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.
leaving this thread and don't plan to comment anymore unless I see something worthwhile to comment on.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
With adoption I would argue that more than 'love needs to be considered. With raising a child you will need more than love, unfortunately.Love is what it's all about
For those who are still fearful of the gays, let's get things into perspective.
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.
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.
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.
are they not then subject to the exact same rules as everyone else.
what is more important the emotional development of children or the rights of gays to adopt.
For me it's easy...children
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?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.
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.
Of course you need more than love it would be naive to believe otherwise.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?
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.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.
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
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.
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.
What ??Yes they are, children depend on us to make choices for them whereas gays make their own choices, there is a difference
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?