Same Sex Parenting - For it or against it?

[Busa_Rush]

captainzep said:

wiggy001 said:

Apologies Kermit, the sarcasm comment was aimed at the previous poster with nothing useful to add, not you.

OK.

Here's something new to add.

From the fairly conservative, capital punishment favouring Florida courts (Re: Gill case Sept 2010)

"Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pd...

More context on pages 16-17

"beyond dispute" . . . like man made climate change ? The science is settled . . . ?

Nature requires mammals to have a male and female to reproduce. The male and female have different characteristics in life . . . which makes them better suited to particular tasks . . . there are always exceptions but on the whole, a mum and a dad are required for reproduction and are the best fit for bringing up children. Physiology makes it so . . . not opinion.

Same sex couples bringing up children may be allowed in law but it's never going to work as well as a male and a female. Good luck to them, they'll need it . . . it's always harder to swim against the tide than with it, and by tide I mean nature, not opinion.

[Swilly]

In terms of same-sex parenting, marriage and the like etc etc we are simply at the beginning of a societal shift that has similarly occurred in the past in terms of religious and racial integration and the breakdown of the class system.

Once upon a time marrying outside your class in this country would have more than likely seen you shunned by your own and the class you married into.

More recently marrying into a different race in this country (for race read skin colour) would similarly have seen you shunned by both.

Marriage between different religions in this country has always and still is a cause for social strife, moreso in the bygone days when following the wrong religion would see you persecuted/burned at the stake for it.

Having children out of wedlock was until recently in this country massively frowned upon by society. Now single parents are only condemned by the right wing politicians and media.

The negative side of the public reaction to same-sex parenting is therefore just the next fad, the next chapter in our social drama to be played out and then forgotten.

[Swilly]

Busa_Rush said:

captainzep said:

wiggy001 said:

Apologies Kermit, the sarcasm comment was aimed at the previous poster with nothing useful to add, not you.

OK.

Here's something new to add.

From the fairly conservative, capital punishment favouring Florida courts (Re: Gill case Sept 2010)

"Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pd...

More context on pages 16-17

"beyond dispute" . . . like man made climate change ? The science is settled . . . ?

Nature requires mammals to have a male and female to reproduce. The male and female have different characteristics in life . . . which makes them better suited to particular tasks . . . there are always exceptions but on the whole, a mum and a dad are required for reproduction and are the best fit for bringing up children. Physiology makes it so . . . not opinion.

Same sex couples bringing up children may be allowed in law but it's never going to work as well as a male and a female. Good luck to them, they'll need it . . . it's always harder to swim against the tide than with it, and by tide I mean nature, not opinion.

Considering the vast majority of people grow up in a mother/father or single parent household and there are plenty of stupid, ignorant, fooked up people around i would hardly hold up these parenting combinations as the key to success.

I would more readily point a finger at the substance and quality of parenting as a contributor to a good upbringing rather than the sexual orientation of the parents.

[captainzep]

Busa_Rush said:

"beyond dispute" . . . like man made climate change ? The science is settled . . . ?

Bad example.

MMGW is a busy and vigourous scientific debate with evidence from both sides. Hence the degree of contention.

Same-sex parenting research simply doesn't have the same weight of evidence back and forth to support opposing arguments. Hence the unusually unreserved conclusions of the cited Florida Court and the vast majority of others.

Additionally the time periods are at odds. MMGW is considered over very long periods of time, -centuries and millenia. Longitudinal studies regarding kids only last 15-20 years until early adulthood. Same-sex parenting research has been going on since 1975.

The only real studies cited by anti-same-sex parenting lobbies use research to show the disadvantages of single parenting, -then use this to argue that 2 biological parents is the optimum. -Much to the chagrin of the initial researchers usually.

Edited by captainzep on Friday 31st December 15:31

[CommanderJameson]

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex couples bringing up children may be allowed in law but it's never going to work as well as a male and a female. Good luck to them, they'll need it . . . it's always harder to swim against the tide than with it, and by tide I mean nature, not opinion.

Got any evidence to support that assertion?

[HoHoHo]

CommanderJameson said:

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex couples bringing up children may be allowed in law but it's never going to work as well as a male and a female. Good luck to them, they'll need it . . . it's always harder to swim against the tide than with it, and by tide I mean nature, not opinion.

Got any evidence to support that assertion?

The results of the poll so far would support that theory.

[CommanderJameson]

HoHoHo said:

CommanderJameson said:

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex couples bringing up children may be allowed in law but it's never going to work as well as a male and a female. Good luck to them, they'll need it . . . it's always harder to swim against the tide than with it, and by tide I mean nature, not opinion.

Got any evidence to support that assertion?

The results of the poll so far would support that theory.

The poll results demonstrate that same-sex parenting works less well than mixed-sex parenting in what way?

[HoHoHo]

CommanderJameson said:

HoHoHo said:

CommanderJameson said:

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex couples bringing up children may be allowed in law but it's never going to work as well as a male and a female. Good luck to them, they'll need it . . . it's always harder to swim against the tide than with it, and by tide I mean nature, not opinion.

Got any evidence to support that assertion?

The results of the poll so far would support that theory.

The poll results demonstrate that same-sex parenting works less well than mixed-sex parenting in what way?

Sorry, I misread the post and thought he said opinion.....it's nature!

[JagLover]

stackmonkey said:

Yes you have
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.

I also have limited knowledge of the subject, but I do know you are not restricted to an expensive country like the Usa, state of california (like the route Elton took).

There are are a number of other countries in the world that recogonise surrugacy arrangements in their legal systems and there is a growing number of surrogacy arrangements in places like India and Russia. It will never be cheap, but it can be done for considerable less than a £100k, which puts it within reach of the middle class as well as the rich.

[Frankeh]

I put "I don't care" because "I am for" sounds like I advocate it over normal 1 man 1 woman parenting..

That's not the kind of thing I wanted to vote for.

There's so many kids being born to couples who have zero interest in having children. Accidents if you will.

They fked one drunken night and now they have a sprog they couldn't give a st about.

These are the kind of people that don't deserve children.

I'm an advocate for people in love receiving children that they will love and look after. Sexuality doesn't come into it.

[Frankeh]

After reading a bit more I see a lot of posts that revolve around same sex parents not being natural. Often comparing humans to animals as a way to discern what natural really is.

Well let me ask you this, is it natural that I'm currently communicating my thoughts to hundreds of people from the comfort of my bed?

Is it natural that I'm currently recovering from a nasty illness thanks to some little pills I pop in my mouth every 4 hours?

Is it natural that I can pick up my phone and talk to someone on any continent in the world?

Is it natural that I can go to the USA and back to London in less than a day?

What the hell does natural even mean when we're talking about something as complex as humans. We're fking magnificent.

Normal doesn't come into play, we're anything but normal.

[rb5230]

Frankeh said:

After reading a bit more I see a lot of posts that revolve around same sex parents not being natural. Often comparing humans to animals as a way to discern what natural really is.

Well let me ask you this, is it natural that I'm currently communicating my thoughts to hundreds of people from the comfort of my bed?

Is it natural that I'm currently recovering from a nasty illness thanks to some little pills I pop in my mouth every 4 hours?

Is it natural that I can pick up my phone and talk to someone on any continent in the world?

Is it natural that I can go to the USA and back to London in less than a day?

What the hell does natural even mean when we're talking about something as complex as humans. We're fking magnificent.

Normal doesn't come into play, we're anything but normal.

Great so lets just all start fking eachother. Brilliant reasoning.

I suppose that is just cause to fk the cat too or the goldfish or maybe fk the tv that would be complex. Perhaps the Welsh will soon be able to have ivf so they can have babies with sheep, hey why not if we want to be so liberal, complex and magnificent.

Jeez, not living in the wilderness does not mean we should start doing freaky things and start having ivf at 60 for kids which will end up mental.

If they were not such selfish weirdos this would not be happening.

[Frankeh]

I think you've missed my point.

Anyway, the amount of effort that goes into adoption is 100 times greater than the effort it takes to have a child the 'normal' way.

The normal involves fking each other, then 9 months later a baby pops out. There's slight discomfort along the way, obviously.

No other requirements though. No housing requirements, no proof that you can afford the child, no proof you even love each other or will love the child.

Adoption is the exact opposite.

It takes absolute dedication to get a baby if you're a homo, and if they're willing to go through all that then that's proof enough for me that they're going to love the kid.

They're almost certainly going to give it a better life than the 16 year old chav that conceived it in a strongbow fueled fkfest in the park.

Get off your high horse. So some people like dicks in bums, big woopdedoo.

Edited by Frankeh on Friday 31st December 18:43

[Dixie68]

rb5230 said:

Frankeh said:

After reading a bit more I see a lot of posts that revolve around same sex parents not being natural. Often comparing humans to animals as a way to discern what natural really is.

Well let me ask you this, is it natural that I'm currently communicating my thoughts to hundreds of people from the comfort of my bed?

Is it natural that I'm currently recovering from a nasty illness thanks to some little pills I pop in my mouth every 4 hours?

Is it natural that I can pick up my phone and talk to someone on any continent in the world?

Is it natural that I can go to the USA and back to London in less than a day?

What the hell does natural even mean when we're talking about something as complex as humans. We're fking magnificent.

Normal doesn't come into play, we're anything but normal.

Great so lets just all start fking eachother. Brilliant reasoning.

I suppose that is just cause to fk the cat too or the goldfish or maybe fk the tv that would be complex. Perhaps the Welsh will soon be able to have ivf so they can have babies with sheep, hey why not if we want to be so liberal, complex and magnificent.

Jeez, not living in the wilderness does not mean we should start doing freaky things and start having ivf at 60 for kids which will end up mental.

If they were not such selfish weirdos this would not be happening.

You're a lovely piece of work aren't you?

[rb5230]

Dixie68 said:

You're a lovely piece of work aren't you?

Why thank you, finally a compliment.

This is a thread with people picking on other peoples choice of words and rubbishing them. I was merely continuing the trend of the thread.

Such as saying yes its not natural but hey we are not natural and are magnificent etc etc , and so i was just saying somewhere there has to be a line drawn or people would be doing some seriously fked up things as they seem to be doing in this case.

Do you even have anything to add or are you just here to throw compliments around?

[CommanderJameson]

rb5230 said:

Dixie68 said:

You're a lovely piece of work aren't you?

Why thank you, finally a compliment.

This is a thread with people picking on other peoples choice of words and rubbishing them. I was merely continuing the trend of the thread.

Such as saying yes its not natural but hey we are not natural and are magnificent etc etc , and so i was just saying somewhere there has to be a line drawn or people would be doing some seriously fked up things as they seem to be doing in this case.

Do you even have anything to add or are you just here to throw compliments around?

What is "seriously fked up" about two people bringing up a child, when they happen to be gay?

All the evidence would seem to suggest that the child in such a scenario has at least the same chance at life as any other, and arguably a better one.

So what's the problem?

[rb5230]

CommanderJameson said:

What is "seriously fked up" about two people bringing up a child, when they happen to be gay?

All the evidence would seem to suggest that the child in such a scenario has at least the same chance at life as any other, and arguably a better one.

So what's the problem?

Like i have said numerous times, nobody knows the effect it will have on the child, however psychic you may think you are only time will tell.

The chance of it living a completely normal life with a mum and dad and not getting the piss ripped at school and through his adult life though is non-existent.

And why? Because Elton and his boyfriend are selfish total weirdos (whether they were gay or not) and one wanted a little boy as a Christmas present.

Some people would also ask "at 63 how long is Elton going to be around for his boy anyway?"

[Frankeh]

So we draw the line of "Not natural" at 2 men bumming, but travelling into space and walking on the moon is just fine.

The sooner people get rid of the stupid religion based stigma of homosexuality the better.

And yes, if you think homosexuality is bad it does stem from religious belief. Maybe not directly, but somewhere down the line in you coming up with that opinion there's a religious nut who influenced you.

[CommanderJameson]

rb5230 said:

CommanderJameson said:

What is "seriously fked up" about two people bringing up a child, when they happen to be gay?

All the evidence would seem to suggest that the child in such a scenario has at least the same chance at life as any other, and arguably a better one.

So what's the problem?

Like i have said numerous times, nobody knows the effect it will have on the child, however psychic you may think you are only time will tell.

The chance of it living a completely normal life with a mum and dad and not getting the piss ripped at school and through his adult life though is non-existent.

And why? Because Elton and his boyfriend are selfish total weirdos (whether they were gay or not) and one wanted a little boy as a Christmas present.

Some people would also ask "at 63 how long is Elton going to be around for his boy anyway?"

This thread isn't about Elton John and his newfound sprog, it's about same-sex parenting in general.

The problems that Elton's new child will face aren't related to the sexuality of his dads, they're related to the fact that at least one of them is a monumentally self-centred, narcissistic egomaniac who, by the sheer weight of years, is highly likely to be dead by the time said kid is 20.

There are numerous links to Science Bits in this thread that show that the evidence suggests that kids with gay parents aren't noticeably disadvantaged (or, indeed, more disposed to being gay) by the gayness of their parents.

So what's the problem? Why do you even care?

[rb5230]

CommanderJameson said:

So what's the problem? Why do you even care?

Because i dont believe it is fair on the child. And like i said neither you or i can know either way for sure and only time will tell.