Gay Marraige For or Against

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 ?