Same Sex Parenting - For it or against it?

[968]

PoleDriver said:

Man and woman have intercourse, produce a baby, they are parents.

Same sex couple adopt child, they are guardians!

IMHO

So if a child is subjected to abuse by natural parents and then adopted by another childless couple (straight or gay) the parents are actually the abusers by your logic, and the adoptive parents just guardians?

[PoleDriver]

968 said:

PoleDriver said:

Man and woman have intercourse, produce a baby, they are parents.

Same sex couple adopt child, they are guardians!

IMHO

So if a child is subjected to abuse by natural parents and then adopted by another childless couple (straight or gay) the parents are actually the abusers by your logic, and the adoptive parents just guardians?

I don't see how parental abuse would alter this... Are you saying that adoptive parents/guardians never abuse their wards?

And in answer to your question, yes!

Parents are the natural creators of the child, I agree with the (unshortened) phrase 'adoptive parents' as an alternative to guardian but there should be some recognition for true biological parents!

I did say, this was IMHO!

[rich1231]

Poledriver,

Ponder this

You know of a child that was made an orphan at a young age.

The child id then adopted.

at schol the child talks about the adoptive parents as his/her parents.

Would you correct them to guardians?

[968]

PoleDriver said:

968 said:

PoleDriver said:

Man and woman have intercourse, produce a baby, they are parents.

Same sex couple adopt child, they are guardians!

IMHO

So if a child is subjected to abuse by natural parents and then adopted by another childless couple (straight or gay) the parents are actually the abusers by your logic, and the adoptive parents just guardians?

I don't see how parental abuse would alter this... Are you saying that adoptive parents/guardians never abuse their wards?

And in answer to your question, yes!

Parents are the natural creators of the child, I agree with the (unshortened) phrase 'adoptive parents' as an alternative to guardian but there should be some recognition for true biological parents!

I did say, this was IMHO!

I was giving you a hypothetical situation which occurs frequently. Most often the adoptive parents do NOT go on to abuse the child, however, in my opinion you are wrong. I daresay the child would also feel you are wrong to recognise the rights of abusers over and above loving parents, no matter how unbiological there association.

[PoleDriver]

I probably phrased my original satement a little wrongly, then got sidetracked.

It's more of a biological situation than an actual naming issue. I was not really suggesting what the parents/guardians/carers should be named. (I agree that it is sometimes better for adopted children not to even know they are adopted!) I'm more concerened with what the people actually are.

If they conceived and bore the child together they are parents.
If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

[GilbertGutbucket]

Although overall I don't agree 100% with same sex surrogacy or adoption, but if the kid grows up happy, loved and obviously in this 'money no object' case well catered for, then I don't see it being a problem.

In 5/10 years time his peers will accept him as 'normal', the same as more so now with the Royal's children or as in the past with the increase of mixed race kids etc.

I would not like to see a 'male nanny' being employed, IMO some sort of female input into his upbringing would be vital.

My biggest concern would be Elton's age, he'll be 80 if he survives to when this boy reaches 18. Furnish will be a more acceptable 66 years old, not great but more acceptable.

TBH I wish good luck to Zakary, Elton and Furnish but IMO this surrogacy will be a benchmark that other same sex partners contemplating the same will be keenly observing. Time will tell.

[968]

PoleDriver said:

I probably phrased my original satement a little wrongly, then got sidetracked.

It's more of a biological situation than an actual naming issue. I was not really suggesting what the parents/guardians/carers should be named. (I agree that it is sometimes better for adopted children not to even know they are adopted!) I'm more concerened with what the people actually are.

If they conceived and bore the child together they are parents.
If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

Yes it is. Both for the child and the law would consider adoptive parents as parents. Biology doesnt entitle someone to be a parent. I wouldnt consider Joseph Fritzl to be the parent of any of the children he fathered, do you?

[PoleDriver]

968 said:

PoleDriver said:

I probably phrased my original satement a little wrongly, then got sidetracked.

It's more of a biological situation than an actual naming issue. I was not really suggesting what the parents/guardians/carers should be named. (I agree that it is sometimes better for adopted children not to even know they are adopted!) I'm more concerened with what the people actually are.

If they conceived and bore the child together they are parents.
If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

Yes it is. Both for the child and the law would consider adoptive parents as parents. Biology doesnt entitle someone to be a parent. I wouldnt consider Joseph Fritzl to be the parent of any of the children he fathered, do you?

I wouldn't let him anywhere near them... But he is still the biological father, that can never change!

[Hugo a Gogo]

PoleDriver said:

If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

that#s pretty bloody insulting to a lot of people

[968]

PoleDriver said:

968 said:

PoleDriver said:

I probably phrased my original satement a little wrongly, then got sidetracked.

It's more of a biological situation than an actual naming issue. I was not really suggesting what the parents/guardians/carers should be named. (I agree that it is sometimes better for adopted children not to even know they are adopted!) I'm more concerened with what the people actually are.

If they conceived and bore the child together they are parents.
If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

Yes it is. Both for the child and the law would consider adoptive parents as parents. Biology doesnt entitle someone to be a parent. I wouldnt consider Joseph Fritzl to be the parent of any of the children he fathered, do you?

I wouldn't let him anywhere near them... But he is still the biological father, that can never change!

Yes but he is not the parent.

[PoleDriver]

Hugo a Gogo said:

PoleDriver said:

If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

that#s pretty bloody insulting to a lot of people

Not intentionally!

[blindswelledrat]

Hugo a Gogo said:

PoleDriver said:

If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

that#s pretty bloody insulting to a lot of people

As well as just a bit stupid.


Definition of parent: a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian

[C8PPO]

Poll said:

19% in favour of unnatural parenting vs 58% against

Justayellowbadge said:

C8PPO said:

quite strongly that he didn't agree with same-sex parenting

Blimey.

What a truly repellent viewpoint.

Gratifying, however, to know that my "repellent" views are in the significant majority.

[Halb]

C8PPO said:

Gratifying, however, to know that my "repellent" views are in the significant majority.

Why gratifying?
(I myself voted for don't care, though a 'not my business' would be closer.)

[Kermit power]

Hugo a Gogo said:

PoleDriver said:

If they adopted the child they are not parents, what they choos to call themselves is not an issue!

that#s pretty bloody insulting to a lot of people

Indeed. I only know a handful of people who have been adopted, so not a scientific survey, but they themselves (as the people who matter) invariably refer to their parents and their biological parents.

They view "adoptive" as irrelevant, as they know exactly who gave them the love and care a child has a right to expect from their parents.

[Hugo a Gogo]

C8PPO said:

Poll said:

19% in favour of unnatural parenting vs 58% against

it's quite obvious that 'don't care' is tacit approval

obviously not many people are saying 'yeah, gay parents are way better than boring old straight folk'

[fluffnik]

Hugo a Gogo said:

it's quite obvious that 'don't care' is tacit approval

obviously not many people are saying 'yeah, gay parents are way better than boring old straight folk'

It's not a situation in which I'll ever be involved but I have no problem with it whatsoever.

[C8PPO]

Hugo a Gogo said:

C8PPO said:

Poll said:

19% in favour of unnatural parenting vs 58% against

it's quite obvious that 'don't care' is tacit approval

I don't follow your reasoning, but I suspect that any of the main political parties would employ you in a trice if you were to suggest that you headed up their electoral reform programme. However, even if your crack team of hamsters were to count the vote and return the results with the supposition that your position is correct, there is still a significant majority against. 58:42 when I posted.

@Halb - gratifying given JAYB's mild apoplexy at my original post.

[captainzep]

C8PPO said:

Gratifying, however, to know that my "repellent" views are in the significant majority.

At first I doubted that the majority of people would think like this. But on reflection we do live amongst an ageing population of sterile, beige Howard and Hildas whose dogmatic, sneering disregard for anything different drives healthy Daily Mail and indigestion tablet sales.

[blindswelledrat]

C8PPO said:

[I don't follow your reasoning, .

Its pretty obvious isn't it? Its scarecely obscure reasoning.
I voted "I don't care" for exactly the reasons mentioned above i.e I don't care what sex the parents are-it's barely relevant. There is nothing to be "Pro" about. I dont care, for me, meant of course they should. There shouldn't even be a discussion about it. If a couple are capable parents then thats all that matters.