably together as a unit and their wish to pass on that love in rearing the next generation?  The fixation with an ability to reproduce (proven or otherwise), to the exclusion of all other factors or arguments rings hollow to me.  It doesn't seem to me to be an argument that is in favour of children or the family.  Reducing the family unit to that simply consisting of a man and a woman is again missing the point, and I'm struggling to understand what you are then implying about the many other forms of wonderful family units that exist.  I go back to the argument that make sense to me - a loving caring environment in which children are respected and learn to respect others seems to me to rank infinitely higher than one which states that the guardians should have the ability to reproduce.  This again seems more concerned with excluding gays, than saying anything in favour of the children.


----------



## MrMan

> *Did you not use the word "given" in terms of biological equipment? You cannot be given something without having a giver. That does imply intelligent design. If that is not your position you may want to think more about your terminology. And what you see as a complication I see as a natural evolution. *


I didn't realise that we were being pedantic, by given i meant what we were born with. I don't know the meaning of life so I can't tell you if God created man or if aliens did, i just have a fair understanding of biology. It is still my understanding that left to our own devices a man can only impregnate a woman. 



> *If its ok for straight couples to subvert their natural biology, then the only argument you have left for denying the same to gay people is social or moral. *


It would be social rather than moral and my underlying belief that it simply was never meant to be this way.



> *The argument that a gay woman will never get pregnant on her own with her female partner is rather nonsensical on those grounds, a straight woman born without ovaries will never get pregnant with any male partner. If its ok for one to use IVF and not the other, your argument is no longer about their biological capabilities.*


 
the (repeated) argument is based rather on the fact that for one group to be 100% denied the biological makings to conceive together means to me that that group were never meant to be parents as nature intended. It might sound odd, conceited, homophobic etc etc but I do believe that everything has a purpose. I don't think gay people are bad people or bad for society, this is just in relation to a single topic.



> *I'm not naive, I am intimately acquainted with what is needed to raise children. But I suspect you find it hard to quantify what children actually NEED, as opposed to the perfect ideal that might be nice. You need money, but not much. You need a home, but not a big one. You need some sort of education, but its not essential to be a mastermind.
> What is it that children NEED, that cannot be provided by loving parents of any kind?*


Balance, different perspectives, guidance, discipline, love, sense of adventure, protection, and unselfish dedication. In no particular order.



> *It is not a matter of maturity. Two people with diametrically opposing ideas on a subject to not have to be immature to realise that both sides do not have merit, whether or not they can rationalise an argument. If there is an either/or, a matter of conscience, and your opinion is the polar opposite of mine, it is not immature to not see any merit in yours, nor you in mine. To suggest a person is in someway inferior to you for not finding anything to agree with in your argument is insulting. *


I'm sorry that you feel insulted by my conclusion. You stated that many you call me prejudiced and archaic because of my view on this topic, I simply said that hopefully in time they will mature enough to appreciate there are differing views. How do you find that insulting? do you consider me to prejudiced? do you consider me to have views that are better suited to days of yore? If you do that's a shame.
I have learned more on this site from people that i have disagreed with than those i agree with, if arguments cannot be teased out without name calling, insinuations and such then they are a waste of time. 
Your views would be considered liberal on this topic, that would suggest to me that an open mind is at play, I'm just saying keep it open to the possibility that you could be wrong.


----------



## MrMan

roland said:


> And what is more natural than the love of two adults drawn inextricably together as a unit and their wish to pass on that love in rearing the next generation? The fixation with an ability to reproduce (proven or otherwise), to the exclusion of all other factors or arguments rings hollow to me. It doesn't seem to me to be an argument that is in favour of children or the family. Reducing the family unit to that simply consisting of a man and a woman is again missing the point, and I'm struggling to understand what you are then implying about the many other forms of wonderful family units that exist. I go back to the argument that make sense to me - a loving caring environment in which children are respected and learn to respect others seems to me to rank infinitely higher than one which states that the guardians should have the ability to reproduce. This again seems more concerned with excluding gays, than saying anything in favour of the children.


 
Take the ability to reproduce out of the equation and it is easy to see why it is best to let nature take its course.


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> And you not supposed to be posting on this thread a whole 2 pages ago
> 
> Not really that much of a miracle. A gay couple could use the sperm from 1 partner with a donated egg and a surrogate mother. Exactly how a straight couple in which the women was infertile could do it.


 
Anyway the person who originally brought up the subject that gay people can't have kids with each other was MrMan.

Having trawled throught the entire thread I found that on, I think, the second page

In fairness I said I wouldn't comment any more unless anything worthwhile comes up and it seems more interesting stuff has come up.

Anyway this is the best thread for a good while bar the toilet paper (in or out) one.

Anyway your point is invalid because it takes a member of the opposite sex to make it happen.


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> And you not supposed to be posting on this thread a whole 2 pages ago
> 
> Not really that much of a miracle. A gay couple could use the sperm from 1 partner with a donated egg and a surrogate mother. Exactly how a straight couple in which the women was infertile could do it.


 
You know what he means so lets leave this one go. Gay couples cannot ever ever ever conceive when it is just them. that goes for every gay couple on the entire planet.


----------



## Vanilla

MrMan said:


> You know what he means so lets leave this one go. Gay couples cannot ever ever ever conceive when it is just them. that goes for every gay couple on the entire planet.


 
If you are just in favour of what nature provides us with, then do you disagree with operations, transfusions, antibiotics, vaccinations etc etc?

If it's okay to use some of medical science developed by mankind, why not the rest?


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> You know what he means so lets leave this one go. Gay couples cannot ever ever ever conceive when it is just them. that goes for every gay couple on the entire planet.



Nor can infertile couples. Ever ever ever


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> Anyway your point is invalid because it takes a member of the opposite sex to make it happen.



Wrong. With the given premise of the female being the infertile partner then it still takes a member of the opposite sex (for the male partner to donate his sperm to) to carry the pregnancy. Whats the difference?

Anyway - forgetting about what nature gave us - seeing as that argument is pretty invalid considering medical advances that allow all sorts of unnatural things to happen like enhanced breasts or joint implants etc....

Should a person who previously had a child in a heterosexual relationship be allowed to move onto a gay relationship and raise the child in that relationship?


----------



## S.L.F

roland said:


> And what is more natural than the love of two adults drawn inextricably together as a unit and their wish to pass on that love in rearing the next generation?


 
For gays there is no next generation unless they have the gene material from the opposite sex.



roland said:


> The fixation with an ability to reproduce (proven or otherwise), to the exclusion of all other factors or arguments rings hollow to me. It doesn't seem to me to be an argument that is in favour of children or the family.


 
LOL What do you mean proven or otherwise children produced by 1 man and 1 woman.

There is no other way.

Children need the influence of both mother and father.

Children of single parents lose out on that score through no fault of their own.



roland said:


> Reducing the family unit to that simply consisting of a man and a woman is again missing the point, and I'm struggling to understand what you are then implying about the many other forms of wonderful family units that exist.


 
It is you who is missing the point family unit is ideally 1 man 1 woman.



roland said:


> I go back to the argument that make sense to me - a loving caring environment in which children are respected and learn to respect others seems to me to rank infinitely higher than one which states that the guardians should have the ability to reproduce. This again seems more concerned with excluding gays, than saying anything in favour of the children.


 
Yes I agree with you but as I keep on saying children need the influence of both sexes.

For those of you who can't see sense rolleyes lets try a different approach lets say 2 friends of the same sex decided to adopt would this be ok?


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> For those of you who can't see sense rolleyes lets try a different approach lets say 2 friends of the same sex decided to adopt would this be ok?



Well the issue here is that the probably dont live together, and if they do then they dont share a romantic love for each other. But on the face of it, yeah I think its ok. So long as they do love and respect each other.


----------



## truthseeker

jaybird said:


> If the very best situation for a child to be raised in is with a loving mother and a loving father, then I think the most perfect family would be a gay couple and a lesbian couple living together with children of both sexes! Then they would have double the perfection, and nobody is without the relevant role model. Genius



My vote goes to Jaybird for 'President of Social Engineering for the Good of  Future Generations'.


----------



## Smashbox

truthseeker said:


> My vote goes to Jaybird for 'President of Social Engineering for the Good of Future Generations'.


 
I second that...


----------



## roland

S.L.F said:


> For gays there is no next generation unless they have the gene material from the opposite sex.


 
So? This and all your other points reduce back to your one argument that adoptive parents must comprise of a male and female and that children need, above anything else, the influence of both sexes.  I struggle greatly with this viewpoint.  Do children not need reason, respect, discipline etc. rather than simply a man and a woman, to the exclusion of other family units.  And even so, in what bubble do you think gay adoptive parents live? A world only consisting of only or mainly men or women?  Not so, in case you actually think that.  This supposed ideal you are aiming for of male/female balance has rarely been achieved if you want to check in with reality.    

As for the argument regarding two friends of the same sex adopting, this is no different to the answer you would give to two friends of the opposite sex who wish to adopt.  Equating two friends of the same sex, with the union of two gay people bonded for life in love is as unreasonable comparing it to the union of two hetero people bonded for life in love.


----------



## S.L.F

roland said:


> So? This and all your other points reduce back to your one argument that adoptive parents must comprise of a male and female and that children need, above anything else, the influence of both sexes. I struggle greatly with this viewpoint.


 
Why?

It's been the tried and tested method for tens of thousands of years



roland said:


> Do children not need reason, respect, discipline etc. rather than simply a man and a woman, to the exclusion of other family units.


 
What on earth are you talking about?

Of course children need all of the things you mentioned but they also need balance.



roland said:


> And even so, in what bubble do you think gay adoptive parents live? A world only consisting of only or mainly men or women? Not so, in case you actually think that. This supposed ideal you are aiming for of male/female balance has rarely been achieved if you want to check in with reality.


 
I never suggested they live in a bubble what I believe is a family unit is comprised of man, woman and if lucky kids.



roland said:


> As for the argument regarding two friends of the same sex adopting, this is no different to the answer you would give to two friends of the opposite sex who wish to adopt. Equating two friends of the same sex, with the union of two gay people bonded for life in love is as unreasonable comparing it to the union of two hetero people bonded for life in love.


 
I would not agree with 2 friends adopting whether they be bachelors or spinsters.

The point is gay couples are not the same as straight couples the mix just isn't there.


----------



## roland

S.L.F said:


> It's been the tried and tested method for tens of thousands of years


 
Sure women were subjugated for tens of thousands of years, but nobody thinks that's appropriate anymore. Let's all hope for a bit of progress please. 



S.L.F said:


> What on earth are you talking about?
> Of course children need all of the things you mentioned but they also need balance.


 
Your definition of balance is extremely limiting. A man, a woman. And now I see you are adding children to the family unit. Are units that don't include children not family units? 



S.L.F said:


> I would not agree with 2 friends adopting whether they be bachelors or spinsters.


 Neither would I. 



S.L.F said:


> The point is gay couples are not the same as straight couples the mix just isn't there.


 
They are entirely alike, other than the obstacles your thinking tries to put in their way. I'm beginning to think that you actually want them to remain different, as you can't come to accept they are no different to you. I'm assuming here that you are not gay, but I don't know that. At the end of the day, the man/woman argument is really your only one. I'm not clear you have any more substance to your arguments. As such, I can't really debate this much further with you. I sign off. Best of luck.


----------



## S.L.F

roland said:


> Sure women were subjugated for tens of thousands of years, but nobody thinks that's appropriate anymore. Let's all hope for a bit of progress please.


 
Are you saying *all* women were subjugated since time began?

If so you don't know many women like I do.



roland said:


> Your definition of balance is extremely limiting. A man, a woman. And now I see you are adding children to the family unit. Are units that don't include children not family units?


 
No they are not because after you get married what people say is they are starting a family.



roland said:


> They are entirely alike, other than the obstacles your thinking tries to put in their way. I'm beginning to think that you actually want them to remain different, as you can't come to accept they are no different to you. I'm assuming here that you are not gay, but I don't know that. At the end of the day, the man/woman argument is really your only one. I'm not clear you have any more substance to your arguments. As such, I can't really debate this much further with you. I sign off. Best of luck.


 
A rock is a rock, a spade is a spade.

Your debate has been simple you are talking about fair play, equal rights nothing else.

You haven't really touched upon the welfare of the child, this has been foremost on my mind.

I don't care the hurt gays feel for being overlooked when it comes to adoption rights, I do care about the children.

They come *first*

Have a good one


----------



## S.L.F

jaybird said:


> You keep talking about this balance, this mix. Can you define it? Maleness and femaleness? It sounds so....vague. There are many different kinds of people, and many different types of couples. Why is gender such a defining attribute?
> 
> One man, one woman and a few kids has NOT been a t&T method for thousands of years, thats a modern definition of a family. Lots of men, lots of women, different generations living together and sharing the raising of children is the traditional, long term, human method. Or one man, lots of wives, servants, tonnes of children, if you prefer that traditional model. There are a few others, not 1 man 1 women 1/2/3 kids.
> 
> The modern nuclear family is a novelty, you'll need a better argument than "thats how its meant to be", since its clearly a new idea in the scheme of human evolution.


 
None of this has anything to do with gays adopting.


----------



## Pique318

Pique318 said:


> OK, just to throw a spanner in the works.
> 
> Jack & Jill get married and have children.
> Jill gets killed in a freak accident leaving Jack to raise the babies.
> Jack subsequently realises that he has feelings for a gay man (let's call him Tom).
> One thing leads to another and they enter a relationship and Tom moves into Jacks house.
> 
> Is this scenario acceptable to the posters who are against gay adoption?
> If not, why not, and who should raise the children and why ?





truthseeker said:


> Should a person who previously had a child in a heterosexual relationship be allowed to move onto a gay relationship and raise the child in that relationship?



MrMan and S.L.F both previously answered this question with the general gist of "whatever's legal, and I would trust the father to make the right moral decision"(I'm paraphrasing here but its around post 90 if you wanna look)


----------



## Pique318

OK, let me get this straight, S.L.F., 'cos you're losing me now.....



S.L.F said:


> Children need the balance


OK, so what balance...


			
				jaybird said:
			
		

> You keep talking about this balance, this mix. Can you define it? Maleness and femaleness? It sounds so....vague. There are many different kinds of people, and many different types of couples. Why is gender such a defining attribute?


to which you replied


S.L.F said:


> None of this has anything to do with gays adopting.


But yet you say....


S.L.F said:


> There is no injustice to gays not being allowed to adopt, they are not a family unit and can never be a family unit.


and


			
				S.L.F said:
			
		

> I keep on saying children need the influence of both sexes.




'Balance' is not an exlusive possession of straight couples. I know plenty of unbalaced ones !! I also know of staunch conservative-type couples who wouldn't be impressed with evolution being taught in schools, and ones who'd hate their child being taught religion at school. 

Man + Wife does not necessarily = Balance.

Using 'Man + wife = balanced child/upbringing' as an point of fact is facile.


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> MrMan and S.L.F both previously answered this question with the general gist of "whatever's legal, and I would trust the father to make the right moral decision"(I'm paraphrasing here but its around post 90 if you wanna look)


 
Now Pique you are trying to build a house of cards on a windy day.

I did answer that question I said.



> Jack is the childrens father so what choices he makes will affect his children for the rest of their lives I would hope he would choose wisely


----------



## Caveat

roland said:


> Are units that don't include children not family units?


 


S.L.F said:


> No they are not because after you get married what people say is they are starting a family.


 


I think this is a bizarre narrow view TBH.


----------



## S.L.F

Caveat said:


> I think this is a bizarre narrow view TBH.


 
When does a family start when 2 people get married or when they have a child (by whatever means)?

My view is when they have a child.


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> OK, let me get this straight, S.L.F., 'cos you're losing me now.....


 
Probably something to do with this...

_Location: Out of my mind...back in 5 mins_


----------



## Caveat

S.L.F said:


> When does a family start when 2 people get married or when they have a child (by whatever means)?
> 
> My view is when they have a child.


 
Well as with many common words the definition can be broad and various but to say that if a married couple do not have children they are not a family is wrong IMO and also implies they are incomplete or something.

When two people get married I think they can quite reasonably fall under the term 'family'.

Anyway, It's OT I guess - par for the course for this thread then


----------



## MrMan

My point regarding nature is not being understood and so i'll try again. If man decides to invent and create medical wonders etc fair play to him, I'm not sure i agree with all of them but that's for another day. My viewpoint comes back to a very basic understanding of nature or natures way. I believe that everything has a purpose when you strip things back. Through natural evolution we have a grasp of what is expected of us and the limitiations that we have. the fact that the organs provided to create life are given to opposites sexes would suggest to me that this is where a family is expected to thrive. It is a bit airy fairy i admit but I do have this nagging doubt the validity of same sex couples being 100% right for the job. Some say it is progression, I would lean towards unnecessary meddling.


----------



## wavejumper

I've vaguely kept on following this thread just to see how further vexing SLF and MrMan were going to get, then I went and checked how may places actually grant same sex couples the right to adopt, and in wikipedia I read:

"Legal status around the world

Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Denmark[17], Iceland,[18] the Netherlands, Norway,[19] Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, some parts of Australia, Canada and some parts of the United States.

In Germany,[20] and Israel "stepchild-adoption" is permitted, so that the partner in a civil union can adopt the natural (or sometimes even adopted) child of his or her partner."

It then goes on to say:

"In the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Hungary and some other countries, there is a universal adoption policy, meaning anyone deemed to be capable of providing a healthy stable family home, whether straight, LGBT, married, single, cohabiting or unmarried, may apply for adoption. Same-sex couples may also foster children in the Republic of Ireland as there is a dire need for foster parents."

I got it from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

So basically all these countries are not putting the interest of the child first, right?  I mean, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands...they don't know what's best for the child...


----------



## michaelm

wavejumper said:


> So basically all these countries are not putting the interest of the child first, right?  I mean, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands...they don't know what's best for the child...


and Guam and Andorra . . apparently not.  Or maybe the rest of the world is wrong.

I'd have a question mark over that wikipedia entry.  I believe it's wrong about the ROI policy - which is, I think, a married couple or a single relative.


----------



## michaelm

jaybird said:


> Single people may adopt in Ireland.


Indeed, but do they need to be a relative or be a widow or a widower (as I've just learned).


----------



## MrMan

wavejumper said:


> I've vaguely kept on following this thread just to see how further vexing SLF and MrMan were going to get, then I went and checked how may places actually grant same sex couples the right to adopt, and in wikipedia I read:
> 
> "Legal status around the world
> 
> Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Denmark[17], Iceland,[18] the Netherlands, Norway,[19] Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, some parts of Australia, Canada and some parts of the United States.
> 
> In Germany,[20] and Israel "stepchild-adoption" is permitted, so that the partner in a civil union can adopt the natural (or sometimes even adopted) child of his or her partner."
> 
> It then goes on to say:
> 
> "In the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Hungary and some other countries, there is a universal adoption policy, meaning anyone deemed to be capable of providing a healthy stable family home, whether straight, LGBT, married, single, cohabiting or unmarried, may apply for adoption. Same-sex couples may also foster children in the Republic of Ireland as there is a dire need for foster parents."
> 
> I got it from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption
> 
> So basically all these countries are not putting the interest of the child first, right? I mean, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands...they don't know what's best for the child...


 
Sorry to vex you with an opinion, I think opinions are also allowed in those countries, if you check wikipedia it should clarify. I don't agree with everything that is allowed in this country or any country for that matter, if it is allowed then why should my opinion trouble you in the least. Is it better that I trundle along and don't question the validity of things i don't agree with.
The longer this thread is running the more I am feeling like the liberal amongst narrow minds.


----------



## wavejumper

"As stated above, under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Board considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex partner, you may apply to the Board to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no rights in relation to the child."

[broken link removed]

Seems like the welfare of the child can be be assured by same sex couples after all, even in Ireland...it seems to me that the marriage ban issue is more to keep the daily-mail reader types happy more than anything else.


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> I have to agree with the airy fairy bit. Its just such a vague reasoning, IMO. I have understoof your point, I just don't think it makes sense, and I think you are confusing your own point.
> Organs to create life to opposite sexes? Can't disagree with you there. But we aren't living in caves, we aren't limited by our biology. You could as easily argue that Nature provides us with all kinds of diseases and conditions, so we are clearly meant to die young. We don't need to follow nature, and in fact the human race spends most of its resources and intellect on not doing so.
> 
> Arguing natures way as a reason that gay people shouldn't have children is just wishy washy, unless you don't use medicine, eat processed food, or believe in IVF or heart transplants.
> It seems more likely that your vague nagging doubt is just an emotional reaction that you are looking for a rational explanation for, rather than the other way around, IMHO.


 
I have no emotional attachment to the subject so that wouldn't be the case. I understand how people can misinterpret the argument, like when you say 'clearly we are supposed to die' we actually do die in the end no matter how much we try to alter natures course. 
Natures way may seem wishy washy I totally understand that especially if somebody is vehemently in support of gay rights which you seem to be, gay rights is not an issue i have any great passion for. 
Yours and most others argument is to paraphrase 'all you need is love' which is hard to argue against, but I believe the natural inclination to parenting comes from straight couples.


----------



## MrMan

wavejumper said:


> "As stated above, under the adoption legislation, it is possible for a single person to adopt if the Adoption Board considers it desirable and it must regard the welfare of the child as its first and paramount consideration. This means that if you are living with a same-sex partner, you may apply to the Board to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no rights in relation to the child."
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Seems like the welfare of the child can be be assured by same sex couples after all, even in Ireland...it seems to me that the marriage ban issue is more to keep the daily-mail reader types happy more than anything else.


 
What would you describe as a 'daily mail reader type'. You have got to love a bit of snobbery on a friday afternoon.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> The longer this thread is running the more I am feeling like the liberal amongst narrow minds.


 
...and I've noticed the more irritated you get, the more controversial and slippery you get!


----------



## wavejumper

Also MM, I don't get vexed at people for expressing an opinion, I get vexed at the thought of a whole 10% of the population being denied a basic right based on prejudice and when I see people justifiying this prejudice by saying that a child is better served if the parents have non-matching genitalia or that the child will be bullied more by bigots because they don't conform to said bigots blinkered outlook on life, then yea, I get vexed.  

We should look at progressive contries like Sweden and Norway and The Netherlands for inspiration, not have legislation dictated by fear of some red neck bully in a playground.


----------



## Caveat

BTW, just for clarification, many people have given their views on gay 'marriage' and also adoption - personally, I think both should be permitted.

How many of those in favour though think that all things being equal, a child is better off with straight man/woman adoptive parents?

I do.

Or do people really think there is no difference? (people who are in favour that is)


----------



## Smashbox

Caveat said:


> Or do people really think there is no difference? (people who are in favour that is)


 
I honestly see no difference. A set of parents is just that, be they gay or straight.


----------



## MrMan

> We should look at progressive contries like Sweden and Norway and The Netherlands for inspiration, not have legislation dictated by fear of some *red neck bully in a playground*.


 
Would that be the daily mail reader by any chance?


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> ...and I've noticed the more irritated you get, the more controversial and slippery you get!


 
I'm actually getting close to embracing gay parents as a means to opening my mind to greater awareness and to gaining intellectual superiority, but then my cave is quite comfy so it's a tough call!


----------



## S.L.F

wavejumper said:


> Also MM, I don't get vexed at people for expressing an opinion, I get vexed at the thought of a whole 10% of the population being denied a basic right based on prejudice and when I see people justifiying this prejudice by saying that a child is better served if the parents have non-matching genitalia or that the child will be bullied more by bigots because they don't conform to said bigots blinkered outlook on life, then yea, I get vexed.
> 
> We should look at progressive contries like Sweden and Norway and The Netherlands for inspiration, not have legislation dictated by fear of some red neck bully in a playground.


 
1 I need first point out there is no basic right to adoption for anybody.

2 I'm not prejudiced against anybody and I very much resent the allegation.

3 I never said anything about children being bullied.

4 As for this being based on fear I don't see it like that I see it more as basic common sense.


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> 2 I'm not prejudiced against anybody and I very much resent the allegation.


 
They've seen how you treat me SLF, thats what they meant


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> They've seen how you treat me SLF, thats what they meant


 
Yea but you love it and just live for the abuse.

It's your thing...


----------



## truthseeker

Caveat said:


> Or do people really think there is no difference? (people who are in favour that is)



I dont see the difference. Parents come in all different shapes, sizes, races, religions, male, female, bad habits, no bad habits, addictions, no addictions, brainy, not brainy, happy, unhappy, good parenting skills, bad parenting skills, etc, etc, etc....

I dont see why any gay couple with a random selection of the above (and other) traits, who are committed for life should make any better or worse a fist of it than any straight couple.

The is no such thing as the Perfect parents. People do what they can under a given set of circumstances, and some people make a right mess of it and others do quite well. There is no manual to guide them on their way.

What is the difference between straight and gay people that will change how much they can love and raise a child? 
2 sets of matching genitalia against a mismatched pair? So what?


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> I dont see the difference. Parents come in all different shapes, sizes, races, religions, male, female, bad habits, no bad habits, addictions, no addictions, brainy, not brainy, happy, unhappy, good parenting skills, bad parenting skills, etc, etc, etc....
> 
> I dont see why any gay couple with a random selection of the above (and other) traits, who are committed for life should make any better or worse a fist of it than any straight couple.
> 
> The is no such thing as the Perfect parents. People do what they can under a given set of circumstances, and some people make a right mess of it and others do quite well. There is no manual to guide them on their way.
> 
> What is the difference between straight and gay people that will change how much they can love and raise a child?
> 2 sets of matching genitalia against a mismatched pair? So what?


 
Do men and women think the same, no.

We have different ways of thinking and since children mimic us, they need the differences we have in order for them to develop.

I'm tired of banging my head off this ever-so PC wall so once again I'm leaving this till something new comes up.


----------



## Vanilla

Caveat said:


> How many of those in favour though think that all things being equal, a child is better off with straight man/woman adoptive parents?
> 
> I do.
> 
> Or do people really think there is no difference? (people who are in favour that is)


 
I think it depends on the individuals concerned, how committed they are, their family circle and so on. 

As part of a 'straight' couple with children I am very conscious that I am far from a perfect parent, although I try very hard and constantly question myself. Beside the laptop is yet another book on childrearing that I have just read ( 'Detoxing Childhood, What parents need to know to raise happy successful children').  

I believe, as other posters have said, that if a gay couple wanted to adopt that they would be more than likely more committed and dedicated parents than the average straight couple.


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> Yea but you love it and just live for the abuse.
> 
> It's your thing...


 
True...


----------



## Smashbox

jaybird said:


> And you know you can't stay away SLF, not if you know Smashbox is hanging out here.......


 
He's quite a stalker that fella


----------



## S.L.F

jaybird said:


> And you know you can't stay away SLF, not if you know Smashbox is hanging out here.......


 
I can stay away if I want.


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> Do men and women think the same, no.



I think you will find that each individual thinks their own way, some men think like some other men, some men think like some women, some women think like some other women and some women think like some men.
Its a massive generalisation to say that men and women dont think the same.

So long as the thinkers have open minds and are not indoctrinating children with dogma or narrow minded ways then the thinking of the parents shouldnt negatively affect the childs development.



S.L.F said:


> We have different ways of thinking and since children mimic us, they need the differences we have in order for them to develop.



Children dont just pick up what they learn from their parents, they learn from a myriad of external sources. 
A child rarely picks up the accent of their parents, they pick up the accent of their peer group.

Just as a real world example, my own parents would not have been open to the idea of marriage for gay couples and definitely not for adoption rights. However - I have made my own mind up on the subject despite what they thought.


----------



## MOB

"Its a massive generalisation to say that men and women dont think the same."

Not wishing to drag the post off topic, but it isn't.  In general, it is in fact true.  Male and female brains are different.


----------



## S.L.F

MOB said:


> Not wishing to drag the post off topic, but it isn't. In general, it is in fact true. Male and female brains are different.


 
Women smell better than men but generally leave the toilet filthier than men...ask any plumber he'll tell you that.


----------



## MrMan

> I believe, as other posters have said, that if a gay couple wanted to adopt that they would be more than likely more committed and dedicated parents than the average straight couple


 
Why? Because they can finally have what they are naturally deprived of? Would they be as committed down the line once they encounter issues etc. 
How many gay people here actually believe that gay adoption is necessary and also is wanted by the majority of the gay community?


----------



## truthseeker

MOB said:


> Not wishing to drag the post off topic, but it isn't.  In general, it is in fact true.  Male and female brains are different.



Agree with Jaybird.

What is important is WHAT parents are thinking, not how they think it, it is irrelevant if a male uses more of his left hemisphere to complete a thought process and a female uses more of her right so long as the net result of both thought process are the same opinion. Opinions are based on what someone has learned through environment, culture, education, peer group and to some degree upbringing. Sometimes education can override what someone has been brought up to believe. With opinions it cannot be categorically stated that men think differently to women. Its a ridiculous generalisation to make.

So in the case of gay parents, it is irrelevant how the thought process are formed, it is only important what they think. And there is no reason to believe that gay parents will think any differently about what is right for a child than straight parents. 
In fact, it is likely they will foster a more open mind having possibly already experienced negative attitudes to gay people in their own lives, so they are likely to express the importance of embracing all sexualities to their child either explicitly or implicitly, resulting in a more broad minded individual - not a bad thing IMO.


----------



## roland

MrMan said:


> Why? Because they can finally have what they are naturally deprived of? Would they be as committed down the line once they encounter issues etc.
> How many gay people here actually believe that gay adoption is necessary and also is wanted by the majority of the gay community?


 
Your comments are revealing. You seem to think that the gay community are banging down the doors in a rush to adopt. The point of the argument is not that they can 'finally have what they are naturally deprived of'. Sure this is also true of straight couples who cannot bear children naturally. 

You need to distinguish between a community seeking the right not to be legally excluded from being even considered as adoptive parents, and those who actually want to be considered as adoptive parents. I suspect close to 100% of the gay community and a high proportion of the straight community are in the former, and I imagine only a very small percentage of the gay community is in the latter. Fighting for equality is not restricted to those who are being affected.


----------



## MrMan

roland said:


> Your comments are revealing. You seem to think that the gay community are banging down the doors in a rush to adopt. The point of the argument is not that they can 'finally have what they are naturally deprived of'. Sure this is also true of straight couples who cannot bear children naturally.
> 
> You need to distinguish between a community seeking the right not to be legally excluded from being even considered as adoptive parents, and those who actually want to be considered as adoptive parents. I suspect close to 100% of the gay community and a high proportion of the straight community are in the former, and I imagine only a very small percentage of the gay community is in the latter. Fighting for equality is not restricted to those who are being affected.


 
Obviously not that revealing when my own belief would be that very view in the gay community actually have yearned to have children. As a heterosexual I have a limited view as to whether this is in any way correct, that is why I asked for the views on the subject from any of our gay posters.


----------



## truthseeker

What would sexuality have to do with the desire to procreate?

Im finding some of the assumptions made here quite funny, about what members of the gay community may or may not want, fundamentally they are human and would have the same humans needs and desires as anyone else. 

Any gay friend I have is indistinguishable from any straight friend I have in all matters of lifestyle except they form relationships with the same sex. They still pay mortgages, go to the cinema, watch tv, do the shopping, go to work, walk the dog etc.... Theres no major lifestyle difference other than who they choose for a partner.


----------



## Pique318

MOB said:


> In general, it is in fact true.  Male and female brains are different.


It sure is.

It's also a fact that all minds are different, be they male. female, straight, LGBT, Irish, Chinese or Martian.

And what matters more, the way your brain is constructed or what you actually think & do ?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> What would sexuality have to do with the desire to procreate?
> 
> Im finding some of the assumptions made here quite funny, about what members of the gay community may or may not want, fundamentally they are human and would have the same humans needs and desires as anyone else.
> 
> Any gay friend I have is indistinguishable from any straight friend I have in all matters of lifestyle except they form relationships with the same sex. They still pay mortgages, go to the cinema, watch tv, do the shopping, go to work, walk the dog etc.... Theres no major lifestyle difference other than who they choose for a partner.


 
I am assuming you are hetero as am I so we cannot really speak for the gay community. Yes they are human but they have a different inclination sexually to us so it is not a great strecth to imagine they may also have a different inclination to parenting. ( is it not better to err on the side of caution?0.
I do think it is ok to question gay rights, I do find it funny just how touchy some of the posters are here to anything that doesn't openly embrace gay awareness. In another thread 'gay rancher' there was a joke with the punchline that the cowboy was a cross dresser, but someone here wanted it changed to transvestite cowboy rather than gay cowboy, I mean come on it was a joke, why so sensitive? 
I don't know if that particular poster was himsef gay but if so you would worry about the ability to deal with the flak that would be inevitably thrown at an adoptive child it he couldn't handle an innocent joke.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> I am assuming you are hetero as am I so we cannot really speak for the gay community.



I wouldnt presume I can speak for the hetero community either, but as a human I can empathise with other humans regardless of their sexuality.



MrMan said:


> Yes they are human but they have a different inclination sexually to us so it is not a great strecth to imagine they may also have a different inclination to parenting. ( is it not better to err on the side of caution?



Why would that be? My interests in the bedroom have absolutely no bearing on whether or not I want to raise children. In fact, my sexual proclivities dont have any bearing on any other part of my life, except in partner choice. And even in that one area there is always room for compromise. 

There seems to be an assumption by those opposed to gay parenting that being gay implies many differences. I dont see it that way. I see a human being, who sleeps, eats, works, relaxes, visits their mammy, drives a car, watches tv, reads and does any one of a number of activities that I myself do - who they sleep with is a very tiny part of what makes the person.

How would you feel if peoples perception of you was defined by your sexual behaviour only? Surely its only a small aspect of what makes you what you are?


----------



## MOB

jaybird said:


> Ummm, proof please? From a pop psychology point of view, you might finf plenty to back that up, from a neuroscientific point of view, you're on a sticky wicket with that assertion.



Not even a little bit sticky.  A quick google will throw up quite a bit of reputable published research - much of it firmly based in neuroscience.  For example http://www.physorg.com/news63301200.html


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> I wouldnt presume I can speak for the hetero community either, but as a human I can empathise with other humans regardless of their sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that be? My interests in the bedroom have absolutely no bearing on whether or not I want to raise children. In fact, my sexual proclivities dont have any bearing on any other part of my life, except in partner choice. And even in that one area there is always room for compromise.
> 
> There seems to be an assumption by those opposed to gay parenting that being gay implies many differences. I dont see it that way. I see a human being, who sleeps, eats, works, relaxes, visits their mammy, drives a car, watches tv, reads and does any one of a number of activities that I myself do - who they sleep with is a very tiny part of what makes the person.
> 
> How would you feel if peoples perception of you was defined by your sexual behaviour only? Surely its only a small aspect of what makes you what you are?


 
It goes back to my argument that we are basically wired in a certain manner. I base this on the assumption that gay people do not choose to be gay but are rather born gay so there is a difference even if a subtle one.
People have perceptions of others for a multitude of reasons, people here base perceptions of me on my profession I don't get hung up on it.


----------



## MrMan

jaybird said:


> RE the joke, it wasn't accurate, and it was reinforcing an inaccurate stereotype. I'm not gay and I teach my children that so called innocent jokes are often far from it. Of course you see it as an innocent joke, not being a gay man you wouldn't see how being confused with a transvestite might be irritating. Being aware of unintentional offensive and old fashioned "jokes" hardly makes you unsuitable to be a parent.
> 
> And re sexually different = parenting different, that hardly follows does it? You think all hetero people have the same sexual inclinations? Its not a simple gay/straight divide, there is a massive spectrum of human sexuality. You might as well argue that someon who is into s&m may have different inclinations on parenting. Or cooking, its just as likely, and just as irrelevant.
> Its fairly simple to be honest. Lots of hetero people would like to have children. Lots of gay people would like to have children. Plenty of both would have no interest whatsoever, and quite a few of both shouldn't be allowed as they would be terrible at it.
> At the end of the day, its safe to say that anyone not interested would not be applying to adopt. Anyone unsuitable would be screened out durin the selection process. To suggest that some may not be interested or may not be very good at it is a good reason to exclude an entire section of society is just bizarre.


 
Your right Jaybird the joke wasn't accurate, jokes tend to have that about them (they usually are not based on factual storytelling). Nobody confused the two as it is possible to be gay and a tv. The following post that I wrote 'surely if he was a transvestite he must be gay' was a jibe at the stereotype and not an ignorant statement from the dark ages. I think people should lighten up and stop whinging about the smallest of things.


----------



## S.L.F

MOB I have more proof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMZ73mT5zM&feature=related

It explains it all perfectly

*put the extended version of the explanation*


----------



## Homer

S.L.F said:


> MOB I have more proof
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtUH_bHBxs
> 
> It explains it all perfectly


 
Classic!


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> It goes back to my argument that we are basically wired in a certain manner. I base this on the assumption that gay people do not choose to be gay but are rather born gay so there is a difference even if a subtle one.
> People have perceptions of others for a multitude of reasons, people here base perceptions of me on my profession I don't get hung up on it.



If we are wired in a certain manner then surely a child is going to be wired in a certain manner also and no amount of straight or gay parenting is going to change that wiring? 

SLF argued that children mimic us as a reason for gay people not to raise children. Being wired in a certain manner debunks that line of reasoning.


----------



## S.L.F

MrMan said:


> It goes back to my argument that we are basically wired in a certain manner. I base this on the assumption that gay people do not choose to be gay but are rather born gay so there is a difference even if a subtle one.


 
I on the other hand think differently I believe that most gay men are so because their fathers were not able to show them the love they are supposed to.

Gay women I don't know about.

Maybe they saw too many big, fat, smelly, hairy men and thought "yuck".



truthseeker said:


> If we are wired in a certain manner then surely a child is going to be wired in a certain manner also and no amount of straight or gay parenting is going to change that wiring?
> 
> SLF argued that children mimic us as a reason for gay people not to raise children. Being wired in a certain manner debunks that line of reasoning.


 
With children the basic wiring is already there it's the fine tuning that is the issue, as to what I said



S.L.F said:


> We have different ways of thinking and since children mimic us, they need the differences we have in order for them to develop.


 
The key phrase was *"in order for them to develop"*.


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> If we are wired in a certain manner then surely a child is going to be wired in a certain manner also and no amount of straight or gay parenting is going to change that wiring?
> 
> SLF argued that children mimic us as a reason for gay people not to raise children. Being wired in a certain manner debunks that line of reasoning.


 
Myself and SLF have not started an anti gay adoption party so our views can differ. I obviously cannot articulate my point on this subject as it has been misunderstood time and time again so lets just say that I just don't have a positive feeling about gay adoption and although thats how i feel I'm sure that my point doesn't matter if I am in the minority on the subject. 
If it went to a national vote it would be probably allowed going by the number of pro gay adoption on AAM, so my opinion  is hardly a threat.


----------



## S.L.F

MrMan said:


> I obviously cannot articulate my point on this subject as it has been misunderstood time and time again so lets just say that I just don't have a positive feeling about gay adoption and although thats how i feel I'm sure that my point doesn't matter if I am in the minority on the subject.


 
I don't think the other side have done so well at all they have not proved a single thing to me.

Keep on yacking on about equal rights and all that and how gays are discriminated against with regard to gay adoption. 



MrMan said:


> If it went to a national vote it would be probably allowed going by the number of pro gay adoption on AAM, so my opinion is hardly a threat.


 
I very much doubt that people would be in favour of such a move.

The general feeling is that there are loads of straight couples who are childless and have in my view much more to offer a child.



MrMan said:


> Myself and SLF have not started an anti gay adoption party so our views can differ.


 
We haven't started one yet.

What do we call it?

K.A.S.P. (keep adoption straight party)

or

M.M.S.N. (MrMan says "No")

and the slogan would be something like "traditional values are the best values"


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> I on the other hand think differently I believe that most gay men are so because their fathers were not able to show them the love they are supposed to.
> 
> Gay women I don't know about.


 
Yeah, I'm_ sure_ thats why SLF


----------



## Ancutza

I'm against gay marriage personally.  I'm a squillion times more against adoption by gay couples.  Call me old fashioned but I'm tired of having gay rights forced down my neck by so-called 'liberals'.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> If it went to a national vote it would be probably allowed going by the number of pro gay adoption on AAM, so my opinion  is hardly a threat.



MrMan - I have to disagree with this more vehemently than any other point youve made on this thread - I think youre dead wrong. If it went to a national vote I reckon that itd never happen. Not in religious conservative Ireland.


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> I don't think the other side have done so well at all they have not proved a single thing to me.



There is never going to be a 'proof' on matters of opinion.



S.L.F said:


> Keep on yacking on about equal rights and all that and how gays are discriminated against with regard to gay adoption.



Interesting how opinions that differ to your own are referred to as 'yacking on'. Narrow minded?



S.L.F said:


> I very much doubt that people would be in favour of such a move.



So we DO agree on something!!!



S.L.F said:


> The general feeling is that there are loads of straight couples who are childless and have in my view much more to offer a child.



No - thats your feeling. Not mine. Or the general case.

As for gay men not being shown enough love by their fathers in childhood - if you can show me a scientific paper to back that up Id be well impressed.
There are a number of different theories on the subject, none conclusive.

What has been interesting about this thread (for me) is how some people are perfectly happy to deny rights to certain sections of society - because they are 'different'. It would seem that history has taught us very little.


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> MrMan - I have to disagree with this more vehemently than any other point youve made on this thread - I think youre dead wrong. If it went to a national vote I reckon that itd never happen. Not in religious conservative Ireland.


 
I was just using this thread as sample, it would seem that there pro adoption  side are in the minority on AAM. Maybe AAM posters are more liberal than the average Irishman that you seem to have a gripe with. We are traditionally a religious country but it is more fashionable to slag off religion and traditional beliefs than to live with the majority votes.


----------



## MrMan

> As for gay men not being shown enough love by their fathers in childhood - if you can show me a scientific paper to back that up Id be well impressed.
> There are a number of different theories on the subject, none conclusive.


Maybe we should wait until something is conclusive before we make a decision that involves childrens welfare.



> What has been interesting about this thread (for me) is how some people are perfectly happy to deny rights to certain sections of society - because they are 'different'. It would seem that history has taught us very little.


 
I don't deny them the right to have children naturally, so this is hardly an issue that will alter society.


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> There is never going to be a 'proof' on matters of opinion.


 
I was going by a track record not by "let's give gays the right to adopt children because if we don't then they are being discriminated against".

Personally speaking under these circumstance I don't care about whether or not they are being discriminated against because in this issue, for me, the most important thing is the welfare of children nothing more.



truthseeker said:


> Interesting how opinions that differ to your own are referred to as 'yacking on'. Narrow minded?


 
Narrow minded generally speaking "No" but when it comes to children "Yes".

They need an environment where they can learn about how to be a man or a woman that can only be achieved by having the mix of 2 sexes.



truthseeker said:


> So we DO agree on something!!!


 
I must edit that post



truthseeker said:


> As for gay men not being shown enough love by their fathers in childhood - if you can show me a scientific paper to back that up Id be well impressed.
> There are a number of different theories on the subject, none conclusive.


 
If I found something like that would you come over to our side?



truthseeker said:


> What has been interesting about this thread (for me) is how some people are perfectly happy to deny rights to certain sections of society - because they are 'different'. It would seem that history has taught us very little.


 
There you are wrong history has taught us a great deal that's why we generally don't allow gays to adopt...and rightly so


----------



## michaelm

jaybird said:


> Thats not true. I know of two single parents with adopted children (one international adoption, one special needs Irish child), and neither are relatives or widowed.


No doubt you're right.  I was just basing my view on the 'Application for Adoption Order' which seems to be part of our adoption legislation, here.





MrMan said:


> If it went to a national vote it would be probably allowed going by the number of pro gay adoption on AAM, so my opinion  is hardly a threat.


I think not.  AAM is hardly representative of wider Irish society; AAM's membership is proportionally more liberal and enlightened than the general public.


----------



## S.L.F

MrMan said:


> I don't deny them the right to have children naturally.


 
I agree with you there MrMan.

I think they should have the right to be able to have children together if they want, what do you say?

Should it be an election platform?


----------



## S.L.F

michaelm said:


> AAM's membership is proportionally more liberal and enlightened than the general public.


 
Liberal certainly but why enlightened?


----------



## michaelm

S.L.F said:


> Liberal certainly but why enlightened?


I changed from free-thinking to progressive then to enlightened . . I didn't quite mean it though, finessed now.


----------



## S.L.F

michaelm said:


> I changed from free-thinking to progressive then to enlightened . . I didn't quite mean it though, finessed now.


 
Yeah there is a huge bunch of people who live half and half they have kids, go to work, and all that but when they get near a computer they walk around with flowers in their hair singing "Somewhere over the rainbow".


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> Yeah there is a huge bunch of people who live half and half they have kids, go to work, and all that but when they get near a computer they walk around with flowers in their hair singing "Somewhere over the rainbow".


 
I love that.. is that what you do on the weekends?!


----------



## Purple

jaybird said:


> Ok, you're old fashioned. And "forced down your neck"? What, by being never mentioned anywhere? You clicked on the thread, you're hardly being forced into anything.
> And try as you like, liberal is not an insult.



That reminds me of the time that FF decriminalised homosexuality and Jonny Fox from Wicklow (the TD, not the pub) was getting very irate in the Dail during the debate . A FF TD, I think it was McCreevy, said, “Will you relax; we’re making it legal, not compulsory.”


----------



## Simeon

michaelm said:


> I changed from free-thinking to progressive then to enlightened . . I didn't quite mean it though, finessed now.


Have you overstayed at the ashram in Poona? 


Purple said:


> That reminds me of the time that FF decriminalised homosexuality and Jonny Fox from Wicklow (the TD, not the pub) was getting very irate in the Dail during the debate . A FF TD, I think it was McCreevy, said, “Will you relax; we’re making it legal, not compulsory.”



Purple obiously hasn't


----------



## mick1960

I think the main thing is that children are brought up in a loving,nurturing,environment,which is stable,so if this is found through gay marriage and adoption I am all for it.If what we have now is ideal there would be very few children needing to be adopted.


----------



## Smashbox

Nice words Mick. I agree with that.


----------



## MrMan

Smashbox said:


> Nice words Mick. I agree with that.


 
You agree that having parents limited to man & woman is the reason for kids being put up for afoption?
Nice sentiments Mick but there are far more reasons that lead to adoption.


----------



## Smashbox

MrMan said:


> You agree that having parents limited to man & woman is the reason for kids being put up for afoption?
> Nice sentiments Mick but there are far more reasons that lead to adoption.


 
Re-read what the man said!!!


----------



## MrMan

> If what we have now is ideal there would be very few children needing to be adopted.


 
There you go word for word, if what we have now (presumably that is man/woman union) is ideal there would be little need for adoption. That to me is a jibe at the traditional parenting set up.


----------



## Vanilla

Jeeze, are we still debating this? Somebody quickly- start a debate on euthanasia or something.


----------



## Simeon

Vanilla said:


> Jeeze, are we still debating this? Somebody quickly- start a debate on euthanasia or something.



OK Vanilla! I'm behind you in that. One last big group-hug all. 
 Never thought that this subject could raise such dust. Oops, I've just given someone reason to prolong it.


----------



## Purple

I'm all for gay marraige, who would want a depressing one?


----------



## Simeon

Purple, God be with the days when 'gay' meant, er, gay


----------



## baldyman27

You mean the days when men were men and pansies grew in the garden?


----------



## Simeon

No Ducky! This is what I meant ........
[broken link removed] 
 Cartoon from Punch magazine in 1857 illustrating the use of "gay" as a euphemism for being a prostitute.


----------



## baldyman27

Simeon said:


> Ducky


 
I've got a real warm feeling about me now.


----------



## Simeon

You will have when you see me approaching with the Orange Sauce!


----------



## baldyman27

Simeon said:


> You will have when you see me approaching with the Orange Sauce!


 
Now, now. I'm really not into food games. Besides, I've just washed the bedsheets.


----------



## Simeon




----------



## Smashbox

baldyman27 said:


> Now, now. I'm really not into food games. Besides, I've just washed the bedsheets.


 
After the last time?


----------



## Pique318

Simeon said:


> No Ducky! This is what I meant ........
> [broken link removed]
> Cartoon from Punch magazine in 1857 illustrating the use of "gay" as a euphemism for being a prostitute.


Wait....you guys were talking about prostitutes all this time ?


----------



## roland

Pique318 said:


> Wait....you guys were talking about prostitutes all this time ?


 
Prostitutes, murderers, looters, pillagers, charlatans, thieves, racists, dictators.... let them all marry. But for the love of god.... not the gays...!!


----------



## Pique318

roland said:


> prostitutes, murderers, looters, pillagers, charlatans, thieves, racists, dictators.... Let them all marry. But for the love of god.... Not the gays...!!


lol :d


----------



## mick1960

MrMan said:


> There you go word for word, if what we have now (presumably that is man/woman union) is ideal there would be little need for adoption. That to me is a jibe at the traditional parenting set up.


Not a jibe at all,children are also orphaned for a number of reasons.My point
was they should not be denied the right to be loved and cared for in a nurturing loving environment.


----------



## michaelm

mick1960 said:


> My point was they should not be denied the right to be loved and cared for in a nurturing loving environment.


Indeed, and nobody would disagree with those sentiments.  The simple fact is that the very few children who become available for adoption in Ireland are placed in the best possible environment and that the bar on Gay adoption is no disadvantage to these children.


----------



## S.L.F

mick1960 said:


> Not a jibe at all,children are also orphaned for a number of reasons.My point
> was they should not be denied the right to be loved and cared for in a nurturing loving environment.


 
Yes but the point has been made by me and others that being adopted by a gay couple wouldn't be doing a child any favours.


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> Yes but the point has been made by me and others that being adopted by a gay couple wouldn't be doing a child any favours.



An invalid point, in the opinion of others


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> being adopted by a gay couple wouldn't be doing a child any favours.


 
Neither would avoiding gay parents and leaving the kids bounce around the system.


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> An invalid point, in the opinion of others


 


Smashbox said:


> Neither would avoiding gay parents and leaving the kids bounce around the system.


 
Keep singing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz3twu-T15U


----------



## mick1960

Very


----------



## Vanilla

S.L.F said:


> Keep singing
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz3twu-T15U


 

So you agree that in an ideal world...?


----------



## Complainer

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/children-of-same-sex-parents-do-just-as-well-91233.html might be of interest


----------



## S.L.F

mick1960 said:


> Very akin to taking the children off unmarried mothers and putting the children in Industrial Schools I thought we had moved on,but the same prejudiced arguments are still being used.


 
Who suggested any such thing?



mick1960 said:


> Gay people pay as much in taxes as everyone in this country and should have the same rights.


 
I agree if they want the right to have children with their gay partners then off they go.

People keep on going on about gay rights what about the rights of the children not to have their heads wrecked by same sex parents.



mick1960 said:


> Joyce was tried and hounded out of the country because of the prejudice and the laws of his time but is held up now as a great Irishman.


 
*edit last bit I was thinking about Oscar Wilde*

What does this have to do with gay marriage or gay adoption?



mick1960 said:


> Its about time the Laws of today were updated so we do not make the same mistake again.


 
Who says we're making mistakes?



mick1960 said:


> The decline in the amount of children put up for adoption with in the state is down to the change in attitude to lone parents and financial support from the state to all parents.


 
These are the same children that are for the work house I presume?



mick1960 said:


> Gay people have brought up children in the past and will in the future,but now it should be made Legal.


 


Complainer said:


> http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/children-of-same-sex-parents-do-just-as-well-91233.html might be of interest


 
The only way a study of that nature would be of any benefit would be if it were over the course of 50 years not 2 or 3 or even 10.

I will never forget the story of baby twin boys one of who had a problem with his penis and the doc told his mother they would be best taking his sex organs off and bringing him up as a girl.

This doc for years was telling everyone about his great success it was proof in his mind that it was nuture not nature that determined what someone came out like.

Boys could be trained to be girls and vice a versa.

The mother treated the 'girl' like any other girl name 'her' a girls name sent 'her' to school wearing girls clothes.

The 'girl' was dreadfully unhappy wanted to play with boys toys and climb trees and suchlike.

One day listening to the radio the brother heard the doc telling people how he proved his theory that it was nuture not nature that determined which a child was to be, and gave details about 2 twin boys and a rough age.

The Brother told his what he thought was his sister and from that day till this the 'girl' became a man.

He hasn't spoken to his mother since and I really couldn't blame him.

Nature


----------



## Chocks away

S.L.F said:


> Joyce was stupid to be going after the sons of lords and they got him for it.


Where the hell did you get this from? Back to your Irish Literature (under 12s). You may well find out that although both lived in Paris only one fancied Bosie


----------



## S.L.F

Chocks away said:


> Where the hell did you get this from? Back to your Irish Literature (under 12s). You may well find out that although both lived in Paris only one fancied Bosie


 
Off topic...


----------



## mick1960

Lol


----------



## S.L.F

Chocks away said:


> Where the hell did you get this from? Back to your Irish Literature (under 12s). You may well find out that although both lived in Paris only one fancied Bosie


 
Sorry Chocks I was thinking of Oscar Wilde


----------



## Pique318

So S.L.F., if the child is male/female from birth, and raised by straight parents, then how do they 'become' gay ? 
Answer: They don't, they always had that inclination.

So kids raised by gay parents aren't gonna 'have their heads wrecked' or turn homosexual by gay parents any more than by straight parents as nature wins out in human beings who are able to reason and imagine for themselves.  I would hazard a guess that there will be a statistically insignificant difference either way.

It's not as if gays or lesbians would raise a girl as a boy or a boy as a girl, y'know!


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> So S.L.F., if the child is male/female from birth, and raised by straight parents, then how do they 'become' gay ?
> Answer: They don't, they always had that inclination.


 
Answer: They either have female brains in male bodies or male brains in female bodies *or* more likely social factors come into play.

I don't have all the answers I just know what feels right.



Pique318 said:


> So kids raised by gay parents aren't gonna 'have their heads wrecked' or turn homosexual by gay parents any more than by straight parents as nature wins out in human beings who are able to reason and imagine for themselves. I would hazard a guess that there will be a statistically insignificant difference either way.


 
I never said children would be turned homosexual by gay parents intentionally or otherwise.



Pique318 said:


> It's not as if gays or lesbians would raise a girl as a boy or a boy as a girl, y'know!


 
I never said they would and never thought they would either.


----------



## Pique318

S.L.F said:


> I don't have all the answers I just know what feels right.


And that's the crux of it, Ladies & Gennelmen.
There are some things that people will never agree on.
One mans hero is another mans villain etc...

I'm not trying to force my opinions on other people and neither is anyone else trying to do it to me. While I don't agree with their point of view (or even really understand it at times) I accept that it's a valid point of view to have. It may not be PC, but neither are some of mine and there you go.

Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else. If we all thought the same, it'd be a boring bloody world.


----------



## mick1960

A point well made Pique318 But I do disagree with the.....................


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> And that's the crux of it, Ladies & Gennelmen.
> There are some things that people will never agree on.
> One mans hero is another mans villain etc...
> 
> I'm not trying to force my opinions on other people and neither is anyone else trying to do it to me. While I don't agree with their point of view (or even really understand it at times) I accept that it's a valid point of view to have. It may not be PC, but neither are some of mine and there you go.
> 
> Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else. If we all thought the same, it'd be a boring bloody world.


 
You're wrong!!!


----------



## Pique318

mick1960 said:


> A point well made Pique318 But I do disagree with the.....................





S.L.F said:


> You're wrong!!!



Right, the 2 of ye, outside, NOW !


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> I will never forget the story of baby twin boys one of who had a problem with his penis and the doc told his mother they would be best taking his sex organs off and bringing him up as a girl.



The facts of this story are completely different than what you have presented here. You are talking about baby Bruce Reimer, he had a twin brother Brian. The twins went to hospital for routine circumcision surgery and the equipment malfunctioned and burnt Bruces penis off. The family were distraught. Plastic surgery was not an option in the 60s. Even today doctors will not reconstruct a baby boys penis because of problems when the child starts to grow.

The family saw a televison program about Dr Money, a sexologist and wondered if he could help them, at this point they had a disfigured baby boy and conventional medicine could do nothing for them. The doctor convinced them a sex change would work out, and persuaded them to raise Bruce as Brenda. The believed the psychological effects of a male with no penis would be worse for the child, plus the doctors theory of a gender-gate up to 2 years of age was unproven.



S.L.F said:


> This doc for years was telling everyone about his great success it was proof in his mind that it was nuture not nature that determined what someone came out like.



Studies performed were incorrect, this was the 60s, some of the doctors theories were workable, unfortunately this one was not. We know a lot more about gender now than we did then.



S.L.F said:


> The mother treated the 'girl' like any other girl name 'her' a girls name sent 'her' to school wearing girls clothes.



On the advice of a highly intelligent and charismatic doctor who had persuaded her she was doing the best for her child. Instead of a badly disfigured male child she was trying to raise a 'normal' female child.



S.L.F said:


> The 'girl' was dreadfully unhappy wanted to play with boys toys and climb trees and suchlike.
> 
> One day listening to the radio the brother heard the doc telling people how he proved his theory that it was nuture not nature that determined which a child was to be, and gave details about 2 twin boys and a rough age.




In fact due to the childs confusion and upset the family themselves told her the facts when she was 13 years old. She immediately reverted to living as male and named herself David.



S.L.F said:


> The Brother told his what he thought was his sister and from that day till this the 'girl' became a man.



Unfortunately that day til this is a fallacy, David committed suicide at the age of 38.



S.L.F said:


> He hasn't spoken to his mother since and I really couldn't blame him.



He was in fact back living with his parents when he took his own life, he never blamed his mother, it was a botched operation and a bad decision by another doctor that caused the whole sorry tale. He was seperated from his wife, and in a state of distress about the seperation when he moved back to his parents and took his own life.

I dont see what any of this has to do with gay parenting though. Are you confusing sexuality and gender? Gay men do not think they are women trapped in mens bodies. Nor would I expect gay parents to be operating on children to reassign their gender.


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> I dont see what any of this has to do with gay parenting though. Are you confusing sexuality and gender? Gay men do not think they are women trapped in mens bodies. Nor would I expect gay parents to be operating on children to reassign their gender.


 
The point I was making is you can't play god with childrens lives!

Which is exactly what those doctors have done they played god.

They have disproved the nurture over nature theory and it cost a man his life.


----------



## Pique318

S.L.F said:


> The point I was making is you can't play god with childrens lives!



Why, who's trying ?

What has 'god' got to do with this (gay marriage/adoption by gay parents) thread ? And which 'god' in particular ?


This thread has gone off on one strange tangent !


----------



## S.L.F

Pique318 said:


> What has 'god' got to do with this (gay marriage/adoption by gay parents) thread ? And which 'god' in particular?


 
Now Pique I had to bring *you* into it at some point.


----------



## Pique318

S.L.F said:


> Now Pique I had to bring *you* into it at some point.


Bless you, my child


----------



## Simeon

Vanilla said:


> Jeeze, are we still debating this? Somebody quickly- start a debate on euthanasia or something.


Hey, that would kill it for sure!


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> The point I was making is you can't play god with childrens lives!
> 
> Which is exactly what those doctors have done they played god.
> 
> They have disproved the nurture over nature theory and it cost a man his life.



But SLF, what happened in that particular situation (which I might add was a particularly unusual and tragic case and not the norm by any standards) was that the doctor persuaded the parents that what was being done was best for the child after an horrendous accident. It is also worth noting that the doctor in question believed the parents delayed too long and missed the 'gender gate'. Ultimately they were trying to protect their child from the horror of being a male with no penis.
It has no bearing on an upbringing by gay parents. ALL parents 'play god' with their children and do what they think is best at the time - the parents sexuality has no bearing on that particular aspect of parenting.

Are you afraid that gay parents would somehow 'turn' a child gay? If thats what the fear is then I would think the proof is quite clear that thats not how people develop a particular sexual preference - otherwise there would never be a gay child of straight parents.


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> ALL parents 'play god' with their children and do what they think is best at the time - the parents sexuality has no bearing on that particular aspect of parenting.


 
The boy I was referring to had doctors telling his parents they could change his sex which they could not.

My point was also that we, men and women; boys and girls, are different does it not follow that we need the differences (parents of 2 sexes 1 man and 1 woman) in life to get our heads striaght.



truthseeker said:


> Are you afraid that gay parents would somehow 'turn' a child gay? If thats what the fear is then I would think the proof is quite clear that thats not how people develop a particular sexual preference - otherwise there would never be a gay child of straight parents.


 
I didn't at any stage suggest that adopting gay parents would try to convert their adopted children to the gay way of life.

There is no proof one way or the other what turns people gay.


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox not bad you are up to 326 posts in your thread...


----------



## truthseeker

S.L.F said:


> My point was also that we, men and women; boys and girls, are different does it not follow that we need the differences (parents of 2 sexes 1 man and 1 woman) in life to get our heads striaght.



Unless a child is raised in total isolation from the other sex and no differences ever alluded to or explained then I cant see how itd make any difference.


----------



## truthseeker

jaybird said:


> I grew up without a father. Does that mean I don't understand men or relationships between men and women?



Well clearly if you didnt have the balancing factor of two opposite sex parents in your life you are now confused, dont have your head straight, dont understand gender roles, cannot relate to men, and in fact - are only partially developed mentally, completely missing that vital male balancing influence. I hope for your sake that your mother wasnt in fact a lesbian or you are REALLY in a lot of trouble


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> Smashbox not bad you are up to 326 posts in your thread...


 


Not bad for a man who wasn't coming back!


----------



## S.L.F

jaybird said:


> That doesn't follow in the slightest! You've used your story (full of errors though it was) to prove that people are how they are and that no-one can change that, and then you argue that we need the gender role influences of our parents in order to understand how it all works. Aren't those 2 positions contradictory?
> I grew up without a father. Does that mean I don't understand men or relationships between men and women? Of course it doesn't, not in the slightest. Unless you are arguing that children are generally imbeciles who cannot derive any information/knowledge/whatever about people and relationships from outside their most immediate family, then I don't see what the make up of your immediate family has to do with it.


 


truthseeker said:


> Well clearly if you didnt have the balancing factor of two opposite sex parents in your life you are now confused, dont have your head straight, dont understand gender roles, cannot relate to men, and in fact - are only partially developed mentally, completely missing that vital male balancing influence.


 
Finally Truthseeker you are making sense.



Smashbox said:


> Not bad for a man who wasn't coming back!


 
Yeah I know awful isn't it.

Anyway I refuse to have an argument with 3 women.

I have had rows with women all my life and have never won a single one.

I'm going to do what I normally do in this situation...I'm off to the pub...


----------



## Smashbox

See ya..


----------



## Yoltan

MrMan said:


> I could be wrong, but I always believed that marriage was for the union of man and woman to form a family unit, I don't see the benefits in legalising gay marriage except maybe financially for the gay couple, which isn't enough to constitute allow it imo. It's not an anti gay thing I just don't see the real need for it. I would generally be liberal but would prob vote against it should it ever come to that.


 
Are you for real???


----------



## MrMan

Yoltan said:


> Are you for real???


 
No I made it all up, gay people always seem so happy I didn't want to ruin it for them by letting them get married.


----------



## Blossy

i have a close gay friend, he is great! when i first met him i thought he didnt have a care in the world and i envied him. but i learned through the years that he is not happy at being homosexual at times. have been out on a night out years ago and i remember askin him to come to a party and he didnt go, he said that although he enjoys sports etc. he wouldnt be able to sit with a guy and talk about this because, the boy/man would get mocked for hanging with the gay guy all night. this i know was years ago but it brought up the most intersting conversation of my life. My friend said if he had one wish in the world it would to not be attracted to men. he thinks women are wonderful but they just do not sexually attract him. for this he got very upset stating he will watch all his closest friend both male and femal marry before him, he will watch them all have children before him. he longs for a 'normal life' and because of something he has no control over, he cant have this 'normal life'. 
if a man or woman longed to have children, i would prefer them to 'come out' and adpot rather than have heterosexual relationships, have children , in a very unhapy home, with very confused parents, situations, maybe parents resorting to other means/ affairs etc to satisfy thier physical urges which would not be a happy secure home for any child. 

I personally believe that once a child has security and love they will be ok.
the fact that they may be bullied is ridiculus, does that mean dont get a kid braces, its something that can be prevented by not giving him/her braces, perhaps dont give him/her glasses, for the shock they might get bullied. but the fact is, those glasses or braces are whats best for the child and no matter if they are bullied, u comfort them and they know they are loved no matter what happens, its part of parenting and if anyone can understand the pains of bullying etc, i think gay parents would.
i know glasses etc is for the physical well being of the child, but i think same goes for the chance of taking a child from an orphanage or the such. its whats for the best for that child, no matter what

especialy if this thread has anything to go by.

just my opinion. thanks


----------



## Yoltan

MrMan said:


> No I made it all up, gay people always seem so happy I didn't want to ruin it for them by letting them get married.


 
Good point. I actually have gay friends in longer relationships than most straight people's marriages! 

I'm in a same sex relationship for the past 6 years. I would love one single person to give me a decent reason why I should not be allowed marry. 

Also anyone that says "it's not an anti-gay thing" really means "I'm actually homophobic but won't admit it." It's like the good old "I'm not racist but..."


----------



## Simeon

Yoltan said:


> Also anyone that says "it's not an anti-gay thing" really means "I'm actually homophobic but won't admit it." It's like the good old "I'm not racist but..."


I'm not a murderer but I think all ............
I'm not a robber but I think all ............
I'm not an alcoholic but I think all .........
I'm not a hetero but I think all ........
 Why don't you finish the sentence? No heterosexual people whom I know jump up and down shouting "I'm hetero and proud". What's the big deal? Do what you want to do.
 Why make assumptions on what people are thinking by only emphasising their opening gambit? People of all persuasions should be open to fair discussion. These assumptions do not help any side in any discussion.


----------



## S.L.F

Blossy said:


> its whats for the best for that child, no matter what
> 
> especialy if this thread has anything to go by.
> 
> just my opinion. thanks


 
As you say it's what's best for the child.

Yoy say your friend is very unhappy with being a homosexual hardly a good role model I'd have thought.

To me standing up and being proud of what and who you are is a good thing for a child to see and try to mimic, not someone dreadfully unhappy


----------



## S.L.F

Yoltan said:


> I'm in a same sex relationship for the past 6 years. I would love one single person to give me a decent reason why I should not be allowed marry.
> 
> Also anyone that says "it's not an anti-gay thing" really means "I'm actually homophobic but won't admit it." It's like the good old "I'm not racist but..."


 
I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to marry, have the same rights for inheritance or other things.

But when it comes to kids I have to draw the line.



Yoltan said:


> Good point. I actually have gay friends in longer relationships than most straight people's marriages!


 
Maybe you think you do but 99.999999999999999999999% of the population of the world would disagree with you... and me too


----------



## S.L.F

Simeon said:


> Why make assumptions on what people are thinking by only emphasising their opening gambit? People of all persuasions should be open to fair discussion. These assumptions do not help any side in any discussion.


 
Good man Simeon, good post.


----------



## Yoltan

S.L.F said:


> Maybe you think you do but 99.999999999999999999999% of the population of the world would disagree with you... and me too


 
You can disagree with me all you want. All you have to do is look at divorce statistics (amongst hetrosexuals) and the amount of broken families/relationships.

And what's the issue with gay couples adopting /having children? I know gay people with children and they are doing a fantastic job. No better no worse than straight people. Irish people need to drag themselves into a modern society.


----------



## Yoltan

Simeon said:


> No heterosexual people whom I know jump up and down shouting "I'm hetero and proud". What's the big deal? Do what you want to do.


 
It's very clear you don't understand it.

I don't jump up and down. I don't march down O'Connell street because "I'm proud". I live my life and I'm happy with it. But I still think I should have the right to marry.


----------



## Simeon

Yoltan said:


> I don't jump up and down. I don't march down O'Connell street because "I'm proud". I live my life and I'm happy with it. But I still think I should have the right to marry.


From sub Saharan Africa to the North of Canada to the tip of South America, homosexuality is no big deal. It was practiced in China long before Confucius. The Mayans and ancient Greeks took no exception to it. Go to the Boston Museum of modern Art and it is all there catalogued ........ with pottery carving etc. These were all peace loving experiences but you also had the not so peace loving characters like this.
["Much of the history of homosexual love in pre-colonial Africa has probably been lost for good. Pre-colonial Africa was largely made up of non-literate cultures that left no written records and the colonial powers were not inclined to document practices they considered "beastly"; they were already busy suppressing homosexuality at home. However, knowledge of some examples did survive, such as the boy marriage tradition among Azande warriors, and the gay sex customs at the court of the Kabaka (king) of the Buganda. It would be a stretch to call it "gay love" since those who did not submit to penetration - as a result of having recently been indoctrinated into Christian beliefs - were decapitated."]


----------



## Latrade

Simeon said:


> ["Much of the history of homosexual love in pre-colonial Africa has probably been lost for good. Pre-colonial Africa was largely made up of non-literate cultures that left no written records and the colonial powers were not inclined to document practices they considered "beastly"; they were already busy suppressing homosexuality at home. However, knowledge of some examples did survive, such as the boy marriage tradition among Azande warriors, and the gay sex customs at the court of the Kabaka (king) of the Buganda. It would be a stretch to call it "gay love" since those who did not submit to penetration - as a result of having recently been indoctrinated into Christian beliefs - were decapitated."]


 
Just out of interest, what's the source for this? 

In terms of "shouting" about being hetrosexual, well in my experience I've never had the threat of violence, jail or death, because, as a bloke, I fancy women. Add to that I've never had state condoned overt or covert discrimination and religious docterine stating it's my fault when every tornado or disaster strikes.

People simply stating what they are and asking to be treated as any other human being is hardly "shouting". 

As such, anyone unhappy with who they are is more likely to do so because of how society reacts and treats them, from their immediate family and friends to the larger community, rather than any lamentation on not being "normal".

Plus, bullying is an issue, but that's not an excuse not to move on as a society. Continuing to limit the rights of same sex couples only fuels the this bigotry. You can't use the example of bullying at school as a good reason for not allowing adoption, when the bullying is strongly influenced by the general bigotry shown and such policies that clearly state same sex couples are in someway abhorent. 

Not that I'm against bigots, some of my best friends are bigots, but I wouldn't want one moving in next door to me.


----------



## Simeon

Latrade said:


> Just out of interest, what's the source for this?


I'll put it up as soon as I can. My memory is not sexist, it is merely letting me down.
 Hope this satisfies your curiousity: http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/homosexual-traditions.html


----------



## S.L.F

jaybird said:


> *Perhaps *he is unhappy because of how other people treat him, because he isn't allowed to marry a partner of his choosing, and because people tell him he can't have children because he would be terrible at it...and various other reasons stemming from a general discrimination against gay men?


 
Perhaps he is unhappy because his dog died.

Perhaps he is unhappy because he feels his life is wrong.

Perhaps he would be happier if he went to a counselor and got 'cured' of his gayness.

Perhaps pigs will fly.

How many more perhaps' do you want? 



jaybird said:


> I think you vastly over estimate the number of people who would agree with your point of view. Nowhere near 99% of the worlds population would agree with you, thats clear even from the sampling on this thread, not to mention the well known estimate that 10% of the worlds population is gay.


 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yoltan* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=865913#post865913
> _Good point. I actually have gay friends in longer relationships than most straight people's marriages! _
> 
> Maybe you think you do but 99.999999999999999999999% of the population of the world would disagree with you... and me too


 
Whether someone is gay not not they can see the blinding true when they see it.

Do you really believe this post, [quoteYoltan] Good point. I actually have gay friends in longer relationships than most straight people's marriages!





> .
> 
> "Most peoples"....I doubt that very much.


----------



## Yoltan

jaybird said:


> I think you vastly over estimate the number of people who would agree with your point of view. Nowhere near 99% of the worlds population would agree with you, thats clear even from the sampling on this thread, not to mention the well known estimate that 10% of the worlds population is gay.


 
Very well said!!


----------



## Yoltan

S.L.F said:


> Do you really believe this post, [quoteYoltan] Good point. I actually have gay friends in longer relationships than most straight people's marriages!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> "Most peoples"....I doubt that very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do actually. Most of my gay friends are in long term relationships. I would class long term as being over 5 years.
Click to expand...


----------



## Yoltan

Just to be clear, I have never had the desire to marry or have children. I don't believe it's to do with being gay, it's just who I am. My partner and I are both very happy in our relationship and right know don't feel the need to marry (even if we could). We certainly wouldn't run out tomorrow and get married if it became legal today. Maybe that will change, who knows? But I certainly do not feel that I have any right to stop people from having that entitlement. I support it in any way I can.


----------



## Yoltan

coolaboola said:


> I'm Christian (I associate the word 'religious' with a lot of hypocritical behaviour and attitudes so I'm reluctant to use it, but I go to Mass every week).
> 
> I'm married (10 years next week - and still haven't killed each other!). I got married in a church, with a priest, the whole thing.
> 
> I also got married knowing (and being fully open about it) that I didn't want to have kids.
> 
> Friends of mine, a couple (both women), are also married and have recently had a baby. I'm very happy for them and am glad the baby will grow up in a happy, stable home.
> 
> I'm definitely for same-sex marriage. And not just the legal bit. I got married in a church because it meant a lot to me to have my union blessed by God and my community. I'm guessing that for spiritual gay and lesbian couples such a blessing would be important to them too. The only difference between their marriage and mine is plumbing - I chose not to put mine to the purpose that nature intended, just as a couple without the necessary combination of 'plumbing' can choose to get around that problem - with the medical science or by adopting.
> 
> To be honest, I've more of a problem with hetrosexual people too careless with their ability to make babies, making unplanned babies outside of the support and security of a permanent, commited relationship, which is difficult for everyone involved. Or those who choose to marry in a church for whom the ceremony has no spiritual meaning - why not have your wedding ceremony reflect your beliefs and values?
> 
> Anything that supports promotes stable, secure relationships (regardless of the plumbing of the people involved!) and allows people to celebrate their relationships is a good thing by my book.


 
Excellent post coolaboola. Sorry I'm only getting to read it all now. You have a fantastic approach to this issue.


----------



## Blossy

hi, when i said my friend was unhappy, it seems to have come from the fact that he cant have a 'normal' life like others, he woudl love to marry and to raise a family. but as it stands he cant. that is why he isnt happy. he is happy in himself but in his circle, not generalising, he finds it more difficult to find a lasting realtionship and for the other reasons mentioned here, he will have to see all his other friends marry and have children, something he wishes in his life but cant happen until people get over it. unless peoples actions or choices in life cause harm to others, they should be left do as they wish! its a lifestyle choice, a sexual preference something that shouldnt be judged because its not the norm. should dominatrix and the such not be allowed adopt? if there are loving people out there that can raise children in a happy home then let them. if they want to take the final step in showing commitment even to just eachother and not for any other reasons then let them be.


----------



## Latrade

Blossy said:


> should dominatrix and the such not be allowed adopt? if there are loving people out there that can raise children in a happy home then let them. if they want to take the final step in showing commitment even to just eachother and not for any other reasons then let them be.


 
Not sure how that example will go down (pardon the pun). But to me this is the point. In my second sweeping generalisation in as many minutes, the very people opposed to such things as same sex adoption are against "nanny state" tactics and excessive interference from the state. Yet it is fine to ignore that belief and condone what is in effect the state having a say in who can and can't adopt.

The problem is where does their support for state intereference end? What if they state say your political beliefs should prohibit you from adoption? After all, could it be said that fascist tendencies and beliefs could result in a less than balanced child? Why not step in there then? 

If you can't apply the policy across other "abhorent" lifestyles that can also affect the stability of a child, then  we're only left with sexuality being the issue. To say in that case you're not homophobic, in that case, flies in the face of logic.


----------



## Simeon

Most parents I know would like their kids to grow up with the same social mores as themselves. And would like them to be as genetically close as possible. Where does this leave homosexuals who adapt.


----------



## Latrade

Simeon said:


> Most parents I know would like their kids to grow up with the same social mores as themselves.


 
Not necessarily a good thing though, who's to say those social mores are right/shared with the general population. If we say that this point is irrelevant, then the same applies to gay parents. 



Simeon said:


> And would like them to be as genetically close as possible.


 
Sounding very close to eugenics there, not sure what circles you hang out with. But in all honesty, a child of the human variety is as close to "genetically close" as you can expect to get. It also goes against the simple aspect of increased adoptions from China and African nations. Seems like a lot of parent don't care for the "genetics" of a child, they just want to give a child a home and support.



Simeon said:


> Where does this leave homosexuals who adapt.


 
Your logic is flawed I'm afraid. Firslty, your assumption of "most parents you know" being either correct and not just thought up on the spot and that it applies across all parents. 

I assume what you're basically saying is that gay couples will only want gay babies, which is of course a complete load of nonsense. 

Though if you do have any data or reports to back up these assumptions, please do tell.


----------



## Simeon

Latrade said:


> Not necessarily a good thing though, who's to say those social mores are right/shared with the general population. If we say that this point is irrelevant, then the same applies to gay parents.
> Ask any heterosexual parents that you know. Why say the point is irrlevant?
> 
> Sounding very close to eugenics there, not sure what circles you hang out with. But in all honesty, a child of the human variety is as close to "genetically close" as you can expect to get. It also goes against the simple aspect of increased adoptions from China and African nations. Seems like a lot of parent don't care for the "genetics" of a child, they just want to give a child a home and support.
> That may be so. But we are talking about what most people think/do. I had an idea that someone would mention eugenics. While we're on topic here, just as homosexual pairings were frowned upon thirty or forty years ago ......... eugenics may come of age. If and when it does happen there may be a discussion like the present one on the AAM of the day.
> 
> 
> Your logic is flawed I'm afraid. Firslty, your assumption of "most parents you know" being either correct and not just thought up on the spot and that it applies across all parents.
> Yes, across all parents ......... that I know.
> 
> I assume what you're basically saying is that gay couples will only want gay babies, which is of course a complete load of nonsense.
> If they were completely at ease with their selves then they would. Tell me why they wouldn't?
> 
> Though if you do have any data or reports to back up these assumptions, please do tell. Happy?


----------



## S.L.F

Yoltan said:


> Yes I do actually. Most of my gay friends are in long term relationships. I would class long term as being over 5 years.


 
Just to clarify yoltan you said you know gay people who are in long term relationships and then went on to say that they have been together longer than most straight peoples marriages.

Just to clue you in to *reality...*

Most people go out for a couple of years before they get married have you taken this into account in your thought process or are you just comparing going out with someone to going out with someone and then getting married.

Compare like with like.


----------



## Yoltan

S.L.F said:


> Just to clarify yoltan you said you know gay people who are in long term relationships and then went on to say that they have been together longer than most straight peoples marriages.
> 
> Just to clue you in to *reality...*
> 
> Most people go out for a couple of years before they get married have you taken this into account in your thought process or are you just comparing going out with someone to going out with someone and then getting married.
> 
> Compare like with like.


 
Zzzzzzzzzzz.......


----------



## Yoltan

jaybird said:


> You can't compare like with like, as gay people can't get married. I think thats the point!
> 
> Just to clue YOU in to reality....which as you may realise depends entirely on your perspective, out of all the couples I know, of different ages, the two happiest couples I know are gay couples. My uncle married his partner of 25 years a few years ago as soon as it was legalised in their home country, and I can't think of any couple who would have made better parents. They are long term committed, rich, educated, have a fabulous home, a strong social network, and are some of the most loving, caring people I have ever known. The fact that they couldn't have children (if that was what they wanted) is a crime, in my opinion. Any child who got them as parents would have been a lucky kid. Hell, I'm in my 30's and would like them to adopt me!!!


 
Thank you Jaybird. And there are many, MANY couples out there just like them. But some people just don't realise that!!


----------



## S.L.F

Yoltan said:


> But some people just don't realise that!!


 
I'm glad you put a sarcastic smiley beside your last statement


----------



## S.L.F

Any chance of locking this thread?


----------



## Purple

A close friend (since school) and my uncle are the two gay people I know best. My uncle is a bit nuts (nothing to do with being gay) so he’d make a brutal parent but my friend is one of the most balanced people I know. The  issue is not if gay people make good parents, to  me that’s like asking if people with freckles make good parents as the sexual orientation of the parent is completely irrelevant. How could it possible affect the  ability of a person to love a child? The only reservation I have is the bias of others toward an adopted child of a gay couple.
I have been thinking about this a bit over the last few days and I suppose the best solution is to allow gay couples to adopt but retain the criteria that the best interests of the child should be taken into account when selecting adoptive parents. In other words age, marital status, income, mental state, stability of the relationship etc should all be allowed to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of prospective adoptive parents.

I am not saying that I don’t have reservations about the whole issue of gay adoption (and I admit that my reservations may be nothing more than my own subtle bias) but if we are all equal under the law (and I see this as a basic right) then it is logical that the same rights should extend to all. Therefore if I, as a heterosexual man, have the right to marry and/or adopt children then so should a homosexual man or woman. Otherwise we are not all equal and that is not acceptable.


----------



## Yoltan

S.L.F said:


> I'm glad you put a sarcastic smiley beside your last statement


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> A close friend (since school) and my uncle are the two gay people I know best. My uncle is a bit nuts (nothing to do with being gay) so he’d make a brutal parent but my friend is one of the most balanced people I know. The issue is not if gay people make good parents, to me that’s like asking if people with freckles make good parents as the sexual orientation of the parent is completely irrelevant. How could it possible affect the ability of a person to love a child? The only reservation I have is the bias of others toward an adopted child of a gay couple.
> I have been thinking about this a bit over the last few days and I suppose the best solution is to allow gay couples to adopt but retain the criteria that the best interests of the child should be taken into account when selecting adoptive parents. In other words age, marital status, income, mental state, stability of the relationship etc should all be allowed to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of prospective adoptive parents.
> 
> I am not saying that I don’t have reservations about the whole issue of gay adoption (and I admit that my reservations may be nothing more than my own subtle bias) but if we are all equal under the law (and I see this as a basic right) then it is logical that the same rights should extend to all. Therefore if I, as a heterosexual man, have the right to marry and/or adopt children then so should a homosexual man or woman. Otherwise we are not all equal and that is not acceptable.


 
The problem here with your post is that you are thinking singular whereas children need both sexes to have a balanced upbringing.


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> The problem here with your post is that you are thinking singular whereas children need both sexes to have a balanced life.



So if I dropped dead tomorrow my kids would all be screwed up?
There are plenty of children raised by their mothers (and grandmothers) because the father has buggered off. I don't think it is essential but I do think it's desirable. That said children of gay men are not kept away from women (the men in question may even have mothers or sisters!) so it doesn't mean that they will have no female role models. The same is true for gay women.
As I said I have reservations but that should not override basic equality.


----------



## truthseeker

Purple said:


> ...if we are all equal under the law (and I see this as a basic right) then it is logical that the same rights should extend to all. Therefore if I, as a heterosexual man, have the right to marry and/or adopt children then so should a homosexual man or woman. Otherwise we are not all equal and that is not acceptable.



Excellent post, and very articulately made point.

SLF - This balance you keep 'yackking' on about (sorry couldnt resist ). Do you not accept that children will see both male and female role models in ordinary life, at school, through friendships, family etc...


----------



## S.L.F

truthseeker said:


> Excellent post, and very articulately made point.
> 
> SLF - This balance you keep 'yackking' on about (sorry couldnt resist ). Do you not accept that children will see both male and female role models in ordinary life, at school, through friendships, family etc...


 
It's not yackking it's yacking


----------



## DavyJones

truthseeker said:


> . Do you not accept that children will see both male and female role models in ordinary life, at school, through friendships, family etc...




Think of the children, they'd have to watch men kissing. (I Jest, honestly)


----------



## S.L.F

DavyJones said:


> Think of the children, they'd have to watch men kissing.


 
Or other.......er.........things


----------



## MOB

jaybird said:


> ... can you please explain to me what exactly is wrong with me as a person, as I did not have such an upbringing?
> 
> If you are so sure of your position, please clearly explain to me what I missed, and how that affects me as an adult.



It seems that being raised without both a father and mother may have robbed you of a basic appreciation for how statistics are collated and what they mean.  ( Just joking).

We all know smokers who lived to 100.  This doesn't mean smoking is good for you.

We all know heavy drinkers who died at a ripe old age.   This doesn't mean excessive alcohol is good for you.

There are many reputable peer-reviewed studies out there to show that on average, children do much better, and have far fewer behavioural problems, when raised by a father and mother as compared to being raised by a mother only.  This doesn't mean that this is the only way to have a good upbringing. 

 It does mean that - absent better data - a man and a woman as parents is the model proven to produce ( on average) better results than just one parent.  But it is hard to extrapolate to gay marriage and gay adoption -  see my caveats in earlier posts.


----------



## Purple

MOB said:


> It seems that being raised without both a father and mother may have robbed you of a basic appreciation for how statistics are collated and what they mean.  ( Just joking).
> 
> We all know smokers who lived to 100.  This doesn't mean smoking is good for you.
> 
> We all know heavy drinkers who died at a ripe old age.   This doesn't mean excessive alcohol is good for you.
> 
> There are many reputable peer-reviewed studies out there to show that on average, children do much better, and have far fewer behavioural problems, when raised by a father and mother as compared to being raised by a mother only.  This doesn't mean that this is the only way to have a good upbringing.
> 
> It does mean that - absent better data - a man and a woman as parents is the model proven to produce ( on average) better results than just one parent.  But it is hard to extrapolate to gay marriage and gay adoption -  see my caveats in earlier posts.


See I agree with that as well.


----------



## roland

Simeon said:


> No heterosexual people whom I know jump up and down shouting "I'm hetero and proud".


 
And how many homosexual people do you know do this?  As far as I am aware the 'gay and proud' bit is common to marches gay people undertake to attain equality where there are treated on an unequal basis on foot of their sexuality.  It's a bit redundant to refer to the fact that you don't hear heterosexuals shouting 'heterosexual and proud' - is it not obvious that heterosexuals are not discriminated against because of their sexuality and hence have no need for this.  If they were, then clearly they would be jumping and shouting as your suggest.  The 'gay and proud' statement is no different to 'black and proud' or 'free tibet' or whatever other statement a minority chooses to get their voice heard over a majority which has taken a long time to even start listening.  What's the big deal here?  Sick of having to listen to minorities grumbling about rights?  Hmmm....


----------



## roland

S.L.F said:


> Or other.......er.........things


 
What 'other things' do you mean?  I wouldn't even hope to comment on the 'things' children in your company might have been exposed to.  And why would I.  Yet you seem comfortable with what would seem to be a puerile sneer towards a whole section of the community.


----------



## Simeon

roland said:


> And how many homosexual people do you know do this?  As far as I am aware the 'gay and proud' bit is common to marches gay people undertake to attain equality where there are treated on an unequal basis on foot of their sexuality.  It's a bit redundant to refer to the fact that you don't hear heterosexuals shouting 'heterosexual and proud' - is it not obvious that heterosexuals are not discriminated against because of their sexuality and hence have no need for this.  If they were, then clearly they would be jumping and shouting as your suggest.  The 'gay and proud' statement is no different to 'black and proud' or 'free tibet' or whatever other statement a minority chooses to get their voice heard over a majority which has taken a long time to even start listening.  What's the big deal here?  Sick of having to listen to minorities grumbling about rights?  Hmmm....


All these minorities get hijacked eventually. Years ago "SAVE THE HUMPBACKED WHALE" was hijacked by "SAVE THE HUMPBACKED BRIDGE" brigade.


----------



## roland

S.L.F said:


> My point was also that we, men and women; boys and girls, are different does it not follow that we need the differences (parents of 2 sexes 1 man and 1 woman) in life to get our heads striaght.


 
It's hard to believe your contribution to this debate is still fixated on this point about man&woman to the exclusion of any other argument.  The short answer to your question above is 'No'.  It's a lot more complex than that.  The fixation on the exclusion of gay couples from even being _considered_ as potential adoptive parents, who would be made subject to the same screening/criteria as any other couple, is genuinely incredible.  Your statements on this thread have been one-dimensional and really have not gone beyond this one point on man/woman.  I agree with you that it is really beyond time the thread was closed.


----------



## roland

Simeon said:


> All these minorities get hijacked eventually. Years ago "SAVE THE HUMPBACKED WHALE" was hijacked by "SAVE THE HUMPBACKED BRIDGE" brigade.


 
??  What is your point?


----------



## Simeon

jaybird said:


> I did just fail statistics actually!
> 
> I agree with you, in fact, on the whole, the available evidence suggests 2 parents are better than one. But I don't think it hard to extrapolate to gay parenting, I think it impossible.
> Rather it was SLF's continual insistance that children absolutely need a male and a female parent in order to have a decent upbringing without any substantive data to back it up that got my goat. Its just opinion, based on nothing.


OK. Two sets of "parents" one same sex and one hetero .......... both have exactly the same credentials ........... which one would you consider the ideal choice for raising children?


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> See I agree with that as well.


 
Are you sure your parents weren't the same sex...........you seem totally.....confused!


----------



## S.L.F

roland said:


> What 'other things' do you mean? I wouldn't even hope to comment on the 'things' children in your company might have been exposed to. And why would I. Yet you seem comfortable with what would seem to be a puerile sneer towards a whole section of the community.


 
Just so you understand the facts of life which you seem to have forgotten on more than 1 occasion this forum is for jokes and chat.

Can you please point out to us where I sneered at anybody if not please do the decent thing and withdraw that statement


----------



## S.L.F

jaybird said:


> I did just fail statistics actually!
> 
> I agree with you, in fact, on the whole, the available evidence suggests 2 parents are better than one. But I don't think it hard to extrapolate to gay parenting, I think it impossible.
> Rather it was SLF's continual insistance that children absolutely need a male and a female parent in order to have a decent upbringing without any substantive data to back it up that got my goat. Its just opinion, based on nothing.


 
This whole thread is based on opinion nothing more.

I have seen no links, no proof, no smoking gun, no nothing, I'm a father and I suspect several others are parents too.

I'd love to know how many of you are parents


----------



## S.L.F

jaybird said:


> So you keep saying, but with nothing to back it up. If you really do believe that children need both a mother and a father to have a balanced upbringing, can you please explain to me what exactly is wrong with me as a person, as I did not have such an upbringing?
> 
> If you are so sure of your position, please clearly explain to me what I missed, and how that affects me as an adult.


 
I don't know you as a person so how on earth am I supposed to answer that question?


----------



## roland

S.L.F said:


> Can you please point out to us where I sneered at anybody if not please do the decent thing and withdraw that statement


 
I think the Benny Hill-type reference to 'other.....er.... things' says it all really.


----------



## mick1960

Simeon said:


> OK. Two sets of "parents" one same sex and one hetero .......... both have exactly the same credentials ........... which one would you consider the ideal choice for raising children?


That would be great to have a choice of two couples, because the children of two Identical couples ,who have had their children taken off them ,for the children's welfare ,would have a chance to be adopted by a couples who want them and will care for them.


----------



## Simeon

jaybird said:


> If they are both exactly the same, I would give them both a chance. The question is not whether ALL gay couples be allowed to adopt, its whether they should have the same chance to be judged on their individual merits. No 2 couples are ever going to be exactly the same, if there was one child available, I would pick the couple who were best suited to that childs needs. That may be the straight couple, or not, it would depend on their merits and specific situations. Being gay wouldn't come into it, unless there was specific reason why it should in that particular incidence.


You are evading the point. Both sets of parents have exactly the same excellent credentials. Their sexual orientation being the only difference. So, any chance of an answer to a pretty straightforward question. Who, in your opinion, should be the adoptive parents? If you canot give a straight answer, you must be a civil servant


----------



## Latrade

MOB said:


> There are many reputable peer-reviewed studies out there to show that on average, children do much better, and have far fewer behavioural problems, when raised by a father and mother as compared to being raised by a mother only. This doesn't mean that this is the only way to have a good upbringing.
> 
> It does mean that - absent better data - a man and a woman as parents is the model proven to produce ( on average) better results than just one parent. But it is hard to extrapolate to gay marriage and gay adoption - see my caveats in earlier posts.


 
Just to note, there was a report completed earlier this year and it featured in many a press release from some religious "family means man an women" organisations and groups. I'm only presuming this is one of the reports referred to. 

The point is that this report and its predecessors have received a large body of criticism from sociologists. While academic disagreement is nothing new, there are a couple of very big issues with those reports:

1. There was no evidence or link between whether same sex or "traditional" parenting was better. Mainly, there isn't an equal distribution of same sex parents to make the comparisson fair and it the issue of same sex parents hasn't been around long enough to make any judgements. There is no peer reviewed report that can make that statement as there isn't enough evidence.

2. The biggest problem with the recent reports is the distribution of samples. Largely they compared "single parent" families with "traditional" ones. However, the majority of single parent samples were from poor and deprived regions. The large body of "traditional" ones were from middle class areas. They didn't compare like with like and the report(s) doesn't allow for other factors to show why there may be a disfunction among children raised in those situations. A major flaw. File it with the studies showing legalising abortion means reduced crime rates.

In short, there is no study at all that can conclude either way on whether or not same sex parents are a good family unit. There just isn't the distribution of evidence to even begin a conclusive study on this. 

All we are left with is prejudice and personal opinion.


----------



## S.L.F

roland said:


> I think the Benny Hill-type reference to 'other.....er.... things' says it all really.


 
I was answering a post by DaveyJones 



DavyJones said:


> Think of the children, they'd have to watch men kissing. (I Jest, honestly)


 


S.L.F said:


> Or other.......er.........things


 
The other things of course would be dressing up in womens cloths and dancing the Can Can or playing who's the baby today....

The list is endless

Just so you know the time to use a sarcastic smiley, it's just after the statement I just wrote....



Sneering is not something I do at anybody bar bad craftsmen.


----------



## Simeon

Smashbox said:


> If you've been around any US Gossip sites recently (like me!) you may have heard about Miss California stating that she didn't believe in Gay Marraige to Perez Hilton, a gossip website owner who is gay.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0
> 
> Just wondering in an age where people aren't so strict with Religion anymore, are you guys for or against gay marraiges?
> 
> Oh, and please don't make this into a Religious fight.


             Wednesday, May 13, 2009                     
PrevNextJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019

SuMoTuWeThFrSa     12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 


*Ireland:*[broken link removed] Early sunshine replaced by cloud and pat »

                                                           [broken link removed][broken link removed] Email+ [broken link removed] Share+ 
*Children of same sex parents ‘do just as well’*

By Evelyn Ring  
Friday, May 08, 2009
CHILDREN raised in same sex families do just as well as other children living with heterosexual parents, an Irish child expert has claimed. 
Co-director of the Children’s Research Centre at Trinity College Dublin, Prof Sheila Greene, said there was no evidence that children in lesbian and gay families were experiencing the kind of problems that some people had predicted. 

 Prof Greene said: "Children within gay and lesbian families are not any more or less gay, they are not confused and they don’t suffer from mental health problems to any greater or lesser extend than children being reared by a biological mother and father." 

 She said debates about who should and should not parent children in Ireland must be informed by scientific evidence rather than unfounded assumptions, and sometimes biased beliefs, about the outcomes for children in lesbian and gay families. 

 The professor was one of the guest speakers at a national symposium called Marriage Matters for Lesbian and Gay People in Dublin, organised by the National Gay and Lesbian Federation. 

 She said it was now widely accepted that of the many reasons why children develop emotional or behavioural problems, the sexual orientation of parents did not appear to be one. 

 But Prof Greene said being raised by lesbian and gay parents was not plain sailing and she urged parents to be aware of the challenges that their children might face. 

  It was already known from recent Irish research that there was a high level of homophobia and bullying among young people. 

"If children are teased because they wear glasses or because their parents were separated, it was reasonable to expect that children may be teased because of the sexual orientation of their parents. 

"This will mean that children may have bad moments, like any others, not that they will be psychologically scarred or suffer from mental health problem. The important issue is that parents must be tuned into the needs of their children," she said. 

 Meanwhile, well known British-based human rights and gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, said the Irish Government’s proposed civil partnership legislation was a big mistake and an insult to same-sex couples. 

  "It is a rejection of marriage equality. Separate laws for gay people are not equal laws," said Mr Tatchell. 

The campaigner urged the Irish Government not to go down the same road as Britain with its flawed system of civil partnerships.
I hereby close this discussion. It's gotta be true if it appears in the newspaper.


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> Are you sure your parents weren't the same sex...........you seem totally.....confused!



You've seen my mother then


----------



## Smashbox

Your mother was hot


----------



## S.L.F

Smashbox said:


> Your mother was hot


 
Purple's mum certainly is hot.

Hey Purple any chance of an introduction?

I promise you won't have to call me dad............son.


----------



## Smashbox

S.L.F said:


> I promise you won't have to call me dad............son.


 
In a pervy old man way. Nice.

Purple, I'll try and find a bargain alert for the bearded lady.. I mean.. your mam..


----------



## Chocks away

Has anyone read Amanda Platell's essay on same sex couples adapting, in today's Mail On Sunday? What do you think of the article?


----------



## Smashbox

I missed it. Is it available online?


----------



## Chocks away

I imagine so. It was yesterday. Will have a look and post if there.


----------



## Chocks away

Here it is. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ATELL-Insults-betray-bigotry-gay-zealots.html


----------



## Smashbox

Thanks Chocks. An interesting read I guess.


----------



## roland

Chocks away said:


> Has anyone read Amanda Platell's essay on same sex couples adapting, in today's Mail On Sunday? What do you think of the article?


 
Amanda Platell? Mail on Sunday? ESSAY? The same Amanda Platell who was sacked as editor of the Sunday Express for the gratuitous reporting of Peter Mandelson's sexuality? The same Amanda Platell who is snug with Richard Littlejohn, possibly the most right-wing homophobic and unbalanced journalist this side of the planet? Give us a break. If you want a balanced view, don't go to the Mail on Sunday. And most of all, don't go to Amanda Platell. We all deserve a bit better than that.

Just read the first sentence: she is whining about reactionary statements from, and I quote, 'militant gay propagandists'. Wow, I wonder what they do during the day. Probably dressed in black and have knives too I imagine. Even for Amanda that's a pretty reactionary description. But, worse is to come. To prove her gay credentials, she mentions that she has had friends that died from Aids. Proof if ever you needed she was on the side of the gays.....

God, I had forgotten how awful the Mail was. This is right up there with one of the worst pieces of journalism I've ever read. But perhaps I should read the Mail more often before I say that. Does it not go without saying that reactionary statements of the kind the dear Amanda refers to, much less this sort of risible article, are completely unhelpful to either side in a debate? Don't let them become the debate.


----------



## Caveat

Well said roland.


----------



## michaelm

roland said:


> Amanda Platell?  This is right up there with one of the worst pieces of journalism I've ever read.


Ok, so you don't have any love for Amanda, and this is standard Mail fare . . but many will agree with her contention that "in its rabid attempt to defend the rights of gay couples, it [British Association For Adoption And Fostering] overlooks the rights of adopted and fostered kids to be raised with a mother and a father."

Everyone will agree that the rights and best interests of the child are paramount and the vast majority will agree that, where possible, a child being adopted is entitled to an adoptive mother and an adoptive father, to fulfill the roles of a natural mother and father.

The simple realities, vex you as they may, are that a marriage is a union of a man and a woman - if this was a Mail article they'd probably say 'The Adam and Eve model not the Adam and Steve model ' - and this arrangement is afforded constitutional protection; in Ireland the number of married couples looking to adopt dwarfs the number of children available for adoption so there is no pragmatic necessity to widen the criteria for adoption.


----------



## S.L.F

michaelm said:


> in Ireland the number of married couples looking to adopt dwarfs


 
I read that wrong


----------



## Smashbox

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *michaelm* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=869908#post869908
> _in Ireland the number of married couples looking to adopt dwarfs_
> 
> I read that wrong




They adopt dwarves?


----------



## michaelm

I don't know much about the UK system but a quick look at the BAAF website suggests that 75% of  children are placed for adoption within 12 months of a best interest decision.  Also, it seems that heterosexual couples account for more than 90% of adoptions and the average age of an adopted child is 4.  I'm not sure that tallies with your 'cute little healthy babies' observation.  

I find your profiling of who adopts who interesting: so you're contention is that selfless and generous "non-traditional" parents are queuing up to adopt special needs/older/sibling groups etc whereas selfish hetero couples only want cute babies? is this your opinion or is there supporting data?  If you're right about the selflessness, generosity and open mindedness, and given that there is no bar on Gay adoption in the UK, then surely there would be no children waiting to be adopted.  If there is a shortfall in prospective adopters then the UK should consider curtailing intercountry adoption for a time.

BTW I would feel that anybody willing to adopt any child exhibits a wealth of selfness and generosity (even traditional couples).


----------

