[MrXIII]

Strong role models are important for a kid growing up. I just don't see how gender or sexuality really has any impact on someones validity as a role model or second parent.

I personaly feel for the parent it can help just to have a second authority figure to help raise the damn kid, its a tough job that people shouldn't have to do alone.

[ChrisW]

Have you been around many single mums and there kids? From my experience the young kids crave attention from any Male they encounter. I'm guessing it works the other way aswell. So having two mums or two dads is imo no substitute for having role models from both sexes.

[Aimless]

You know, I've been around plenty of single mums and their kids, and I know a couple of lesbian couples who have kids, and I can't say I've noticed any desperate attention-seeking from those kiddies

I don't believe astra Instead, I believe the key is to have at least one other parental figure to share the burden of raising the kids with. Two dedicated parents can do the job better than one, especially because it reduces the stress on all parties

[rlfcl]

ChrisW;146027 said:

Have you been around many single mums and there kids? From my experience the young kids crave attention from any Male they encounter. I'm guessing it works the other way aswell. So having two mums or two dads is imo no substitute for having role models from both sexes.

besides the fact that your line of reasoning is based on concrete evidence, homosexual couples never have aunts, uncles, cousins, friends of a different gender, etc in a significant portion of their lives who can provide proper "gender models" for children. and straight parents never have gay children, and vice versa

[ChrisW]

it's my opinion based on my experience. Aunts uncles etc are all well in good but they arn't there as much as a real parent in most cases.

mod edit: flaming removed

[Falco]

Which is why, several posts ago I asked for evidence or studies. Only one person provided any...your personal experience isn't something I want to debate with or against, any of you, because its not a meaningful cross-section of society.

[Morgoth]

Right, time for some thread resurrection:

The norwegian parliament recently changed the law on marriage to be gender neutral. So, we're .. the sixth nation to legalize gay marriage.

Now, technically, this does not change things much if you focus just on the marriage part. Same sex couples have already been allowed to enter partnerships which mostly grants the same rights as those of a married couple. Still, I believe it is an important step towards the recognition that the question at the heart of the gay marriage issue is whether you believe in equality.

This is however not why I'm brining this tired old thread back to life. As this new law was made official, the rethoric of the opposing factions changed. Apart from the occasional fanatic yelling about the Roman empire collapsing as a result of accepting gays and such, you hear very little about the sanctity of marriage, the corruption of society and that sort of thing. What is discussed now is the radical effects equalling gay and hetero marriage has on other aspects of norwegian law.

Before this change of wording, two people in a partnership were not allowed to adopt. A lone man or woman were allowed to adopt, but not two men, or two women.

Furthermore, Lesbian couples were not allowed to be artificially impregnated, whereas a single woman was.

Now, with both same sex and opposite sex couples being equal in the eyes of the law, none of these limitations are applicable anymore, and as a result the christian right have altered the argument to being about defending the good of the child. A child needs both a mum and a dad. A child should know of its biological father. A child of homosexual parents will be bullied in school etc.

My question then, is your feelings regarding the effects of this new law. I'm not asking for another discussion regarding the validity of gay marriage -though as this thread is dedicated to it, i'm not stopping you- but rather what you think of the consequences.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I think th consequences are not going to be a problem, for the most part. The worst consequence is the harassment they will receive from the people howling about the consequences.

[Macros]

Having read the entire thread before realising it was a resurected relic, I feel compelled to post my thoughts on the subject of both morgoths post and the rest of the thread.
I don't think Gay marriage is wrong, I'm of the opinion people can be as gay as they want, I just have no desire to see it (unless its two slamming hot chicks gettin it on )
Most people I know that argue against the civil partnerships, or whatever they're called, are religious type and their arguement boils down to god made adam and eve, not adam and steve (on a side not, if we assume the bible to be a valid document then christians/ jews do have a claim on the originality of marriage, as the worlds people were all aware of each other before the babel split, not that I believe it, jsut qauntifying tiste's arguement) or its not natural, the poles in the wrong hole.
My problems with gay marriage and (no onto morgys) the legal rights issues, I believe that gay people should get all legal rights straight couples do regarding inheritance, and all that polava, but they shouldnt be allowed to adopt kids. My believe of this is simply its unnatural (and I dont want to hear the gay penguins arguement, thats a dead horse) for a child to have parents of the same sex, it will lead of confusion when they see all thier other kiddy firends with a man/ woman parentage (not gettign to single paretns yet) If you can't produce a kid by natural means (i'll get to AI in a minute) then its pretty obvious nature didnt intend you to be raising one.
Regarding the nature arguement, yes I know that some men/women are infertile for various reasons, be it illness, an unloaded gun or whatever, but should that gun pop off a live round, kids can happen. Should a reversal to ~insert fertility affecting condition here~ be dfiscovered, kiddies can happen.
Two girls, or 2 guys bumping uglies will NOT result in children and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

[Aimless]

Morgoth;336818 said:

Now, with both same sex and opposite sex couples being equal in the eyes of the law, none of these limitations are applicable anymore, and as a result the christian right have altered the argument to being about defending the good of the child. A child needs both a mum and a dad. A child should know of its biological father.

This is a bizarre argument if single men and women have been allowed to adopt or get IVF.

The bullying argument is an equally unacceptable one, perhaps even more so, because, in Scandinavia (okay maybe it's only in Sweden, but I don't think so ) being different in any way is more than enough to significantly increase the risk of being bullied.

[Macros]

I'm sticking with my nature arguement

[Binder of Demons]

I'm sure there will be difficulties for these couples but i think it is ultimately a positive step. So many of the arguments against same sex marriages are the same rubbish that was used generations ago when talking about inter-racial couples.

It is still much more difficult for parents of one ethnicity/colour to adopt a child of differing ethnicity. Again it goes to how this might be awkward for the child. But in the case of adoption at least, surely a good home and decent opportunity for the child should override that?

If they are a happy stable couple that can provide a good home, then they shouldn't be discriminated against.

[Aimless]

Macros;336850 said:

I'm sticking with my nature arguement

And how do you feel about the notion that most things in modern human existence are "unnatural" when compared to the animal kingdom?

And what have you learned about children to homosexual parents, both those that have been adopted and those that came about through IVF (or artificial insemination) or helpful friends?

and what exactly do you mean with "confusion", and why would that "confusion" inevitably and permanently mess up children to gay parents?

Reply!

[Cause]

Im pretty sure from a global perspective orphans outnumber the people who want to adopt them. Lesbians have got to be better than an orphanage. Besides the orphan does not have to be a baby. Perhaps limit it to children ten or older or so, children who are of an age to undertsand what a lesbian is and so can accep and deal with it.

[Macros]

aimless what's the

[Aimless]

Macros;336894 said:

This is not my arguement, If we're going to get into how humanity is a cancerous growth on the body of earth we'll need a whole new thread. By un-natural I clearly (and i made it clear, you're being a twisted pedantic bear ) that gay people can't have children, its a physical imposibility, whilst traight couples with produciotn problems are a totaly differnt case, they've got the square peg and the square hole, and they fit together like good reproductive organs should, theres jsut a fault in the production line, IVF is a get out around that fault, in the case of gay couples there is no produciton line, factory is closed due to lack of components.

So, in the bright future when we will be able and allowed to clone humans and thus give gay people biological children in a manner similar to IVF, you won't have a problem with gay people having kids?

More importantly, I can't see at all how your point has any bearing on the issue of adopted children. Gay people are just as capable of adopting as are straight people. Bumping uglies isn't even an issue, in this matter.

Are you saying that it's okay for straight people to adopt kids because they could conceivably also get children in a more traditional (wet, sticky) fashion, but it's not okay for gay people because they can't get kids in any other way?

I can't unravel your reasoning there.


EDIT: The div-tags started showing up after I upgraded to FF3. Have no idea why!

[Macros]

your second part is my reasoning, not the cloning issue (that just plain silly )
Gay people can't go about the traditional "wet, sticky" fashion of haivng kids and will never be able to, hence me bringing bumping uglies into the situation. Its my view and its very unlikely to change that the bufties shouldnt be allowed to adopt kiddies, its against natures order, if we all turned gay end of species so to speak.

[Aimless]

Macros;336922 said:

your second part is my reasoning, not the cloning issue (that just plain silly )

Why is it silly? Esp. when put alongside the things you're saying, here! It is analogous to curing an illness that leads to infertility.

Quote

Gay people can't go about the traditional "wet, sticky" fashion of haivng kids and will never be able to, hence me bringing bumping uglies into the situation. Its my view and its very unlikely to change that the bufties shouldnt be allowed to adopt kiddies, its against natures order

Yes, but: So What? Why does it matter that it's against "nature's order" as you see it? Nature isn't my god, nature isn't my king, nature isn't any entity with any rights or demands.

So, explain: So what if it's "against nature"?

Quote

if we all turned gay end of species so to speak.

This is an utterly trivial truth, and an irrelevant point to make in this discussion. Why would we ever all turn gay? Do you have any reason to believe that all members of our species would ever turn gay? What indications have you found of this being a real fear?

In a future where everyone is utterly gay, I assure you there will be cloning, and possibly also time-travel.

If we all decided to be celibate or childless, the species would also perhaps come to and end. Do you then propose we force everyone to have children? You know, for the good of the species.