Same Sex Parenting - For it or against it?

[Marf]

Prompted by this exchange in the Elton John thread, I thought a poll was in order.

No need to comment, just vote.

P_J_R said:

Justayellowbadge said:

C8PPO said:

deeps said:

Lol V88Dicky, you're a bit out of date mate, he divorced Renata in 1988! His partner is now David, so the kid will be brought up by 2 dads and no mum. I don't think that's right (as in not fair on the kid), but what I think doesn't matter a jot obviously lol.

It's more than "not right" IMO. Yes, I realise that what I'm about to say will unleash the hounds, but I feel very strongly about this "same sex parent" bks. It's wrong, wrong, wrong, and it should be banned by statute. "Oh, but what about their human rights", I hear some tree-hugger say. Well, for me, it's quite simple.

It's variously claimed that homosexuality is either nature or nurture. There is a straightforward response to either hypothesis.

1. Nature. If it's nature, if they "can't help it", then that's tough on them. But it still doesn't give them the right to become parents, rich or not. If I had been born blind, I couldn't become a long-distance lorry driver because I would lack the fundamental biology. Equally, two gay blokes lack a womb. Therefore they cannot have children.

2. Nurture. Nurture can be considered a choice. You can't have your cake and eat it. If you select an un-natural life, you naturally forfeit some of the natural parts of life. Including conception.

It's just fking wrong, plain and simple.

Blimey.

What a truly repellent viewpoint.

Repellent to you maybe; not to the majority of "normal" people I would say.

[Marf]

ShadownINja said:

A minor point for me is that it is a shame they created a new person rather than adopt an orphan.

Yeah I did wonder why they went down that route. The only explanation I could think of was purely down to speed.

It was probably quicker to have a child through surrogacy than go through a formal adoption process. Also surrogacy means one of them is related to the child.

[Marf]

Justayellowbadge said:

Marf said:

ShadownINja said:

A minor point for me is that it is a shame they created a new person rather than adopt an orphan.

Yeah I did wonder why they went down that route. The only explanation I could think of was purely down to speed.

It was probably quicker to have a child through surrogacy than go through a formal adoption process. Also surrogacy means one of them is related to the child.

Didn't they try to adopt and got turned down?

Yes, they tried to adopt in Ukraine but the government did not recognise their civil partnership as a marriage.

[Marf]

I find it rather interesting that one of the first things people come up with when expressing a firm or possible opinion against gay parenting is that "the child might be bullied", rather than "the child will not have a mum/dad".

[Marf]

Eric Mc said:

By and large, I have no problem with the concept, as long as both parents are Frank and Earnest.

Very dry Eric, very dry

[Marf]

"society's morals"

What are those again?

[Marf]

rb5230 said:

Im not into "gay friends" (even if they are called Big Willie or whatever) purely because i dont want to inadvertantly end up in their wk bank

Would you cease to be friends with someone if they came out as gay, and you had previously always thought they were straight?

[Marf]

rb5230 said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

rb5230 said:

So you dont mind if they tell you about the state of their boyfriends asshole after they buggered it silly last night?

seriously, you think about this WAY too much

bit suspicious if you ask me

Well i have heard plenty of banter at times from straight friends about how they annihilated their Mrs last night, had a 3sum butterflying some bird etc etc.

Now if i heard that from a guy about a guy i think i would probably be sick, and would certainly be wondering why i am hanging around with gays.

One more try

Marf said:

rb5230 said:

Im not into "gay friends" (even if they are called Big Willie or whatever) purely because i dont want to inadvertantly end up in their wk bank

Would you cease to be friends with someone if they came out as gay, and you had previously always thought they were straight?

[Marf]

turbobloke said:

ZesPak said:

Wow the results of this poll actually really disappoint me, I thought this was a place with sensible people, but these are actually the same people that wouldn't let white women interfere with black men? And their children, no matter how loved, would be devil-spawn?

Blimey.

With nearly a quarter of a million members, a vote on a general topic on PH is only ever going to reflect society at large these days,

Pffft give over, PH reflecting society? It's far more right wing than most of society, politics polls/discussions make that pretty obvious.

As such the poll results don't really surprise me.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 29th December 15:10

[Marf]

rb5230 said:

Marf said:

Would you cease to be friends with someone if they came out as gay, and you had previously always thought they were straight?

I think we would probably grow apart.

Only reason i know this as it has happened to 2 friends of mine, and they dont really see those friend anymore.

1 of the reasons being: why would you still want to be friends with someone who has been lying to you for years?

Wow. Just wow.

FRom reading your posts I can tell you have no empathy, nor the ability to look beyond your own mindset to attempt understand why someone might choose to hide their sexuality.

Seems to me that it's opinions like this

rb5230 said:

1 of the reasons being: why would you still want to be friends with someone who has been lying to you for years?

that would cause someone to lie to you for years. Perhaps fear of losing what someone might consider to be a good friend would be enough to lie to them.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 29th December 15:13

[Marf]

turbobloke said:

Marf said:

turbobloke said:

ZesPak said:

Wow the results of this poll actually really disappoint me, I thought this was a place with sensible people, but these are actually the same people that wouldn't let white women interfere with black men? And their children, no matter how loved, would be devil-spawn?

Blimey.

With nearly a quarter of a million members, a vote on a general topic on PH is only ever going to reflect society at large these days,

Pffft give over, PH reflecting society? It's far more right wing than most of society, politics polls/discussions make that pretty obvious.

As such the poll results don't really surprise me.

The poll doesn't surprise me either but for a different reason which is that I still hold to the idea that in general people are overall conservative with a small c. A somewhat youthful, car enthusiast site with an IT professional bias might have voted differently but that's not PH these days.

The general election result with nulab's fiddled boundaries and figurehead voting doesn't necessarily show the majority policy politics of the public at large or of this site's membership.

True enough TB, true enough.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 29th December 15:25

[Marf]

MOTORVATOR said:

If as a gay you are not turned on by women, then you are in effect turning your back on the natural urge to evolve your line. Of course the same is true for both sexes.

Surely the very fact that homosexual men and woman want to have children flies in the face of this theory?

Of course you can try and explain it away as wanting trophy children, but that just seems a bit empty and weak to me.

[Marf]

MOTORVATOR said:

Marf said:

MOTORVATOR said:

If as a gay you are not turned on by women, then you are in effect turning your back on the natural urge to evolve your line. Of course the same is true for both sexes.

Surely the very fact that homosexual men and woman want to have children flies in the face of this theory?

Of course you can try and explain it away as wanting trophy children, but that just seems a bit empty and weak to me.

The important bit there Marf is the word 'want'.

Not sure it's that important a word in this context. Having kids continues our race. Whether a childs parents are straight or gay they are both ushering in the next generation.

MOTORVATOR said:

I want a load of money so I should be allowed to rob a bank as opposed to work for it?

Gays adopting kids/using surrogates is not illegal. Robbing banks is. Your analogy is faulty.

Just because someone fancies the same sex, why should that preclude their natural need to procreate?

I'm not sure that anyone can convince anyone of that, its something that you feel, surely?

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the way you word things seems to indicate you feel homosexuality is a choice?

MOTORVATOR said:

You cannot convince me that if you are willing to turn your back on natures manner of procreation you still have the same 'want' as a heterosexual.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 29th December 16:04

[Marf]

The real Apache said:

MOTORVATOR said:

On the other hand if they accept themselves for what they are, and have a thought that they would like to give a less fortunate child a better future than they otherwise would have by adoption, then the case should be judged on the merits of benefits over disadvantages. In particularly ensuring it is not being done for the above trophy purposes.

^^^ there you go, right there

Can't fault that view on it.

[Marf]

Jasey@ said:

Marf said:

No need to comment, just vote.

If only you'd stuck to this

Meh, tell that to the people who responded before me

[Marf]

MOTORVATOR said:

Marf said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Marf said:

MOTORVATOR said:

If as a gay you are not turned on by women, then you are in effect turning your back on the natural urge to evolve your line. Of course the same is true for both sexes.

Surely the very fact that homosexual men and woman want to have children flies in the face of this theory?

Of course you can try and explain it away as wanting trophy children, but that just seems a bit empty and weak to me.

The important bit there Marf is the word 'want'.

Not sure it's that important a word in this context. Having kids continues our race. Whether a childs parents are straight or gay they are both ushering in the next generation.

MOTORVATOR said:

I want a load of money so I should be allowed to rob a bank as opposed to work for it?

Gays adopting kids/using surrogates is not illegal. Robbing banks is. Your analogy is faulty.

Just because someone fancies the same sex, why should that preclude their natural need to procreate?

I'm not sure that anyone can convince anyone of that, its something that you feel, surely?

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the way you word things seems to indicate you feel homosexuality is a choice?

MOTORVATOR said:

You cannot convince me that if you are willing to turn your back on natures manner of procreation you still have the same 'want' as a heterosexual.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 29th December 16:04

I thought you might come back with the faulty analogy which is why I used it. It used to be illegal so my analogy stands, just because some lefties made it alright doesn't solve that one.

Say no more, its a political issue for you so not worth debating, correct?

MOTORVATOR said:

The reason it should preclude their natural need to procreate, if it is indeed that, is because a society could not survive in that manner.

True enough, but why does societies survival have any bearing on the feeling of needing to procreate, for either homo or heterosexuals??

At the moment one could argue that its not really in soceties interest to procreate, theres enough of us buggers already stripping the planet clean.

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

MOTORVATOR said:

Whether it is a choice or not is mute for me, I don't know. I know I didn't make a choice to be heterosexual it just happened.

Just so you know I'm not anti gay, if that is their choice fine.

It's not mute(sic. correct spelling is moot btw) then, is it. You clearly feel it's a choice, hence your last comment. Either that or you're trolling, which judging by past topics I've talked to you in is out of character for you.

[Marf]

Puggit said:

charliedaker said:

Surely a stable and happy home are of more importance these days?

I don't think I could put it better than this Daily Soovy article

Gotta love it when the Mail trots out their on side minority.

[Marf]

rb5230 said:

fluffnik said:

rb5230 said:

So you dont mind if they tell you about the state of their boyfriends asshole after they buggered it silly last night?

I'd rather not hear of the state of your girlfriend's asshole after you buggered it silly last night either...

Well luckily for you i am not into that, so you wont be hearing about it.

Wait, so she is the pitcher and you are the catcher??

[Marf]

rb5230 said:

Marf said:

rb5230 said:

fluffnik said:

rb5230 said:

So you dont mind if they tell you about the state of their boyfriends asshole after they buggered it silly last night?

I'd rather not hear of the state of your girlfriend's asshole after you buggered it silly last night either...

Well luckily for you i am not into that, so you wont be hearing about it.

Wait, so she is the pitcher and you are the catcher??

No im not into stty anus`s thanks, although it would seem you are if your sexual views are that one of the couple must be taking it in the ass.

Whats wrong with vaginal sex nowadays? Too normal for you? Oh no i said normal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by rb5230 on Thursday 30th December 16:42

You are so easy to wind up

Edited by Marf on Thursday 30th December 16:46

[Marf]

I refer you to my previous statement.