Same sex couples and their human rights

RMCF said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because they are equal under the law.

I agree, so what?
 
tiger said:
what happens when one partner already has a child from a previous relationship?
Click to expand...

I don't see how this would be an issue at all. Its not like my argument is that existing children should be taken away.

We are talking about having 'new' children given to them as a right of being a married couple.
 
Purple said:
Because they are equal under the law.

I agree, so what?
Click to expand...

Because the "better to be in a loving, gay family than an unloving straight family" line is trotted out all the time as some sort of reason for it to happen, thats why.
 

The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live. It is but one opinion just as valid as your own.

Nobody is suggesting that we have a perfect society, but if we all lived as we should and as nature intended then things would be better.

It may be hugely offensive to you but that is how debates tend to go. Personal attachments and experiences tend to colour our thoughts but they don't lend anymore weight to your argument.

'Give me one good single parent or two good gay parents over two crap straight parents any day.'
What really does this add to the argument?
 
do you think that a single mother who ends up in a loving stable relationship with another woman should have their children taken away?
Click to expand...
No. The children in this instance are the mothers and her rights take precedence.

Should children being raised by their mother and grandmother be taken away? What about those being raised by their father and grandfather?
Click to expand...
Equally no.

I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. What we are talking about is the right of a same-sex couple to adopt a parentless child who is up for adoption.

Where a child is available for adoption I think that that child should, in the first instance, be offered to a heterosexual childless couple. If no such couple is found then the child should be offered to a heterosexual couple with children. Under such circumstances, and given the historical imbalance between kids available for adoption and the number of heterosexual couples seeking to adopt, it would be inconceivable that such a child would be made available to a same-sex couple for adoption. That is proper order IMO.

My own parents tried to adopt a child in the early eighties when they already had myself and my sister. They were rightly turned down. They did eventually (and two additional kids later) succeed in adopting my now 21 year-old brother in 1989 but that was at the specific request of his then 15 year-old biological mother who stayed with them during her pregnancy because of the 'shame' her situation would have visited on her family in the village from whence she came.
 
I see your next argument coming Purple and I admit I don't have an answer for it!
 
tiger said:
what happens when one partner already has a child from a previous relationship?
Click to expand...

RMCF said:
I don't see how this would be an issue at all. Its not like my argument is that existing children should be taken away.
Click to expand...

But it is an issue, as the current legislation doesn't allow the parent's new spouse to adopt their children. You end up with the non-biological parent having no rights to the child they are raising.

If the biological parent dies, would you think it right that the child is then taken away into care and placed with your idyllic hetero couple? Should they lose both the people who have been raising them in one fell swoop?
 
Berni said:
But it is an issue, as the current legislation doesn't allow the parent's new spouse to adopt their children. You end up with the non-biological parent having no rights to the child they are raising.
Click to expand...

My friends husband (not the biological father) adopted her child in the last 10 to 15 years. The biological father never sought any contact despite repeated invitations before and after my friend married.

I agree it shouldn't be automatic, especially if the biologial parent is involved in rearing the child, but it was certainly allowed.

Back on topic, I don't agree that someones sexual preference should have any bearing on whether or not they should be allowed to adopt.
 
lightswitch said:
but two men or two women are simlply not capable of producing a child naturally, so to me that answers the question.
Click to expand...

RMCF said:
I was questioning their 'right' to have children, despite the fact that they can't.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every 'traditional' straight couple seeking to adopt children in Ireland today are unable to have their own children. Following your logic, they should NOT be allowed adopt either, as they are not capable of producing a child naturally. And I presume you would wipe out the IVF clinics too - we don't want all those infertile couples having kids - right?

Ancutza said:
No. The children in this instance are the mothers and her rights take precedence.
Click to expand...

RMCF said:
I don't see how this would be an issue at all. Its not like my argument is that existing children should be taken away.
Click to expand...
This really does expose the lack of logic in your arguement. If you feel that gay couples cannot be fit parents, then why would you leave children in their care?

Just so I understand this, are you saying that homosexuality is unnatural? What is your view on oral sex and anal sex between straight couples - are these considered to be 'unnatural' too?
 
Love is love - what difference does the parents sexual orientation make?

You forget that they are still people with wants and hopes - they want children and hope to have them someday, just like straight people do. Yes, their sexual preference makes that difficult for them but it should not stop them and nor should any law. A parent should be determined by they capacity to provide and love a child and I personally think sexual orientation should not come into it.

If my partner or I (heaven forbid) were to find ourselves infertile I would fight tooth and nail to give a child a loving home. I would do the same if I were gay. I know I am capable of giving a child a wonderful home with loving parents and that is what matters. Yes, I would consider it my human right to adopt a child.

Are you also against surrogates for same sex couples?
 
MrMan said:
The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live.
Click to expand...

Nature doesnt intend - it evolves. There is no design. Nature has left us with a useless appendix, skeletal issues from walking upright, a nerve that traverses all the way up and down a giraffes neck needlessly, and a variety of other 'dud' left overs.

Culture plays an important part in behaviour. Do you think nature 'intended' us to wear clothes, eat with a knife and fork, drive cars, sit at comouter desks? Of course not - but as a species we evolve to accomodate these things.

Many human societies have chosen different methods of child rearing than the modern western standard of a 'family unit' - to suggest that the modern western standard is the only correct way is simply historical/cultural arrogance.
 
This thread is funny. People should just be open and admit they have issues with homosexuality instead of hiding behind some ridiculous argument about how gay people shouldn't have kids because they can't naturally conceive.
 
I see no reason why a child should be made to live its life through the care system when there are couples who would provide complete care and support for that child just because of what some consider to be "natural" or not.

From this thread and the arguments used against the legislation I don't actually hear much in the way of reasoned arguments against why same sex couples can't adopt and be recognised as parents. All I hear is that as a couple they are incapable of having children "naturally" or that they aren't a family.

So what is a family? What's our model for a "family"? As much as I love my parents, they weren't perfect, they made mistakes, they have their faults, prejudice, lack of reasoning, as does any human. How is a same sex couple going to be any different? Just tell me the tangible, specific trait that opposite sex couples have in parenting over same sex that precludes the latter?

Sexuality is just one small (well depends how absorbed you are by the deed on a daily basis) aspect of being a human. Preferring one sex over another doesn't suddenly wipe out all other human emotions, feelings, needs and empathy.

Outside of just not liking their lifestyle there is no actual, rational, logical, tangible reason why same sex couples cannot be parents.
 
So far in this thread I've seen very few comments get this argument the right way around. This should not be about what the adults want or what their rights are. It should be about what is right for the children and what their rights should be. So those making the argument that gay couples cannot have kids and therefore should not be allowed adopt children are completely missing the point here. This is not about an alternative way for gay couples to raise children. The whole point of adoption is to find a suitable caring and loving home for the children. So for that reason I can see no logical argument for excluding gay couples from the list of potential candidates when looking for homes for these children.
 
Complainer said:
Just so I understand this, are you saying that homosexuality is unnatural? What is your view on oral sex and anal sex between straight couples - are these considered to be 'unnatural' too?
Click to expand...

No I'm saying natural procreation happens between 2 members of the opposite sex, I presume homosexuals understand that when they have sex there is no fear/hope that a child may result from the experience.

As for oral or any other type of sex, it's all good. I just don't understand how a viewpoint that states that it is only natural for hetero couples to procreate leads to insinuations of homophobia, but there you go that's just the world we live in.
 

And in the billions of years of evolution we have ended up with clothes and forks, yet homosexual sex still won't result in pregnancy.
 
MrMan said:
The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live.
Click to expand...

That is homophobic. You make it sound like homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
Just because you are gay doesn't mean you don't have the same paternal instincts as hetrosexual people. Gay men might want to be dads and gay women might want to be mams. Who are you to say that their sexuality stops them from having kids because they can't procreate 'naturally'. Even though there are thousands of hetrosexual couples who can't procreate 'naturally' either and have to resort to IVF, adoption, surrogacy etc to have kids.
 
I think that society ( and I do not agree with this by the way) would have a far easier time allowing 2 women to adopt a child rather that 2 men and because it would not be possible to discriminate against male couples like this it would be impossible to introduce adoption for gay couples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register