Same sex couples and their human rights

[Complainer]

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.

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.

While technically correct, this misses the point completely. It is far from impossible for gay people to have children. Many gay people have children from previous relationships. For many gay women, all they need is a helping hand from a male friend (or an online semen bank) to bring a child into their relationship. For gay men, it is a bit more complicated, but surrogacy (formal or informal) is certainly an option.

So gay couples can have kids. Get over it.

As others have said, let's now focus on what is best for the children (whether biological or adopted).

 

[MrMan]

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.

You can take from my words as you please but the gist of my post was that maybe and I repeat maybe because through natural means only we can only provide human life through sex between a man and a woman then maybe we are meant to parent in this way too.
The argument about infertile people is valid but unfortunate circumstance is the reason for this whereas a gay man has a certainty of never conceiving a child if he only has sex with men.

 

[MrMan]

While technically correct, this misses the point completely. It is far from impossible for gay people to have children. Many gay people have children from previous relationships. For many gay women, all they need is a helping hand from a male friend (or an online semen bank) to bring a child into their relationship. For gay men, it is a bit more complicated, but surrogacy (formal or informal) is certainly an option.

So gay couples can have kids. Get over it.

As others have said, let's now focus on what is best for the children (whether biological or adopted).

My point is valid and as soon as people can get passed the fact that differing opinions have a place in this argument too the sooner they might realise that popular opinion isn't always correct.

 

[Latrade]

My point is valid and as soon as people can get passed the fact that differing opinions have a place in this argument too the sooner they might realise that popular opinion isn't always correct.

As far as I can see no one is disagreeing with that point. All it has done is raised the question that if ability to conceive naturally means you aren't fit to be considered a parent, then that has bigger consequences outside of same sex couples.

So are those who aren't able to conceive "naturally" are to be excluded from all adoption rights?

What aspect of natural conception makes you a good or bad parent?

People are entitled to hold differing views, the problem as I see it is that rather than be open and just say they have a problem with homosexuality and gay couples being parents as a result of this, they try to hide behind vague generalisations and logical fallacies.

Let's face it, objection to this legislation has nothing to do with ability to conceive, in effect it's people trying to play God by deciding who can and can't be a parent and denying a child the right to be brought up in a loving family.

 

[Complainer]

My point is valid and as soon as people can get passed the fact that differing opinions have a place in this argument too the sooner they might realise that popular opinion isn't always correct.

I've no problem with differing opinions.

I have a problem when people try to pretend that their differing opinion has some basis in biology, when it is clearly nothing to do with that.

 

[Vanilla]

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.

Aahhh, the ugly truth rears its head.

I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=110978

 

[truthseeker]

Aahhh, the ugly truth rears its head.

I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=110978

Thanks Vanilla - I already said everything I need to say on the subject in the last thread.

Its one of those circular arguments that will never be resolved because it depends on how people feel about homosexuality rather than whats right or wrong.

 

[MrMan]

As far as I can see no one is disagreeing with that point. All it has done is raised the question that if ability to conceive naturally means you aren't fit to be considered a parent, then that has bigger consequences outside of same sex couples.

So are those who aren't able to conceive "naturally" are to be excluded from all adoption rights?

What aspect of natural conception makes you a good or bad parent?

People are entitled to hold differing views, the problem as I see it is that rather than be open and just say they have a problem with homosexuality and gay couples being parents as a result of this, they try to hide behind vague generalisations and logical fallacies.

Let's face it, objection to this legislation has nothing to do with ability to conceive, in effect it's people trying to play God by deciding who can and can't be a parent and denying a child the right to be brought up in a loving family.

I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.
We unfortunately have evolved to the current times whereby many unsuitable parents raise children and that cycle continues but that is our own doing.
So the union of a man and woman was meant for procreation with the added bonus of pleasure thrown in. Infertile or sterile couples are unfortunate and together they can still form a union that follows natures intended link.
It's a different thought process I admit, I have nothing to hide, this is an anonymous forum so if i wanted to gay bash i wouldn't need subtlety to do it. My opinion offends you and complainer and no doubt others, should I change because I am different to you?

 

[MrMan]

I've no problem with differing opinions.

I have a problem when people try to pretend that their differing opinion has some basis in biology, when it is clearly nothing to do with that.

I have no desire to mislead you with my opinions, so take what I say as what I mean or make idle assumptions, it is entirely up to you.

 

[Sunny]

I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.
We unfortunately have evolved to the current times whereby many unsuitable parents raise children and that cycle continues but that is our own doing.
So the union of a man and woman was meant for procreation with the added bonus of pleasure thrown in. Infertile or sterile couples are unfortunate and together they can still form a union that follows natures intended link.
It's a different thought process I admit, I have nothing to hide, this is an anonymous forum so if i wanted to gay bash i wouldn't need subtlety to do it. My opinion offends you and complainer and no doubt others, should I change because I am different to you?

Nobody is asking you to change. They are simply asking you to be honest when you are discussing it. It is obvious that you find homosexuality un-natural and wrong even if you don't want to admit it. Sorry if that's an idle assumption but there you go. That's what forms your views on the rights of gay people to adopt children. It's not based on the idea that gay people make bad parents or because they can't procreate naturally, they shouldn't have children.
I don't agree with your views but I respect them. I just don't agree with hiding your views behind some ridiculous idea about nature and it's intended link. There is homosexual behaviour exhibited in most species as well as humans so are you saying that nature had no role in that?

 

[truthseeker]

I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.

Following this rationale - should we not intervene with antibiotics in the case of infections, treatment in the case of cancer etc..
Should women who bottle feed have their children taken off them?
If its as nature intended - should we leave it alone?

 

[MrMan]

Nobody is asking you to change. They are simply asking you to be honest when you are discussing it. It is obvious that you find homosexuality un-natural and wrong even if you don't want to admit it. Sorry if that's an idle assumption but there you go. That's what forms your views on the rights of gay people to adopt children. It's not based on the idea that gay people make bad parents or because they can't procreate naturally, they shouldn't have children.
I don't agree with your views but I respect them. I just don't agree with hiding your views behind some ridiculous idea about nature and it's intended link. There is homosexual behaviour exhibited in most species as well as humans so are you saying that nature had no role in that?

People are offended by an honest viewpoint yet I am supposed to accept being called a liar?
I don't think homosexuality is un-natural I just believe that we tend to learn from nature through observation and as far as I can see nature only allows man and woman to procreate together. No assumption just fact. Same sex couples can't procreate together, another fact and they have never been able to and never will be because survival of the species is doing just fine.
If I found that I preferred the company of men or entered a loving relationship with a man I would go into it with the knowledge that the relationship will be a childless one.

 

[Sunny]

People are offended by an honest viewpoint yet I am supposed to accept being called a liar?
I don't think homosexuality is un-natural I just believe that we tend to learn from nature through observation and as far as I can see nature only allows man and woman to procreate together. No assumption just fact. Same sex couples can't procreate together, another fact and they have never been able to and never will be because survival of the species is doing just fine.
If I found that I preferred the company of men or entered a loving relationship with a man I would go into it with the knowledge that the relationship will be a childless one.

So people with fertility problems shouldn't be allowed kids? If I found out my girlfriend couldn't have children, I should just accept that I will never have a family?

 

[MrMan]

Following this rationale - should we not intervene with antibiotics in the case of infections, treatment in the case of cancer etc..
Should women who bottle feed have their children taken off them?
If its as nature intended - should we leave it alone?

Yes indeed and burn some books while you're at it. Why do opinons always seem to go to the extreme when trying to quash an argument?
If you look around you, you will see that treatments are derived from nature aswell. As the planet is becoming more and more over populated there could be an argument that our 'evolvement' will have a detrimental effect on us all in time to come, but lets just leave me be as a homphobe for the moment before we move on to my darker population control tendencies.

 

[MrMan]

So people with fertility problems shouldn't be allowed kids? If I found out my girlfriend couldn't have children, I should just accept that I will never have a family?

And we have come full circle. Accept what you like.

 

[Complainer]

I am following a logical line of thinking in that nature has left us with a means to sustain the species, and that way is for a man and woman to procreate. My thinking follows on that if nature has always had this method then there must be something to it.
We unfortunately have evolved to the current times whereby many unsuitable parents raise children and that cycle continues but that is our own doing.
So the union of a man and woman was meant for procreation with the added bonus of pleasure thrown in. Infertile or sterile couples are unfortunate and together they can still form a union that follows natures intended link.

There is no doubt that nature (or evolution or God - take your pick) has left us with the process for male/female procreation. This certainly is the most effecient process to produce offspring, but it is not the only process. IVF and surrogacy also exist. Homosexuality also exists in the animal kingdom. Male/female offspring doesn't have a great track record in producing great parents.

It's not the only game in town.

Same sex couples can't procreate together, another fact and they have never been able to and never will be because survival of the species is doing just fine.

Oh yes they can!

 

[Sunny]

And we have come full circle. Accept what you like.

That's because you haven't answered it. I assume since you have no problem with homosexuality, you are against people having children through IVF, surrogate parents, adoption or anything that doesn't involve a man and a woman having actual sexual intercourse.

 

[MrMan]

There is no doubt that nature (or evolution or God - take your pick) has left us with the process for male/female procreation. This certainly is the most effecient process to produce offspring, but it is not the only process. IVF and surrogacy also exist. Homosexuality also exists in the animal kingdom. Male/female offspring doesn't have a great track record in producing great parents.

It's not the only game in town.

I understand that life can be artificially created and there are ways around infertility, my point seems to be getting lost though. I'm not dealing in fact just theory when I say that if nature points at something we should look at it. Nature says man+woman = child, i say why deviate from that?
Infertile couples can still make that same equation except they don't have all of the necessary components to follow through.
I'm not convinced by the notion of surrogacy, but I can understand the yearning for children that leads to IVF etc.

 

[truthseeker]

Nature says man+woman = child, i say why deviate from that?

Nature says man+woman MAKE child.
Nature says nothing about who raises a child.

 

[Purple]

Nature says man+woman MAKE child.
Nature says nothing about who raises a child.

That's it in a nut shell.

I have some reservations that, taking the biases of society into account, a same sex couple would be the best placed to raise an adopted child. I can see where people are coming from with that argument (though I think it falls down when you ask what equality really means) but I think the "it's against nature" argument is nonsense.
In practice social services etc will put children with families that they think are best suited to raising the child in question. They will take age, colour and sexual orientation etc into account. If the interests of the child comes first then I see no problem with that. If the best couple for the job is a gay couple I see no problem with that either.