Gay Marraige For or Against

Status
Not open for further replies.
Definitely not anti-gay , but I do not believe marraige should be recognised and certainly no adoption of children to gay couples..
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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".
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
So, Vanilla! Would you rather have gay or hetero parents?
 
Chocks away said:
So, Vanilla! Would you rather have gay or hetero parents?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register