[Macros]

Er, my point is that gay people having children can't biologically happen, so its un-natural and unfair to expect a child to grow up in that environemtn without its consent, and seeing as a baby can't give or deny consent it shouldnt happen. My if everyone turned gay was not a voicing of some insane fear, it was an extreme example (form macros? NO WAI!!!) to further my point that biologically gayness doesnt conform to natures intent of procreation to continue the species.
I dont't see why you're taking such umbrage with this, you hate nature and are determined it will not rule you, fine, I'm saying this is my belief.
If some kid whos of an age to understand the implications desires to be adopted then fine, thats their choice, not some unknowing baby.
The species as a whole deciding to go celebate is even less likely than turning gay, I'm not saying we enforce and you must have children policy, if you dont want to have kids thats ok, I am merely stating the its impossible for gays to have kids biologiclaly so handing them some becuase they want them is off the list for me.

[Lisheo]

Its not unnatural at all. One of my mates's mother is a lesbian, and she grew up fine in that environment. I personally think if yer gonna take ppl off the list for kids for various reasons, then you have to include ppl susceptible to bigotry, racists, ppl with violent temporaments, ppl who drink, ppl who have done drugs, ppl who have any kind of criminal records, etc lol. Id much rather be a kid being raised by two fathers than be someone who was raised by two nazi psychos tho lol. And before you say there is screening for all of that, aye, there is, but Im pointing out that every straight person has the right to have children, so why should ppl who have a different sexual orientation be denied that? Its not like it is their fault.

[Shinrei]

Quote

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

There is nothing "unnatural" about humans and what we do. Sure, we do some things that are radically different than other animals on earth, but we are no less "natural".

But that's off topic.

And I see nothing wrong with same sex marriage. I've had many friends who are gay and some of them would make lovely parents. I do have to admit that for some reason adoption by married homosexuals makes me uneasy, but I have no rational argument against it so therefore I don't oppose it.

[Macros]

I'll just have to bite my tongue on this one

[stone monkey]

Infertile people of any gender also can't "biologically" have children. Maybe we should check someone's fertility before we let them adopt. Which seems a tad paradoxical, if you ask me...

The "It ain't nature's way!" argument is a weak one - "Nature," to quote Lady Bracknell, "is what we were put on this Earth to rise above." There are all sorts of reprehensible behaviours that are entirely natural - infanticide by stepfathers, for instance - that I suspect (hazarding a guess) you wouldn't condone; so objecting to gay parenting on the grounds that it's unnatural strikes me as being deliberately disingenuous.

What matters the most is that a child is brought up in a stable environment by parent(s) who love them. The sexuality of these people is irrelevant.

If you personally don't like the idea of gay people - then good for you. It's completely irrational for you to do so, but what someone does in the privacy of their own head is entirely up to them. There's difference between that and an insistance on denying them the same rights as everyone else merely because you happen not to like what they get up to in the bedroom with other consenting adults.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Where's the confusion come in. "Look Billy, some people have a mommy and daddy. Others have two mommies. Others have two daddies." That will be lpenty of explanation until they get old enough to understand the concept of gay, at which point they won't need any other explanation.

[Mezla PigDog]

I think a child being raised by a gay couple is only a problem if you think that homosexuality is a learned trait, rather than something people are born with. I don't think there is much evidence that an unnaturally high proportion of children raised by same-sex parents turn out gay.

The way I see it, kids are going to be picked on at school regardless of their home situation. The argument that legally bound couples can't raise children because they'll be bullied could equally apply to others subsets of couples - ethnic minorities, red heads, overweight people, really tall people, people with dwarvism....I think the list could go on.

[Obdigore]

Its really simple.

The law that Morgy is speaking about is making all people equal, which is equality.

Macros, do you think that all people should be given an equal chance? If so, there is no way you can persecute or exclude people based on anything they do that is not criminal.

I have a problem with adoption from outside your country, instead of adopting people inside that need it, but that is another problem.

[Macros]

stone monkey said:

Infertile people of any gender also can't "biologically" have children. Maybe we should check someone's fertility before we let them adopt. Which seems a tad paradoxical, if you ask me...

thats blatantly not what I am saying, biologically, it is possible for a straight couple to have children (barring cases of infertility) whereas gay couples simply cannot get the kiddies making love on. I've already said this either you're choosing to ignore it or deciding to twist my words to annoy me, either way here it is again for you to see.
I've already said I have no problem with gay marriages and the like, people are free to do what they want with their lives (except read TG, that shouldbe outlawed) so painting me with the homophobe brush doesnt cut it either. I have alays felt, and likely always will, that when it comes to adopting children gay couples shouldnt be getting a look in as its an un-natural environment to raise a child in.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

It's also impossible for a single person to have a baby on their own. Do you think single people should be barred from adoption? If having a mother and a father is the natural way, it could be argued that a gay couple is more natural than a single person-at least there's two of them.

Don't be surprised that you are getting painted as a homophobe. You said you have no problem with gays, you just don't want to see it. That indicates a distaste for the idea, which is homophobic. Not as homophobic as some, but it is. This really makes it difficult to believe that your arguments don't come from being uncomfortable with or disapproving of homosexuality.

[Macros]

I dont think single people should adopt, no.
My just don't want to see it comment is what I always say when questioned on the gay topic, I know several gay people but have no desire to see them make out with someone, so the simplest option for me is to not see it. If thats being homophobic then so be it.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Macros;336978 said:

I know several gay people but have no desire to see them make out with someone, so the simplest option for me is to not see it. If thats being homophobic then so be it.

It is. Not horribly homophobic, but if seeing gayness bothers you, that is indeed homophobic. Obviously if you have gay friends you're not rabidly homophobic, just a little. But you are.

Now that this has been established and you've admitted to it, go back and think about if this is maybe, just maybe, influencing how you feel about gay adoption.

[Macros]

Its not, I'm fairly confident on that theres a host of people I think shouldn't be allowed to adopt (madonna included, but she should actually be executed or forced to retire but thats another matter entirely) but this discussion is about same sex marriages, and opinion on the subject of their rights etc.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Ah, now you're "aging rockstar who sucks and ruined Guy Ritchie's career because she's a blood sucking attention whore"phobic. And so am I.

[stone monkey]

What is a "natural" environment to raise children in, precisely?

For the majority of human history most children (who survived, obviously) would have got to see at least one of their siblings die - should we be going back to that? For the majority of human history the "traditional" nuclear family wouldn't have been that much of an issue either.

Bandying the word "natural" about, but using it to mean "stuff I agree with" doesn't do much to really help your argument.

[Macros]

ok, to quantify what I mean as natural I mean a standard nucleaus family environmant.
To clarify then, by a natural family grouping I mean has the ability to actually produce the family (stepping over infertility as an unatural family I've explained what I meant there already several times) and a natural family grouping as we know it in society and history. possibly natural isnt the word to use there, but saying traditional paints the picture that I'm only saying it because its the way me and my parents were raised, which is not the case.
How is the improvments in health care and children not dieing as a result of polio or whatever even remotely linked toth e current debate? please remove this scraecrow form my presence, its straw like appendage offend me.

And RLY, she aint no rockstar, nor never was, shes pop, never make that mistake again

[stone monkey]

The nuclear family, as it's seen today is a rather recent invention. The fetishisation of the nuclear family as the only way for children to be raised being a middle-class Victorian obsession. For most of human history, children were either raised as part of an extended family and/or sent away in groups to be raised by others.

The argument given seems to boil down to: two men (or two women) are physically incapable of engendering a child on their own and therefore should not be given the opportunity to raise a child despite how well they can and might care for it. Which in itself is a straw man, as it implies that a person's sexual orientation would have any bearing on how well they'd look after a child; because, as we all know, there are quite a lot of straight people who are terrible at it.

I, for one, wouldn't even consider reproducing; as I can barely look after myself, let alone another whole person who has to depend on me for everything.

[Aimless]

Macros;337041 said:

possibly natural isnt the word to use there, but saying traditional paints the picture that I'm only saying it because its the way me and my parents were raised, which is not the case.

Then what is the case? You can hardly claim that the modern Western nuclear family is the only model that's existed throughout human history, nor even the most prevalent model.

I don't feel you've answered my "so what" question at all satisfactorily! Whether or not you mean "natural" or "traditional" or "madonna-free" or whatever does not matter, what does matter is why you think a given individual should not be allowed to raise a child. And you haven't clearly stated a single justifiable reason in this discussion--for example, you've yet to offer a good reason why an "unnatural" family model is unacceptable, to you.

I get the impression you're trying to say that it would necessarily be harmful for the child, but you have no evidence to back up such a claim.

Your talk of consent I found very confusing. No child gets to choose which parents it will be born to, not even children of straight parents. I'm hoping you're not saying that no-one should be allowed to have children until the children are old enough to "consent"...

[Macros]

I'm confused as to what part of my views confuse you, I'm saying its unnatural for two people of the same sex to have a child, as they can't actually have a child. What's so hard to grasp?

[Aimless]

Macros;337085 said:

I'm confused as to what part of my views confuse you, I'm saying its unnatural for two people of the same sex to have a child, as they can't actually have a child. What's so hard to grasp?

What is hard to grasp is why the unnaturalness means they should not be allowed to raise a child. The only good justification I can think of would be if it would be demonstrably harmful for the child, ie. if living in a home with gay parents would be directly harmful to the child--and more so than living in a home with straight parents.

Do you see what I'm asking?

1. It's unnatural.

2. Why is unnatural bad?