Same Sex Parenting - For it or against it?
Poll: Same Sex Parenting - For it or against it?
Total Members Polled: 482
Discussion
This appears to be one of those threads where social tripmines are laid all over the place.
We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
Edited by ukwill on Thursday 30th December 20:09
Ah, the annual gay adoption thread. 
Usual bollux being spouted, interspersed with a little common sense.
What those who are against evidently don't take into account is that being gay doesn't change your desire/instinct to become a parent and raise a child.
This includes me. My career to date has never been child-friendly, certainly as a single man, so instead i do what i can to ensure that my family's genes continue and look after the other children in my immediate and extended family.
There are masses of human and animal communities where those adults who do not produce children (for whatever reason) help to raise the children of their family to ensure the genes continue.
Usual bollux being spouted, interspersed with a little common sense.
What those who are against evidently don't take into account is that being gay doesn't change your desire/instinct to become a parent and raise a child.
This includes me. My career to date has never been child-friendly, certainly as a single man, so instead i do what i can to ensure that my family's genes continue and look after the other children in my immediate and extended family.
There are masses of human and animal communities where those adults who do not produce children (for whatever reason) help to raise the children of their family to ensure the genes continue.
stackmonkey said:
.
There are masses of human and animal communities where those adults who do not produce children (for whatever reason) help to raise the children of their family to ensure the genes continue.
Its seems thats what a few people on this thread are saying adopt yes, but not 'create' or 'produce' to use your word a new life when for what ever reason you cannot do it naturaly due to being homosexual.There are masses of human and animal communities where those adults who do not produce children (for whatever reason) help to raise the children of their family to ensure the genes continue.
That last sentence of yours makes it sound like you are in agreement with them, Have I missunderstood you?
Edited by Pesty on Thursday 30th December 21:19
ukwill said:
This appears to be one of those threads where social tripmines are laid all over the place.
We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
]
Commonsense I would say. Becoming un-blinkered equates to being enlightened.We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
]
There is one thing in common with everyone who decries same-sex parenting and it is that they cannot actually come up with any logical reason for thier opinion.
This thread is littered with the same old meaningless phrases like 'unnatural' or 'not normal' which are the preserves of people who cannot actually come up with a rational reason for thier own views yet cling to them stubbornly as though questioning themselves somehow amounts to weakness. It's bizarre
blindswelledrat said:
ukwill said:
This appears to be one of those threads where social tripmines are laid all over the place.
We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
]
Commonsense I would say. Becoming un-blinkered equates to being enlightened.We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
]
There is one thing in common with everyone who decries same-sex parenting and it is that they cannot actually come up with any logical reason for thier opinion.
This thread is littered with the same old meaningless phrases like 'unnatural' or 'not normal' which are the preserves of people who cannot actually come up with a rational reason for thier own views yet cling to them stubbornly as though questioning themselves somehow amounts to weakness. It's bizarre
blindswelledrat said:
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.
Now that is unnatural and not normal.
He's talking a hell of a lot of sense.
blindswelledrat said:
ukwill said:
This appears to be one of those threads where social tripmines are laid all over the place.
We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
]
Commonsense I would say. Becoming un-blinkered equates to being enlightened.We are now an enlightened society because we have no hang-up's with same-sex parenting.
I'd love to know who determines that acceptance of this means we are somehow enlightened.
Won't someone think of the children?
]
There is one thing in common with everyone who decries same-sex parenting and it is that they cannot actually come up with any logical reason for thier opinion.
This thread is littered with the same old meaningless phrases like 'unnatural' or 'not normal' which are the preserves of people who cannot actually come up with a rational reason for thier own views yet cling to them stubbornly as though questioning themselves somehow amounts to weakness. It's bizarre
I would suggest that you are entitled to your opinion and the other side are entitled to theirs, neither have to have any rational reasons other than 'I agree' or 'I don't agree' based on their inner feelings of what is right or wrong to them. Sometimes you just don't have to justify, you just have an opinion.
Neither is right or wrong, but both should be tolerated as points of view. If that's not the case, then those opposing are the bigots, and therefore wrong (IMO).
For the record, I'm still not sure that Elton and his 'puppy' (which he clearly is) are becoming parents for the right reasons. He is the ultimate Queen and stroppy git. He has long suggested that children were not going to form part of his life (of course the is very welcome to change his mind) however I don't for one minute believe that child will be brought up within a 'normal' stable and balanced environment. Their lifestyle is one of a music superstar and follower. I wonder how much time either will spend with their child on any given day.
Oh, and yes...... I have gay friends, including one lesbian couple with youngsters, who as far as I'm aware are having a great upbringing and are loved by both parents..........
So I am entitled to my opinion.
Edited by HoHoHo on Thursday 30th December 20:57
HoHoHo said:
Neither is right or wrong, but both should be tolerated as points of view. If that's not the case, then those opposing are the bigots, and therefore wrong (IMO).
No.One opinion is wrong and one is right. One contends that same sex parenting is sub-optimal against a range of measures and the other contends that same sex parenting is not.
It is not like one person liking salt and vinegar crisps best and another favouring prawn cocktail (pun slightly intended). It looks very much like a hypothesis and null hypothesis, i.e. the starting point of a scientific question. Upon which, 3 decades of research seems to go against your viewpoint.
There is no shrugging 'tomayto tomahto' outlook on this one, because above all the personally held views, we live in a society where courts and professionals need to make fair decisions about children and parenting every day. And the weight of human understanding about this topic is that same sex parenting is fine if those parents seem capable.
Edited by captainzep on Thursday 30th December 21:05
captainzep said:
HoHoHo said:
Neither is right or wrong, but both should be tolerated as points of view. If that's not the case, then those opposing are the bigots, and therefore wrong (IMO).
No.One opinion is wrong and one is right. One contends that same sex parenting is sub-optimal against a range of measures and the other contends that same sex parenting is not.
It is not like one person liking salt and vinegar crisps best and another favouring prawn cocktail (pun slightly intended). It looks very much like a hypothesis and null hypothesis, i.e. the starting point of a scientific question. Upon which, 3 decades of research seems to go against your viewpoint.
There is no shrugging 'tomayto tomahto' outlook on this one, because above all the personally held views, we live in a society where courts and professionals need to make fair decisions about children and parenting every day. And the weight of human understanding about this topic is that same sex parenting is fine if those parents seem capable.
Edited by captainzep on Thursday 30th December 21:05
However the results of the poll would suggest otherwise.
Pesty said:
stackmonkey said:
.
There are masses of human and animal communities where those adults who do not produce children (for whatever reason) help to raise the children of their family to ensure the genes continue.
Its seems thats what a few people on this thread are saying adopt yes, but not 'create' or 'produce' to use your word a new life when for what ever reason you cannot do it naturaly due to being homosexual.There are masses of human and animal communities where those adults who do not produce children (for whatever reason) help to raise the children of their family to ensure the genes continue.
That last sentence of yours makes it sound like you are against Elton having a surroage mother make a baby for him. Have I missunderstood you?
I don't mind how they become parents, as such.
Surrogacy, in my limited knowledge of it, seems to be the reserve of the rich, which is fine.
if anything the only problem I have with it, is their age. Helpers or not, 63 is a heck of an age to start a family.
blindswelledrat said:
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.
The poll states "I don't care" and doesn't make clear what the selector doesn't care about. You've inferred one option; equally, a voter could infer that "I don't care" equals "I don't have an opinion". IMO, voting for that option would be akin to abstaining. Abstinence in any poll doesn't give the abstainer the right to pin their colours on one of the more specific options subsequently.
Edited by C8PPO on Thursday 30th December 23:08
C8PPO said:
captainzep said:
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.
Oh that we were all uber-cool and on message, eh?C8PPO said:
blindswelledrat said:
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.
The poll states "I don't care" and doesn't make clear what the selector doesn't care about. You've inferred one option; equally, a voter could infer that "I don't care" equals "I don't have an opinion". IMO, voting for that option would be akin to abstaining. Abstinence in any poll doesn't give the abstainer the right to pin their colours on one of the more specific options subsequently.
Edited by C8PPO on Thursday 30th December 23:08
968 said:
C8PPO said:
captainzep said:
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.
Oh that we were all uber-cool and on message, eh?Edited by C8PPO on Thursday 30th December 23:36
HoHoHo said:
[So in short, if you agree that's fine, but if you don't you're weak and a bigot?
]
Not what I said at all.]
I feel that if you hold an opinion that the rights/worth of a section of society should somehow be restricted and differ from the majority, then you should have a good reason to hold that opinion.
To say "I don't think X should have children/rights/equality because thats my opinion and Im entitled to it" is abhorrent to me.
However if you say "I don't think X should have children/rights/equality because my knowledge of the subject lead me to believe that it has the following negatives on the following people etc" then you are entitled to that opnion.
In short, an ignorant opinion is worthless and makes you a weak bigot.
An subtantiated opinion is valid no matter how abhorrent.
Hope thats clear
blindswelledrat said:
C8PPO said:
blindswelledrat said:
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.
The poll states "I don't care" and doesn't make clear what the selector doesn't care about. You've inferred one option; equally, a voter could infer that "I don't care" equals "I don't have an opinion". IMO, voting for that option would be akin to abstaining. Abstinence in any poll doesn't give the abstainer the right to pin their colours on one of the more specific options subsequently.
Edited by C8PPO on Thursday 30th December 23:08
blindswelledrat said:
...a vote on an internet forum poll? You would have ot actually be insane.
Now ain't THAT the truth! 
blindswelledrat said:
HoHoHo said:
[So in short, if you agree that's fine, but if you don't you're weak and a bigot?
]
Not what I said at all.]
I feel that if you hold an opinion that the rights/worth of a section of society should somehow be restricted and differ from the majority, then you should have a good reason to hold that opinion.
To say "I don't think X should have children/rights/equality because thats my opinion and Im entitled to it" is abhorrent to me.
However if you say "I don't think X should have children/rights/equality because my knowledge of the subject lead me to believe that it has the following negatives on the following people etc" then you are entitled to that opnion.
In short, an ignorant opinion is worthless and makes you a weak bigot.
An subtantiated opinion is valid no matter how abhorrent.
Hope thats clear
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff