Same Sex Parenting - For it or against it?

[Scraggles]

Scrubs said:

Scraggles said:

good chance of a boy adopted by 2 gays of becoming gay himself, guess the same for a girl and 2 lesbians

How can you expect people to take you seriously with comments like that?

read a report with words to that effect, found the same sort of stuff here, here and here

mixture of sites, try a us government one now
"Cameron's (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation) sons and daughters was confirmed"

Maybe the researchers got it wrong as well ?

[Tiggsy]

dandarez said:

The kid could grow up having a good life (normal? what's bloody normal anymore in this crazy mixed up world?).

The money's there, but that won't stop kids being kids.
Whatever nickname or non-nickname Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John gets at school, the one thing that will happen for absolute sure, is:

'Hey Zach, is that your grandad come to collect you?'

Right, cause that will screw him up. Sure he rather be collect by some hetrosexual Asda shopping, legging wearing, obesse mong of a mum from the local st hole school in a 20 year old Feista.

[Busa_Rush]

CommanderJameson said:

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex advocates have yet to provide any proof that a same sex "family" is as good as a male/female partnership. There's a good reason why a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't create a baby . . . it's not a sustainable or desirable situation for the child.

If you'll allow me to suggest that you mean "evidence" when you say "proof" (as "proof" is something to do with drink or mathematics), then you're simply incorrect on this point.

There's plenty of linked evidence in this thread to support the assertion that gays make decent parents.

I couldn't see any despite looking at perhaps half the pages in the thread. Was the research of good standing scientifically ? If the MMGW fiasco has taught us non-scientists anything it should be to look very carefully at any suggested evidence. Last time this topic came round there was no evidence other than a few leftie articles looking at a handful of selected people.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Busa_Rush said:

CommanderJameson said:

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex advocates have yet to provide any proof that a same sex "family" is as good as a male/female partnership. There's a good reason why a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't create a baby . . . it's not a sustainable or desirable situation for the child.

If you'll allow me to suggest that you mean "evidence" when you say "proof" (as "proof" is something to do with drink or mathematics), then you're simply incorrect on this point.

There's plenty of linked evidence in this thread to support the assertion that gays make decent parents.

I couldn't see any despite looking at perhaps half the pages in the thread. Was the research of good standing scientifically ? If the MMGW fiasco has taught us non-scientists anything it should be to look very carefully at any suggested evidence. Last time this topic came round there was no evidence other than a few leftie articles looking at a handful of selected people.

You're perfectly correct, actually. MMGW deniers are very similar to (the more intelligent) gay parent deniers in ignoring the science that doesn't suit them, while convincing themselves they're just being skeptical

[deeps]

Somewhatfoolish said:

You're perfectly correct, actually. MMGW deniers are very similar to (the more intelligent) gay parent deniers in ignoring the science that doesn't suit them, while convincing themselves they're just being skeptical

A classic example of how to shoot yourself in the foot in blissful ignorance!

[vit4]

Undecided. It makes me feel very uneasy, and I know that I would not be comfortable if I had two dads. However by the same token, what IS 'normal' in today's world?

I think that I err towards the side of 'against' regarding adoption, but quite strongly against surrogate mothers. As it is a relatively new development in society, I think we will have to see the long-term effects on the children before I make my own judgement; indeed there may not be any in which case, all well and good But as said, 100% against the test-tube babies, when there are so many children in need of adoption. (That applies to straight couples too... although it doesn't press my buttons in the same way, admittedly. If I knew exactly why then I would explain, but it just makes me feel 'uneasy'. I have nothing wrong with gay relationships, but the same-sex parenting is where it gets tricky for me.)

My two pence anyway

[Silver Smudger]

wiggy001 said:

Now, I know we do a lot of things that are against nature. IVF for those that can't conceive is one of them and I have no issue with that. We are simply making up for a medical condition in the same way as we are when we take penicillin. A same sex couple that cannot conceive is not a medical condition. It is a fact of nature. It can't happen and I don't believe we should enable it to.

This is the central point to the question - Why should we enable same sex parenting, when it does not naturally occur?

I have no problem with someone who is gay, believes they are gay or chooses to be gay. I cannot tell you which of these is the case for anyone. How they wish to live, what they do sexually and with whom is no concern of mine. If a same-sex couple wish to have a child, then let them retire to the bedroom and attempt to do so. I do not think that their failure to conceive is likely to be treatable though.

Marf said:

CONTENTIOUS SUPPOSITION ALERT!!: Perhaps homosexuality is natures evolutionary way of stemming the tide of humanity's population growth?

As I understand it, evolution tries all sorts of different variations on the theme of life and those that are useful or successful survive and prosper. Someone else pointed to a list of animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour. This either has a benefit for the species or does no harm, sometimes it is even part of the process of procreation, but it does not mean that it is a useful activity for the benefit of the human species.

I would say that if it is an evolutionary variation in humans then it is likely to be selected against in the long run.

stitched said:

Being the son of a mother who had him for financial gain, who I assume is quite happy never to set eyes on him.

This, I think is the saddest part of the story. Plenty of children need adopting already for all sorts of misfortunes - Why deliberately create one for adoption?

[HundredthIdiot]

The state should not have control over who is allowed to raise children, with the obvious exception of abusive situations.

Since the simple fact of parental sexuality does not constitute abuse, it is none of the state's business, and none of mine.

[DonkeyApple]

Silver Smudger said:

wiggy001 said:

Now, I know we do a lot of things that are against nature. IVF for those that can't conceive is one of them and I have no issue with that. We are simply making up for a medical condition in the same way as we are when we take penicillin. A same sex couple that cannot conceive is not a medical condition. It is a fact of nature. It can't happen and I don't believe we should enable it to.

This is the central point to the question - Why should we enable same sex parenting, when it does not naturally occur?

I have no problem with someone who is gay, believes they are gay or chooses to be gay. I cannot tell you which of these is the case for anyone. How they wish to live, what they do sexually and with whom is no concern of mine. If a same-sex couple wish to have a child, then let them retire to the bedroom and attempt to do so. I do not think that their failure to conceive is likely to be treatable though.

Marf said:

CONTENTIOUS SUPPOSITION ALERT!!: Perhaps homosexuality is natures evolutionary way of stemming the tide of humanity's population growth?

As I understand it, evolution tries all sorts of different variations on the theme of life and those that are useful or successful survive and prosper. Someone else pointed to a list of animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour. This either has a benefit for the species or does no harm, sometimes it is even part of the process of procreation, but it does not mean that it is a useful activity for the benefit of the human species.

I would say that if it is an evolutionary variation in humans then it is likely to be selected against in the long run.

stitched said:

Being the son of a mother who had him for financial gain, who I assume is quite happy never to set eyes on him.

This, I think is the saddest part of the story. Plenty of children need adopting already for all sorts of misfortunes - Why deliberately create one for adoption?

I don't think anyone can argue that it is natural but I personally don't feel that the 'natural' argument stacks up as well as others think.

Shannon Matthews' and Baby P's mothers gave birth naturally etc, but they are examples of absolutely appaling mothers/parents.

If every family in the UK were a hapily maried man and woman, both competant at raising children then the argument would have much more credence but this isn't the case.

We all know only too well just how shockingly bad some parents are and how disfunctional most modern families are in the UK.

In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. So long as the child is loved and raised as well as the parents can manage then as wierd as it is I really don't see enough of a problem for anyone to argue more than casually against.

[Busa_Rush]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Busa_Rush said:

CommanderJameson said:

Busa_Rush said:

Same sex advocates have yet to provide any proof that a same sex "family" is as good as a male/female partnership. There's a good reason why a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't create a baby . . . it's not a sustainable or desirable situation for the child.

If you'll allow me to suggest that you mean "evidence" when you say "proof" (as "proof" is something to do with drink or mathematics), then you're simply incorrect on this point.

There's plenty of linked evidence in this thread to support the assertion that gays make decent parents.

I couldn't see any despite looking at perhaps half the pages in the thread. Was the research of good standing scientifically ? If the MMGW fiasco has taught us non-scientists anything it should be to look very carefully at any suggested evidence. Last time this topic came round there was no evidence other than a few leftie articles looking at a handful of selected people.

You're perfectly correct, actually. MMGW deniers are very similar to (the more intelligent) gay parent deniers in ignoring the science that doesn't suit them, while convincing themselves they're just being skeptical

Yeeees . . . . well . . . . I think you've aid all that's necessary here

[JagLover]

HundredthIdiot said:

The state should not have control over who is allowed to raise children, with the obvious exception of abusive situations.

Since the simple fact of parental sexuality does not constitute abuse, it is none of the state's business, and none of mine.

I would strongly agree in the case of surrogacy arrangements, which are arrangements between consenting adults and should be none of the states business.

In the case of adoption however the state is often already 'in control' of the children. So whereas I would argue that red tape should be drastically reduced in this area the state must surely have some role?

[Ozzie Osmond]

What I want to know is if two gay people can adopt a child why can't three gay people adopt a child??

[HundredthIdiot]

JagLover said:

In the case of adoption however the state is often already 'in control' of the children. So whereas I would argue that red tape should be drastically reduced in this area the state must surely have some role?

Sure, if the child is in State care the State is effectively the parent. Dunno about red tape - that's an issue of process rather than policy.

I'd rather hand a kid over to a young gay couple than an old hetero couple, all else being equal. I just don't think that parental sexuality is that important.

My son is five, and asks the usual amount of questions for his age. He informed me that girls have to marry boys, then I pointed out that his uncle had a boyfriend, and he just shrugged and accepted it. It's the 21st century FFS, and whilst older kids will find any reason to be evil to each other I don't think that ten year olds should be deciding our adoption policies.

[GTIR]

Scraggles said:

guess the same for a girl (turning gay) and 2 lesbians

Hmm.

In some ways I hope that's true but on the other hand I'm not sure of the long term effects on said child.

What about when the "partnership" starts when the girls is say 9yo?




(edited scraggles post as it looked a bit pervy as is)



ETA I voted yes to same sex parenting, due to the fact I may turn gay one day.

Edited by GTIR on Sunday 2nd January 14:52

[Willie Dee]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

Some seriously bigoted and short sighted views in this thread

On Piston Heads?!?! Well I never!

[Hugo a Gogo]

Ozzie Osmond said:

What I want to know is if two gay people can adopt a child why can't three gay people adopt a child??

quite right

and (off topic) if two people can have a civil partnership, why not 3 or 4, or brothers and sisters, or just friends?