The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by minimarshmallow
I know what your opinion is. What is the justification for it?


A child which can only be conceived through the aid of both a man and a woman, in my opinion, shouldnot be put in the custody of a man and a man. For the same reasons a female offender is strip- searched by a female officer. (if you get what i mean). I am not a homophobic and i agree with same-sex marrige. :smile: Just not adoption for the reason stated. Until a Man and a Man (or woman and woman) can produce a baby i will hold those views. :smile:. I hope i didnot offend anyone.
Reply 701
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Its the way you interpretated it, which i now see, different from the way i had.
I interpretated it as him seperating what 'should be' and what he believes 'should be'.
'A man and a woman should raise a child. However i believe that other people can also raise a child. Should it be gays? I believe they should do, not as a couple but individually'.


Interesting. I hadn't seen it that way at all. I'm still not sure that makes sense though, but I think it's one of those horrible occasions in the English language where should, could and may all sort of blur together.

Original post by Spaz Man
I believe that it is against the nature of God's creation for gay couples to adopt and raise children.


Not. A. Theocracy.
Original post by mmmpie
Interesting. I hadn't seen it that way at all. I'm still not sure that makes sense though, but I think it's one of those horrible occasions in the English language where should, could and may all sort of blur together.



Not. A. Theocracy.


It's. My. Opinion.
Original post by minimarshmallow
This isn't the current debate. If you'd like to debate that you can start your own thread.


chill out, the reason I ask is because some people who are against this say "Not having a male/female role model" is an issue, like in point 2 of the original post. Therefore I am curious if they also think a single parent should be able to adopt and whether this principle applies to a single parent.
Reply 704
Original post by Spaz Man
It's. My. Opinion.


So what, were not allowed to disagree with your opinion? The OP points out that the law of the state is currently NOT (thank god, geddit!) based on religion, so there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
Original post by meow444
So what, were not allowed to disagree with your opinion? The OP points out that the law of the state is currently NOT (thank god, geddit!) based on religion, so there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning.


Yep disagree with me. I don't really care.
A child which can only be conceived through the aid of both a man and a woman, in my opinion, shouldnot be put in the custody of a man and a man. For the same reasons a female offender is strip- searched by a female officer. (if you get what i mean). I am not a homophobic and i agree with same-sex marrige. Just not adoption for the reason stated. Until a Man and a Man (or woman and woman) can produce a baby i will hold those views. . I hope i didnot offend anyone.

I hope this is enough :/, I am willing to change my perspective on this, im not a narrow minded person but thats what i believe. If im going to be convinced then someone convince me!
Reply 707
Original post by PeterOkenla11
A child which can only be conceived through the aid of both a man and a woman, in my opinion, shouldnot be put in the custody of a man and a man. For the same reasons a female offender is strip- searched by a female officer. (if you get what i mean). I am not a homophobic and i agree with same-sex marrige. Just not adoption for the reason stated. Until a Man and a Man (or woman and woman) can produce a baby i will hold those views. . I hope i didnot offend anyone.

I hope this is enough :/, I am willing to change my perspective on this, im not a narrow minded person but thats what i believe. If im going to be convinced then someone convince me!


A same-sex couple can have children by means other than adoption- IVF, surrogacy, etc.

That aside, there is an important difference between spawning children and raising them. Is there actually a reason to think that one's ability to do the former affects ones competence to do the latter? I hope not, because the same argument would bar infertile couples from adopting too, and ban all forms of IVF for everybody.
Original post by mmmpie
A same-sex couple can have children by means other than adoption- IVF, surrogacy, etc.

That aside, there is an important difference between spawning children and raising them. Is there actually a reason to think that one's ability to do the former affects ones competence to do the latter? I hope not, because the same argument would bar infertile couples from adopting too, and ban all forms of IVF for everybody.


I understand where your coming from.
I think you misunderstood me though :/
The underlying principle is that It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
Therefore A man and a man shouldnot be able to adopt.
Wether a the man or a woman is infertile is besides the point and the principle still applys, Therefore my point stands. :/
And IVF is taking the sperm fromn a MAN and combining it with the egg of a WOMAN.
sperm + sperm cannot make babies!
Reply 709
Original post by PeterOkenla11
I understand where your coming from.
I think you misunderstood me though :/
The underlying principle is that It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
Therefore A man and a man shouldnot be able to adopt.
Wether a the man or a woman is infertile is besides the point and the principle still applys, Therefore my point stands. :/
And IVF is taking the sperm fromn a MAN and combining it with the egg of a WOMAN.
sperm + sperm cannot make babies!


But that's precisely my point. Whether or not you can make babies has nothing to do with whether or not you can raise children.
Original post by PeterOkenla11
I understand where your coming from.
I think you misunderstood me though :/
The underlying principle is that It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.
Therefore A man and a man shouldnot be able to adopt.
Wether a the man or a woman is infertile is besides the point and the principle still applys, Therefore my point stands. :/
And IVF is taking the sperm fromn a MAN and combining it with the egg of a WOMAN.
sperm + sperm cannot make babies!


You are only stating how children are conceived. There is no argument here as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
It does not logically follow that just because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, a man and a man should not be able to adopt.
Reply 711
If it takes a man and a woman to adopt, then obviously we should not allow single parents to exist.... /sarcasm
Original post by Earl Nuce
You are only stating how children are conceived. There is no argument here as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
It does not logically follow that just because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, a man and a man should not be able to adopt.


Im not sure wether you read my other posts?
Anyway my argument was that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child. Then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. I want to be convinced this is NOT the case. So far you've told me its not the case. Ok i accept your opinion. Now can you tell me why? ( without offending me, or calling me homophobic ect). I hope i will learn form this debate. Thank you :smile:
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Im not sure wether you read my other posts?
Anyway my argument was that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child. Then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. I want to be convinced this is NOT the case. So far you've told me its not the case. Ok i accept your opinion. Now can you tell me why? ( without offending me, or calling me homophobic ect). I hope i will learn form this debate. Thank you :smile:


^ good attitude

it confuses me why people see different brains looking at something and drawing different conclusions as reasons to dislike eachother and call names etc..
Reply 714
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Im not sure wether you read my other posts?
Anyway my argument was that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child. Then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. I want to be convinced this is NOT the case. So far you've told me its not the case. Ok i accept your opinion. Now can you tell me why? ( without offending me, or calling me homophobic ect). I hope i will learn form this debate. Thank you :smile:


How does the fact that it takes a man a woman to conceive a child mean that gay couples etc. should not adopt that child?
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Im not sure wether you read my other posts?
Anyway my argument was that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child. Then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. I want to be convinced this is NOT the case. So far you've told me its not the case. Ok i accept your opinion. Now can you tell me why? ( without offending me, or calling me homophobic ect). I hope i will learn form this debate. Thank you :smile:


The sexual orientation of parents (single or partnered) has no negative impact on the personal and social developments of children. In fact, sometimes it is argued that it can have a positive effect. There are child development studies which highlight and support this (see two below).

As I said before, it does not logically follow that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child, then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. There is no reason behind this argument.
It would be like me saying '[1.] more people drown when ice cream sales rise, [2.] therefore the rise in ice cream sales cause people to drown.' Whilst the first part of the statement is true, there is no reason following on to the second part. The same goes for your statement. There is no reason connecting the first and the second part.

Please let me know if there is any reason that I have not seen.



http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/Stacey_Biblarz.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00823.x/full
An argument I can think of is that we dont fully understand the beautiful intricacy of nature. Therefore going against its wisdom is unwise and could have unforeseen consequences. So the "its un natural" argument is really the "should you really be messing with that supercomputer? Arent you just the handyman?" argument.
Original post by green.tea
An argument I can think of is that we dont fully understand the beautiful intricacy of nature. Therefore going against its wisdom is unwise and could have unforeseen consequences. So the "its un natural" argument is really the "should you really be messing with that supercomputer? Arent you just the handyman?" argument.


The 'its unnatural' argument is a fallacy, as has been pointed out to you many times.
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Im not sure wether you read my other posts?
Anyway my argument was that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child. Then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. I want to be convinced this is NOT the case. So far you've told me its not the case. Ok i accept your opinion. Now can you tell me why? ( without offending me, or calling me homophobic ect). I hope i will learn form this debate. Thank you :smile:


Why should a child not be raised by two mean because it takes a man and a woman to conceive? Just because a person can conceive a child doesn't mean that they will be a good parent. Similar to how just because a person cannot procreate doesn't mean that they can't be a good parent. Or do you think infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt either?
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
The 'its unnatural' argument is a fallacy, as has been pointed out to you many times.


I never used that argument. Saying its a fallacy doesnt answer my point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/20/wildlife-endangeredspecies

http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles%20Pages/Grey_Squirrel_Article_07-07.htm