Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Who said anything about adoption? Many gay people have children anyway.

    Evidence that this is "undeniably true"? Historically, as i said, there have been a great many other systems of child-rearing. It's impossible to say which children do best in. By the way, do the two married parents of different sexes need to be married to each other?

    Even if such an environment is "naturally" superior to all others, there are other factors. Fred and Rosemary West fulfilled your criteria admirably. Unfortunately, they had other qualities which made them wholly unsuitable as parents.
    Many gay people DO NOT have children actually. A male cannot produce children by sodomizing his male partner. I note your pet theory that many gays actually swing either way and have children from hetero-relationships. I'm sure there are some. But not many.

    And, no, I'm not going to spend my day as "weejimmie's research assistant" and evidence my statement either. There is ample research that shows that children do best, academically, socially, emotionally, are most likely to have sucessful careers, and least likely to get involved with crime etc (I could go on) when raised in a "nuclear family" You know it as well as I do. I'd be curious to know what all these "great many other systems of child rearing might be though.

    Your Fred and Rosemary West argument is just plain daft. Obviously I'm talking "generally" so don't waste time by picking an extreme to prove a weak point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    WEEJIMMIE, i see one of your comments, that kids already get bullied so never mind that they would get bullied for having same sex parents. I'm not a bigot, i'm just sensible. I have nothing against gay folk, let the benders bend, that's my idea. If u wanna be gay then good luck to you and i hope it all works. However, When we dealing with kids, then their rights must be paramount. There is no argument against the fact that a man and a man is not a proper family life for a sprog. It just isn't, it's a fact.
    I realise that many gay couples are stable, and would shower the sprog with love etc. But at the end of the day, it's unnatural which unfortunately is not good for the sprog. As for the straight couples who are falling apart, then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either.
    As i already said, when we have the opportunity to choose a child's family then we must pick the cream of the crop, as close to normality as posible, with total dispassionate disregard for the feelings of the adults. No matter how good parents a gay couple would be, the fact that they are a gay couple is a terminal barrier to adoption, i'm sorry but that is the right approach.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    WEEJIMMIE, i see one of your comments, that kids already get bullied so never mind that they would get bullied for having same sex parents. I'm not a bigot, i'm just sensible. I have nothing against gay folk, let the benders bend, that's my idea. If u wanna be gay then good luck to you and i hope it all works. However, When we dealing with kids, then their rights must be paramount. There is no argument against the fact that a man and a man is not a proper family life for a sprog. It just isn't, it's a fact.
    I realise that many gay couples are stable, and would shower the sprog with love etc. But at the end of the day, it's unnatural which unfortunately is not good for the sprog. As for the straight couples who are falling apart, then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either.
    As i already said, when we have the opportunity to choose a child's family then we must pick the cream of the crop, as close to normality as posible, with total dispassionate disregard for the feelings of the adults. No matter how good parents a gay couple would be, the fact that they are a gay couple is a terminal barrier to adoption, i'm sorry but that is the right approach.
    'benders' 'sprog', 'gay folk' ...which planet did u come from luv? :eek:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    WEEJIMMIE, i see one of your comments, that kids already get bullied so never mind that they would get bullied for having same sex parents. I'm not a bigot, i'm just sensible. I have nothing against gay folk, let the benders bend, that's my idea. If u wanna be gay then good luck to you and i hope it all works. However, When we dealing with kids, then their rights must be paramount. There is no argument against the fact that a man and a man is not a proper family life for a sprog. It just isn't, it's a fact.
    I realise that many gay couples are stable, and would shower the sprog with love etc. But at the end of the day, it's unnatural which unfortunately is not good for the sprog. As for the straight couples who are falling apart, then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either.
    As i already said, when we have the opportunity to choose a child's family then we must pick the cream of the crop, as close to normality as posible, with total dispassionate disregard for the feelings of the adults. No matter how good parents a gay couple would be, the fact that they are a gay couple is a terminal barrier to adoption, i'm sorry but that is the right approach.

    The kids have the right to get the most suitable parents available. BUT THEY MAY BE GAY! Of course you could argue that if two pairs of parents were completely equivalent ON ALL OTHER GROANDS, then you should favoyur the heterosexual ones. BUT! There are many unsuitable heterosexual couples out there, and there is no reason why you should put these in favour of a more suitable gay couple simply because they are gay. It is a question about rights for the children. They deserve to have the gay couples evaluated as well.

    You say that you should pick those closest to normality, but THAT COUPLE MAY BE GAY. If we have an unlimited supply of "perfect" couples (Whatever that may be) then fine. But that is not teh case in reality. There is no reason to beleive that homosexuality should be even close to as bad as much of what slipps through in todays system. If you are going to prohibit homosexuals from adopting, then you will have to prohibit everyone who do not have a university degree as well. Cus really, there is more evidence to sugest that that is bad than homosexuality among the parents.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Many gay people DO NOT have children actually. A male cannot produce children by sodomizing his male partner. I note your pet theory that many gays actually swing either way and have children from hetero-relationships. I'm sure there are some. But not many.
    Hardly a "pet theory": some evidence follows. By the way,"gayness" both as a concept and an identity, like "swinging either way", is a very recent invention. It is wiser not to apply these terms to the way people behaved when the idea and the culture had not been invented. Certainly the ancient Greek and Roman elites married and produced children, while their most important emotional and sexual relationships were with other men. Equally, when homosexuality was illegal in England most of those convicted of it were married. Even now, many of the men convicted of "gross indecency" are married men. Hard to say how many, of course, but evidence that many people sometimes engage in homosexual acts, sometimes in heterosexual acts according to taste and opportunity.

    And, no, I'm not going to spend my day as "weejimmie's research assistant" and evidence my statement either. There is ample research that shows that children do best, academically, socially, emotionally, are most likely to have sucessful careers, and least likely to get involved with crime etc (I could go on) when raised in a "nuclear family"
    Pity. I was looking forward to showing the- inevitable- flaws and unreliability in this research. We have no knowledge at all about nuclear families where both parents are the same sex, however.
    I'd be curious to know what all these "great many other systems of child rearing might be though.
    Various forms of extended family, kinship patterns or extended households. These have been common through history and still are in much of Africa and Asia. The nuclear family is a recent development. It needs several prerequisites: a society where most children aren't going to start working as young as they can at tasks- usually agricultural- identical to the ones their parents do, ease of transport so that they can move from their place of birth, an education system which will teach them enough to learn and use new skills when they do move, non-agricultural industries to get work in, a society wealthy enough for most people to afford to live in an individual household and a society where public health is good enough and life-expectancy high enough for people to expect the family to last many years without one of the parents dying. All of these only happened recently, historically speaking

    Your Fred and Rosemary West argument is just plain daft. Obviously I'm talking "generally" so don't waste time by picking an extreme to prove a weak point.
    You were not merely talking generally, but absolutely, so an extreme argument was justified as refutation. There are many less extreme examples against your claim. If you had said "The evidence we have suggests that children generally grow up better adjusted to society in stable families with two parents of the opposite sex." I would agree with you. we can't say that this is absolutely true however. It is a tautology: the kind of people that this society accepts as a norm are likely to raise the kind of people who will be acceptable in this society. I don't, as it happens, favour experiments with child-rearing out of pure experimental curiosity, but I think that systematic state interference with families, except in cases where we can be very sure that severe damage is likely to follow, is also wrong.
    Two more points. The very fact that we don't know what the effect on children of growing up in monosexual nuclear families, or other unconventional circumstances (there was case a few years ago of a Nepalese boy who was adopted by his dead father's English friend and raised in a wealthy upper class commune, where the question of whether he could or should adopt the boy was raised) is an argument against adoption in such cases. It is an important argument, but not an overriding one. It is not an argument against unconventional families who are bringing up their own children, except when we can see plain evidence of damage to the child.
    The other is: why not abolish marriage as a civil, state-recognised institution? Most of the arguments for gay marriage rest on discussions concerning pensions, property etc, rather than raising children. Why not just allow adults to make such arrangements through contracts as suits them- even more than two people if necessary- to share up and divide property etc and leave them to it. The only argument against is that people may go in for it as unthinkingly as they do marriage, but that probably wouldn't mean any more work for lawyers than they have already.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Hardly a "pet theory": some evidence follows. By the way,"gayness" both as a concept and an identity, like "swinging either way", is a very recent invention. It is wiser not to apply these terms to the way people behaved when the idea and the culture had not been invented. Certainly the ancient Greek and Roman elites married and produced children, while their most important emotional and sexual relationships were with other men. Equally, when homosexuality was illegal in England most of those convicted of it were married. Even now, many of the men convicted of "gross indecency" are married men. Hard to say how many, of course, but evidence that many people sometimes engage in homosexual acts, sometimes in heterosexual acts according to taste and opportunity.

    Pity. I was looking forward to showing the- inevitable- flaws and unreliability in this research. We have no knowledge at all about nuclear families where both parents are the same sex, however. Various forms of extended family, kinship patterns or extended households. These have been common through history and still are in much of Africa and Asia. The nuclear family is a recent development. It needs several prerequisites: a society where most children aren't going to start working as young as they can at tasks- usually agricultural- identical to the ones their parents do, ease of transport so that they can move from their place of birth, an education system which will teach them enough to learn and use new skills when they do move, non-agricultural industries to get work in, a society wealthy enough for most people to afford to live in an individual household and a society where public health is good enough and life-expectancy high enough for people to expect the family to last many years without one of the parents dying. All of these only happened recently, historically speaking

    You were not merely talking generally, but absolutely, so an extreme argument was justified as refutation. There are many less extreme examples against your claim. If you had said "The evidence we have suggests that children generally grow up better adjusted to society in stable families with two parents of the opposite sex." I would agree with you. we can't say that this is absolutely true however. It is a tautology: the kind of people that this society accepts as a norm are likely to raise the kind of people who will be acceptable in this society. I don't, as it happens, favour experiments with child-rearing out of pure experimental curiosity, but I think that systematic state interference with families, except in cases where we can be very sure that severe damage is likely to follow, is also wrong.
    Two more points. The very fact that we don't know what the effect on children of growing up in monosexual nuclear families, or other unconventional circumstances (there was case a few years ago of a Nepalese boy who was adopted by his dead father's English friend and raised in a wealthy upper class commune, where the question of whether he could or should adopt the boy was raised) is an argument against adoption in such cases. It is an important argument, but not an overriding one. It is not an argument against unconventional families who are bringing up their own children, except when we can see plain evidence of damage to the child.
    The other is: why not abolish marriage as a civil, state-recognised institution? Most of the arguments for gay marriage rest on discussions concerning pensions, property etc, rather than raising children. Why not just allow adults to make such arrangements through contracts as suits them- even more than two people if necessary- to share up and divide property etc and leave them to it. The only argument against is that people may go in for it as unthinkingly as they do marriage, but that probably wouldn't mean any more work for lawyers than they have already.

    Read it. Agree with some of it. Disagree with much of it. Not time enough to tackle it though. I will, in due course.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    You obviously lack respect.
    Damn right. Why should I respect somethign that's completely nuts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First, I have to ask, why does the eternal line:

    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    ...then good luck to you...
    so often come about when talking about gay people? Do those using it realise how patronising it often sounds? :mad:

    Anyway, onto the other points....

    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    There is no argument against the fact that a man and a man is not a proper family life for a sprog. It just isn't, it's a fact.
    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    But at the end of the day, it's unnatural...
    This from someone who claims not to be biggoted? I fail to see how stating how unnatual it is is not biggoted... Also:

    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    as close to normality as posible...
    Define a 'normal' family... would that be one living in the best area, of the best town, with all the highlights of life, and none of the downfalls? Can you not see that, to coin a cliche: 'variety is the spice of life' ? No two families are the same, and subsequently, no two families could ever be average, or 'normal'. If a child is in a stable, loving environment, then it will prosper in it's own way, as a person, and be happy. After all, is not the happieness, and the quality of life of the child more important than anything? If the two people in a relationship would be good parents, why should they be denied a child, or a child be denied those willing, good parents???

    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    ...No matter how good parents a gay couple would be, the fact that they are a gay couple is a terminal barrier to adoption, i'm sorry but that is the right approach.
    Nothing in life is ever set in stone, so how can a rule such as that ever be terminal, without exception? Adoption should be based upon the people involved, not their genders. Any other approach could deny children of good loving homes: how is that in their best interests?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am not homophobic in the slightest, however i do believe, as a roman catholic, that marriage is a sacred affair where you present and declare your love for a person the world, but most importantly to God. Marriage is one of the rights of passage, (i think), which is holy and seen as very important to the church. Therefore i feel that if the church does not agree with gay marriages and do not indorse them, the ceremony that occurs cannot be called a marriage, it is some other sort of union.

    The fundamental meaning of this union, is to show ones love to their partner and to the world, but this union is not, (dare i say), "right" and "accepted" in the eyes of the lord. Therefore this is not a marriage.

    Gay weddings should occur and nobody has the right to ban them or be prejudice as i think it says somewhere in the bible "He without sin cast the first stone".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    CONGRATULATIONS!

    a dead thread comes back again...to waste our time
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by temilola)

    Gay weddings should occur and nobody has the right to ban them or be prejudice as i think it says somewhere in the bible "He without sin cast the first stone".
    Is being gay a sin?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommorris)
    The Religious Right in the United States have a few.

    http://www.afa.org
    http://www.cwfa.org
    http://www.family.org
    http://www.cc.org

    (Warning: many of the resources above are published by a group of lunatics who think that a giant guy up in the clouds created the world in seven days, and that because a book written thousands of years ago in Hebrew says something, they must follow.)
    I had a look at www.family.org, innocently wondering what the religious right had to say for itself. I figured it probably wasn't as bad as its been depicted in the media. By the time I got to 'homosexual marriage will hurt children, as homosexuals are rarely monogamous and often have in excess of 300 sexual partners in a lifetime,' I was nearly ready to put my fist through the screen. The fact that they aren't even a minority or an object of ridicule scares me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderer)
    I had a look at www.family.org, innocently wondering what the religious right had to say for itself. I figured it probably wasn't as bad as its been depicted in the media. By the time I got to 'homosexual marriage will hurt children, as homosexuals are rarely monogamous and often have in excess of 300 sexual partners in a lifetime,' I was nearly ready to put my fist through the screen. The fact that they aren't even a minority or an object of ridicule scares me.
    What is it you object to, the fact (and it IS a fact) that rates of promiscuity amongst homosexuals are far higher than amongst heterosexuals or the prediction that this might not be conducive to good child rearing? Where does your objection lie?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What is it you object to, the fact (and it IS a fact) that rates of promiscuity amongst homosexuals are far higher than amongst heterosexuals or the prediction that this might not be conducive to good child rearing? Where does your objection lie?
    He's just objecting to the stupidity of taking a generalisation and using it to make decisions which affect the individual. It'd be alot like saying "Black men have a tendancy to be more promiscuous than white men. Therefore we should not be allowing black men to rear children."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Will add my $2, since this thread has now been revived and I wasn't here the first time around:

    Firstly, 'gays should not have children because their children will be gay'. XXX. A vast majority of the evidence points to a biological basis for homosexuality. People taking this line of argument also fail to account for how so many (even homophobic) striaght couples manage to have gay kids, which wouldn't happen if you need to be brought up by gays in order to become it. Even if it is a result of upbringing in some way, then it is clear, from the fact that some straight couples have gay kids, that the factor in the upbringing is not something in the sexual orientation of the parents, but rather something that Hets and gays are equally capable of "inflicting" upon their children. Furthermore, if the majority of 'phobes really did believe that homosexuality was an "incurable" result of a person's upbringing, then it would be wildly unfair of them to then engage in the kinds of discrimination they often do. They can't have it both ways without looking like complete pr*cks themselves. Either gays are gay through their own "fault"/choice, in which case discriminate away (provided you can prove conclusively that it's a bad thing to be gay); or they are made "that way" by their parents through no "fault" of their own, in which case stop being so damn cruel, yaar.

    Secondly, on the issue of gay marriage. As someone has already pointed out, not allowing gays to marry will not stop them being gay, or doing any of those "perverted" things that they do. Which pretty much leaves just the religious argument (NB. I am aware that there are many other arguments against homosexuality, but they are not specifically relevant in the context of gay marriage). This is quite a difficult issue, I find. Clearly, gays need marriage rights - property inheritance, next of kin rights, etc (if you disagree, hold fire - I'll come to that later). However, religions have the right to their opinions, and so if they're so set against gay marriage, the civil unions idea seems to be the best option. But there are difficulties with this as well - firstly, some gay people might be deeply religious and thus, it could be argued, it is unfair to exclude them from being married 'in the eyes of God', if that's what they desperately want. Setting that aside for a minute (I think it may turn out to be something they just have to live with for now) and putting the civil unions bill into action, you get even more (bizarre!) problems: Gay rights plans 'heterophobic' declares the BBC News! "It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples...cohabiting heterosexuals also lack legal recognition and protection. This is a grave injustice." Now this is of course true, but, again, you reach a can't have it both ways situation - to disallow gays the right to official marriage ceremonies, and then try to prevent them from getting the same basic rights through over avenues is just plain discrimination. Either, gay marriages have to be allowed, OR gays have to be able to achieve equal rights through another avenue (one option may be better/worse than the other, but you simply can't have neither without contravening basic rights) - the only reason for the "heterophobic" unions is the "homophobic" disallowal of 'proper' marriage for gays. I'll leave that one there.

    For those that didn't read the above due it being excessively long-winded, please read this:
    I believe that the main problem here stems from the language being used in the debate (including in my own post above - I was continuing with it until I got the opportunity to write this):
    May I please be the first "gay" on this thread (I've noticed there are a couple) to stand up and say that I do not believe myself to be a gay person, but rather a person who is gay. I thus lay claim to any human rights that anyone else may have, and do not believe that "gay rights" should even be an issue (though until everyone shuts up and realises that we're just 'people' entitled to 'human' rights, I realise that the gay rights movement is highly necessary). Gay is an adjective - don't treat it as a noun.


    Alright then, do your worst :secruity:

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    *applause*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Will add my $2, since this thread has now been revived and I wasn't here the first time around:

    Firstly, 'gays should not have children because their children will be gay'. XXX. A vast majority of the evidence points to a biological basis for homosexuality. People taking this line of argument also fail to account for how so many (even homophobic) striaght couples manage to have gay kids, which wouldn't happen if you need to be brought up by gays in order to become it. Even if it is a result of upbringing in some way, then it is clear, from the fact that some straight couples have gay kids, that the factor in the upbringing is not something in the sexual orientation of the parents, but rather something that Hets and gays are equally capable of "inflicting" upon their children. Furthermore, if the majority of 'phobes really did believe that homosexuality was an "incurable" result of a person's upbringing, then it would be wildly unfair of them to then engage in the kinds of discrimination they often do. They can't have it both ways without looking like complete pr*cks themselves. Either gays are gay through their own "fault"/choice, in which case discriminate away (provided you can prove conclusively that it's a bad thing to be gay); or they are made "that way" by their parents through no "fault" of their own, in which case stop being so damn cruel, yaar.

    Secondly, on the issue of gay marriage. As someone has already pointed out, not allowing gays to marry will not stop them being gay, or doing any of those "perverted" things that they do. Which pretty much leaves just the religious argument (NB. I am aware that there are many other arguments against homosexuality, but they are not specifically relevant in the context of gay marriage). This is quite a difficult issue, I find. Clearly, gays need marriage rights - property inheritance, next of kin rights, etc (if you disagree, hold fire - I'll come to that later). However, religions have the right to their opinions, and so if they're so set against gay marriage, the civil unions idea seems to be the best option. But there are difficulties with this as well - firstly, some gay people might be deeply religious and thus, it could be argued, it is unfair to exclude them from being married 'in the eyes of God', if that's what they desperately want. Setting that aside for a minute (I think it may turn out to be something they just have to live with for now) and putting the civil unions bill into action, you get even more (bizarre!) problems: Gay rights plans 'heterophobic' declares the BBC News! "It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples...cohabiting heterosexuals also lack legal recognition and protection. This is a grave injustice." Now this is of course true, but, again, you reach a can't have it both ways situation - to disallow gays the right to official marriage ceremonies, and then try to prevent them from getting the same basic rights through over avenues is just plain discrimination. Either, gay marriages have to be allowed, OR gays have to be able to achieve equal rights through another avenue (one option may be better/worse than the other, but you simply can't have neither without contravening basic rights) - the only reason for the "heterophobic" unions is the "homophobic" disallowal of 'proper' marriage for gays. I'll leave that one there.

    For those that didn't read the above due it being excessively long-winded, please read this:
    I believe that the main problem here stems from the language being used in the debate (including in my own post above - I was continuing with it until I got the opportunity to write this):
    May I please be the first "gay" on this thread (I've noticed there are a couple) to stand up and say that I do not believe myself to be a gay person, but rather a person who is gay. I thus lay claim to any human rights that anyone else may have, and do not believe that "gay rights" should even be an issue (though until everyone shuts up and realises that we're just 'people' entitled to 'human' rights, I realise that the gay rights movement is highly necessary). Gay is an adjective - don't treat it as a noun.


    Alright then, do your worst :secruity:

    ZarathustraX

    such a gay :hahaha: :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by devesh254)
    such a gay :hahaha: :rofl:
    LMAO!!! Fair play :congrats: :top:

    ZarathustraX :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What is it you object to, the fact (and it IS a fact) that rates of promiscuity amongst homosexuals are far higher than amongst heterosexuals or the prediction that this might not be conducive to good child rearing? Where does your objection lie?
    The sweeping generalisation, the exaggeration (I am aware that some research has shown higher rates of promsicuity in homosexuals, but there is something of a leap from this to 'rarely monogamous' and 'over 300 sexual partners'), and the sickening echoes of racism that pervade much of the rhetoric on the site - the constant implication that you can define and judge people by their homosexuality (Zarathustras point about nouns and adjectives), and that 'homosexual' is synonymous with 'immoral,' 'inferior' or both.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Give us the rights that come with marriage, that's great. But for ****sake don't call it marriage. It really gets to the bible bashers and 'return to family values' lot.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.