Gay/lesbians adopting kids - what do you think?

[Binaural]

Quote:
Originally Posted by syphon_the_python View Post
^^Misunderstood me mate. Obviously I'm not talking about restricting IVF. I'm just trying to make a point that a man and a woman are made to have children: physiologically they can create a child. A gay couple cannot, and never will be able to do so naturally. Surely this suggests something...

Yes. It suggests that you did not read the very good replies to this earlier in the thread. Your mother and you could create perfectly natural babies, too, albeit ones that are genetically not too healthy due to their high likelihood of copping two copies of a recessive gene. If you want to imply that natural processes are suggestive of anything, be aware that nature also makes leopard seals torture penguins, chimpanzees practice genocide, and also brought forth Paris Hilton. Natural processes are not intrinsically moral or right, and you need to go beyond this to prove your case..

In my experience, people who are raised by only one parent are quite different in the way they act and think when compared to people raised with both a mother and a father. In a gay relationship, it may be different, as one parent would be more feminine, and one would be more masculine.

Your personal experience is not in line with detailed scientific studies on this matter. The genes your parents give you are a far, far greater influence on your personality and character than their parenting habits will ever be. So a child raised by gay parents will likely exhibit little or no personality characteristics from being raised by gay or straight parents provided they have the money and the time to look after their material and social needs properly. As far as shaping personality goes, children's personalities are not imprinted into their blank little minds by their industrious parents, they are there from birth and develop through their life. Note that this is not saying that genes = everything, but there's got to be something for the environment to interact with.

Spike-X, love your posts. Christo - I too miss Kevpun, his PMs were like a festival of stupid drawn in ASCII.

 

[Techno Destructo]

I reckon any person who thinks that is normal should be shot.

I totally agree. Keep those damn kids as orphans. I hear orphanages are great fun anyway!

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

So the parent/s of a child have no effect on how the child acts?

Yes. alongside a million other factors. But that's not my point.

You've come out with the statement that you can somehow tell if a person is brought up by a single parent by the way they act

That is completely f***ing ludicrous!

How the hell can you compare -say for instance- Anthony Kiedis and Lance Armstrong? Hell, both came from broken homes so they must act like every other single parent offspring? Is every smackhead lead singer of an overrated band or Tour De France Winner a product of a single parent upbringing? How about products of happy, healthy homes. Surely they'll be easy to spot. Let's see, Adolf Hitler? Paul McCartney? hell they're just like peas in a pod .

This sort of thinking is up there with judging people on the strength of their handshake, Racial profiling and Phrenology

The way people act are shaped by everything from genetics to both immediate and wider environments. Age, weight, height, colour, cultural background are all major influences on people's character and behaviour. The idea that anybody could be able to see through all those other influences and pinpoint a grown human's parentage (or lack thereof) is preposterous.

 

[Spike-X]

- Confusion for the child as to what is morally right: Obviously society has blurred the line and created a whole grey area which is causing these issues. Morals and values are being trampled on in order to cater for everyone and ensure no one is offended by anyone else. Basically society has turned weak and everyone just goes with the flow.

What the hell does this even mean? What, are you worried that children raised by same-sex couples might learn that it's okay to be gay and have a family? Are you worried that widespread acceptance of these families might teach other people the same thing? "Bolt the door, Maude, them gays is comin' to town!"

What would you consider a more 'morally acceptable' alternative? Leaving kids to be abused in orphanages and foster homes, rather than being raised by happy, stable, loving parents who might *shock horror* teach them that actually, it's not okay to pick on and discriminate against other people just because they're different?

Bullying of the child

the kid would have the shit picked out of them at school

Kid would cop tremendous amounts of crap all through their childhood.

Okay guys, time to put up or shut up. Show me some studies that prove that kids raised by same-sex couples get picked on as much as you're saying they would. More than kids with glasses, or fat kids, or quiet bookworms, or kids who wear clothes from the op-shop.

Show me.

 

[RCOH]

Good work to Spike-X, wombat, BS, POSM, Brisneyland & others for expressing thier support for homosexual couple being able to adopt. I am in total agreeance but you have all put the case for forward very well.


To those that oppose have a read of the thread, then read it again. Every conceivable reason against homosexual adoption been brought up & quickly discredited.

If the only reason you are against the issue is because you 'feel' is it wrong or unnatural I urge you to look at all the points raised in support of it then think about it and talk it over with people. It is OK to change your mind, this is how society ultimately advances.

 

[scooter]

Kid would cop tremendous amounts of crap all through their childhood.

Like it or not, thats what would happen, the kid would get bullied, picked on, abused, humiliated on a daily basis. Many other reasons, but hard to explain without touching nerves.

I was bullied, picked on, abused and humiliated on a daily basis. Should my parents have been stopped from having me merely because they planned to send an educated child to school in the football 'burbs of Brisbane? Maybe I should just be thankful that they weren't totally gay otherwise I might have been picked on

Furthermore, this is the gay adoption version of the way in which retards blame rapes on women. "She was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it" is not exactly a long way from "He has two mothers, so he should have expected to be bullied daily" and is morally reprehensible.

So given that your reason given above is profoundly unsound, why not explain the other ones?

 

[emcgough]

I was bullied, picked on, abused and humiliated on a daily basis. Should my parents have been stopped from having me merely because they planned to send an educated child to school in the football 'burbs of Brisbane?

Oh yes, I'm sure you were just a cut above the rest of that football riffraff . It's an outrage that they made you associate with such primitive people...

 

[Techno Destructo]

Personally Im strongly against it, and I feel very sorry for any child that would be adopted into those circumstances.

So let's try a scenario here... Say you were a child that no "proper" parents would adopt. Would you prefer to stay in an orphanage/foster-home than have same-sex parents? Remember, honesty counts!

Regan from gong, feel free to answer this one as well!

 

[|Matt|]

Okay guys, time to put up or shut up. Show me some studies that prove that kids raised by same-sex couples get picked on as much as you're saying they would. More than kids with glasses, or fat kids, or quiet bookworms, or kids who wear clothes from the op-shop.

Show me.

Oh please Mr High and Mighty, get off your high horse.

You cannot HONESTLY say that you don't think a kid with two dads or two mums wouldn't get the piss taken out of them. You've been living under a rock if you think they won't.

I am NOT against it for any reason other than this. I don't deny that two men or two women could raise a kid as well as a man and a woman, but the emotional and physical bullying the kid would go through because of it, I don't think we (as a society) are ready for it yet.

Open your fucking eyes to todays society....

 

[RCOH]

Oh please Mr High and Mighty, get off your high horse.

You cannot HONESTLY say that you don't think a kid with two dads or two mums wouldn't get the piss taken out of them. You've been living under a rock if you think they won't.

I am NOT against it for any reason other than this. I don't deny that two men or two women could raise a kid as well as a man and a woman, but the emotional and physical bullying the kid would go through because of it, I don't think we (as a society) are ready for it yet.

Open your fucking eyes to todays society....

No one is saying they won't get payed out or bullied. We are just saying that kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons whether they have gay parents or not.

And if you read the thread, Spike-X provided a link that says that children from same sex families are often better equipped emotionally to deal with bullying & anti social behaviour from other children.

So far no one has provided a rational argument as to why same-sex couple shouldn't be able to adopt and/or raise children.

 

[treggs]

OK i have a slightly different slant on this argument. I don't have a problem with gay couples, gay couples adopting kids if the circumstances are better for the kid and gay marriage. What I do have a problem with is gay couples using IVF. I'm not sure if the technology exists yet but using the genetics from two males or two females to create a child seems a bit too much like playing god imho. Before I get bagged for this, I'm not a huge believer in IVF full stop. If one day I want kids and nature says no then it's probably for a reason. Usually if nature wont let a species replicate (any species, not just us) then it's a usually a bloody good reason like it will effect the continuation of that species or dilute it's gene pool.

I guess I'm just against non natural reproduction. If a gay couple want to involve a third party and have a child using natural methods then that's fine by me, although having sex with a member of the opposite sex to have a child is kind of hypocritical for a gay person isn't it? That's called bisexual.

[I feel I might need my flame suit but stuff it, it's my opinion and this is the internet]

 

[dcrofty]

although having sex with a member of the opposite sex to have a child is kind of hypocritical for a gay person isn't it?

Hence the reasons that Turkey Basters were invented so that gay people didn't have to have sex with the straights.

 

[Elbo]

Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I find it unfathomable that in today's society, where everyone is preaching acceptance and human rights, that there are so many people with such narrow-minded thinking. Elbo, I'm not picking on your post in particular, but it just happened to be the one that addressed all the "against homosexual family units" in one post.



I've no doubt that the break up of a family unit is difficult on the child/children. But it's a strech to attribute their subsequent behavior soley to the absence of a "father or mother figure". I think if you did further digging, you would find that it's the arguments and negative comments to each other in front of kids, and general anomosity of each other that causes the stress in children that makes them messed up. That said, there are plenty of well adjusted children with single parents that are doing just fine. Having two male or female parents going through the same situation would no doubt yield a similar result.




What exactly do you constitue as "morally right". I guess your "morals" are different to mine because I was taught that all people are equal, regardless of age, creed, colour, ethnicity or sexual preference. To me your statement reflects the ideal that "homosexuality" is morally wrong. I would hope that's not what you intended, as that would make you look a little homophobic. I'd also like to point out at this point...that there is a large diffence between being "morally right" and "politically caoorect", which seem to be what you are refering to in the second part of the above statement.



Right...traditional family boundaries: 50 years ago, starting a family with a person of coloured skin was deemed absolutly socially unacceptable. Try preaching those ideals now, and see how quickly you are pegged as a racist. Just because a family doesn't confirm to the "traditional christian ideal", doesn't neccecarily mean it's wrong.
So..bullying....It's been said before in this post, but I'll repeat it, because it seems to keep coming up. Kids bully kids. For anything. Would you ban a parent from having/adpoting kids because they are paraplegic, or have down-syndrome? Because they are going to get picked on. You can count on it.



So if I was homosexual, just what could I have then? Penthouse apartment? Nice car? What about a dog? Cat? Please list it below, because I may have some news to break to some friends/workmates.

At the end of the day, as long as kids are brought up in a loving environment, I couldn't care less what parental combination they have. The research has shown they are no more emotionally disadvantaged, and I think, rather than having issues with their "moral compass" they would be far more open and accepting of other peoples values and choices.

So..in short.. I'm all for homosexuals having the same rights as hetrosexual couples.

EDIT: Dammit..that took me so long to put together that Stella has already highlighted everything I wanted to say. Although...I was more eloquent!

That's fine. Thanks for putting your ideas forward. When my morals and values are based on Christian beliefs, the 'traditional christian ideal' family does matter. In fact family structure and marriage are almost the only things left sacred in our society today. I know that I should be politically correct and accept homosexuality as part of society, but simply because it is politically correct doesn't mean I will accept it.

Regarding bullying, no you wouldn't refuse adoption to paraplegics or people with down syndrome, they would go through the same screening as everyone else, the same as homosexual couples would with this proposal.

The point I made before about children being the product of a man and a woman holds true. Every single species on the planet needs 1 male and 1 female to produce offspring. If we are evolved from our fellow animal friends, as so many argue, why are we the only ones trying to have offspring in a homosexual relationship? This is why it is unnatural, not unnatural as in artificial limbs or pacemakers.

 

[treggs]

Hence the reasons that Turkey Basters were invented so that gay people didn't have to have sex with the straights.

True, such and appropriate name for it too. I'd feel like a turkey using one.

Now hold still.........

 

[treggs]

That's fine. Thanks for putting your ideas forward. When my morals and values are based on Christian beliefs, the 'traditional christian ideal' family does matter. In fact family structure and marriage are almost the only things left sacred in our society today. I know that I should be politically correct and accept homosexuality as part of society, but simply because it is politically correct doesn't mean I will accept it.

Regarding bullying, no you wouldn't refuse adoption to paraplegics or people with down syndrome, they would go through the same screening as everyone else, the same as homosexual couples would with this proposal.

The point I made before about children being the product of a man and a woman holds true. Every single species on the planet needs 1 male and 1 female to produce offspring. If we are evolved from our fellow animal friends, as so many argue, why are we the only ones trying to have offspring in a homosexual relationship? This is why it is unnatural, not unnatural as in artificial limbs or pacemakers.

JimT and Elbo, you have both made good arguments and in a mature and well structured manner which is rare on the internet.

Just thought I'd add a bit. You both touched on "morals". I define morals as a set of rules by which a person lives. Each person has their own set and they are developed through different experiences and for different reasons. Some people base them on religon (i.e. 10 commandments) , others base them on science, personal experience, being nice to your fellow human or any combination of millions of reasons. Morally correct is a hard point to argue because morally correct for one person may not be morally correct for another person. Morally grey areas may not even match and hence the reason for differing opinions.

 

[dcrofty]

Every single species on the planet needs 1 male and 1 female to produce offspring.

Going to have to pull you up on that one. Very Very wrong.

 

[treggs]

Going to have to pull you up on that one. Very Very wrong.

LOL, beat me too it.

 

[Elbo]

Going to have to pull you up on that one. Very Very wrong.

Can you inform me of these species please dcrofty? I realise there are some species that can change gender, but my point would stand better by saying that most species can only naturally have offspring through a male and female recreating. Thus, the best combination for creating, nurturing and raising offspring is by 1 male and 1 female.

 

[treggs]

Can you inform me of these species please dcrofty?

Type Asexual reproduction into wikipedia. Tis all explained.

There are examples in animals at the bottom of the page

 

[Elbo]

Type Asexual reproduction into wikipedia. Tis all explained.

There are examples in animals at the bottom of the page

Thanks treggs. However, I still stand my my above point and also reinforce that family structure and marriage are the only two things I can think of that have not been adjusted as yet to be politically correct. Unfortunately, it will only be a matter of time before these are destroyed as well.