Same sex couples and their human rights

R

RMCF

Registered User
Messages
1,432
I listened to the debate on The Last Word today about the right of same sex couples to have children.

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

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

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

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

I know this is a whole can of worms, but I believe what I believe. Nature works in a certain way for a reason.
 
RMCF said:
They cannot do it themselves, so why should we give it to them?
Click to expand...

God help any straight couple that cannot have kids if thats your point. Thats the most bigoted statement i have ever read here.
 
and one more point - 'their human rights' Glad to know you have more human rights than anybody else!
 
But 'straight' couples get married and try to have children in the understanding that they can physically have them.

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

I dont know what position you are in, in terms of married, dating, have kids? But when you meet somebody, is your first thought...kids - I doubt it. And what if you wanted kids but couldnt medically - is it tough because its not natural?
 
But fundamentally my argument is why they should have the 'human right' to have children? I think everything else in the debate is getting in the way of this question.

Why should they automatically have this right? I'm arguing if you give them this right then surely we are opening up cases where others can claim other thigns as their 'human right'?
 
I think the point is that if gay people are equal under the law then they should have the same rights as anyone else. Once you discriminate because of sexual orientation you are de facto demoting them to second class citizenship.

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

But when they meet the realise there is the possibility of kids even accidentally, not so in the other case.
 
I agree with you RMCF. I have no problem with gay people at all but two men or two women are simlply not capable of producing a child naturally, so to me that answers the question. It seems to be an extension of the "I am entitled to everything" culture.
 
I'm firmly with RMCF & Lightswitch on this one too. Kids are not commodities. There is no automatic 'right' to have them. From a purely biological point of view (I don't believe in 'God' any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa or the Tooth Fairy) I would contend that offspring of any species should be raised by a male and female of their said species. Should a male or female of any species choose to pair themselves with a like gender of the same species then they have to accept that that precludes some things, such as the ability to have offspring.
 
I've no idea why people think that there is some connection between what people get up to between the sheets and their parenting ability.

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

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

Give me one good single parent or two good gay parents over two crap straight parents any day.
 
No one has the right to have children, but every child has the right to a family.
 

Well said. Nail, head.
 
Ancutza said:
I would contend that offspring of any species should be raised by a male and female of their said species.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

By all means let two gay people get married, but why must they have the automatic right to adopt children, simply because they can't have them? And this whole argument about some 'straight' couples being bad parents - the way you listen to the pro's of gay couples, you'd think they would all automatically make great parents. There is every likelihood that they would be as rubbish and uncaring as 'straight' couples can be.
 
Ancutza, do you think that a single mother who ends up in a loving stable relationship with another woman should have their children taken away?

What about two same sex people who don't have a sexual relationship? I don't have sex with my wife in front of my children; I presume this is the norm, so unless others do I don't see why what they do or don't do when they go to bed should matter in the context of parenting.
Should children being raised by their mother and grandmother be taken away? What about those being raised by their father and grandfather?
 
what happens when one partner already has a child from a previous relationship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register