Full rights for the LGBT community.

Dr. Baltar

steelcityblues wrote: »

What colour is the sun out there?

Dunno too much ash...

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I accept and understand what you're saying, but bear this one in mind....that when it's two heterosexual couples it means there's a "flaw" somewhere, and flaws - such as a dodgy heart or a deformed limb - are, where possible, "fixed" or compensated for.

Homosexuality is not a "flaw" - or at least, any time that it is suggested by some that it is, then it's hotly disputed.

I don't know, so therefore I'll accept the views of those involved rather than those who simply have an opinion, and therefore I'll accept that it's not a "flaw"......therefore the same rules for fixing / compensating cannot be applied.

That does seem a little confused to me - heterosexual couples who cannot conceive are flawed, but that's OK because it can be fixed, whereas homosexuality isn't a flaw, and therefore cannot be fixed, and therefore isn't OK...?

Actually, the reasons a couple can't conceive aren't usually gross flaws such as dodgy heart or deformed limb, but rather various physiological or genetic incompatibilities - which, being genetic, would in any case be entirely irrelevant to the adopted child!

I genuinely mean no offence when I say that I suspect your opposition is based on prejudice - that is, that you don't approve of the idea, but can't really say why, because it's not really a conscious position. Certainly the reasoning you've offered isn't really holding water...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Slightly O/T, while fear of septicaemia may be a contributing factor, the primary reason is the alteration of the blood profiles; red/white blood cell ratios, altered lipid profiles, HDL/LDL etc.
This applies to burn victims prescribed anabolic steroids in a controlled medical environment, HRT users etc.
Don't know the position with regard to corticosteroids but I imagine it's the same.

Apparently one of the reasons for the reduction in fertility, falling sperm count/motility and increasing abnormalities, increased obesity and gynecomastia etc. is due to pollution of our water supplies.
Women using the contraceptive pill excrete high amount of oestrogen into our water supply, user of antibiotics and various medicines excrete massive amounts of pollutants which are never adequately filtered out.
Not hard to believe when we remember what went on in the West recently with their water supplies.

Combine that with a population which drinks heavily (alcohol can suppress testosterone production) and you end up with a hormonally haywire male population.

Back On topic.

Ok didn't know that. Coincidently I gave blood today. The wording seemed to suggest it was to do with the shared needles risk. EG "have you ever used IV non-prescription drugs (including bodybuilding drugs)?"

If it were to do with the drug alone then surely it would only matter if they were used recently.

Anyway I was just using it as an example, plenty of stuff in there gets you banned for life which would only affect a tiny minority of the high risk group profile.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Scofflaw wrote:

I genuinely mean no offence when I say that I suspect your opposition is based on prejudice - that is, that you don't approve of the idea, but can't really say why, because it's not really a conscious position. Certainly the reasoning you've offered isn't really holding water...

Hmm I think this describes me a bit. I know earlier in the thread I said homosexuals should be allowed to adopt as a couple but to be quite honest that is in spite of my gut instinct/immediate reaction of "no, not on"
Possibly think I'm also empathising with the adopted kid getting stick from bullies. But there's plenty of overriding comparison's to other bullying to leave that position obselete.

Eliot Rosewater

Sulmac wrote: »

Although 20% of (diagnosed) HIV cases happen to be such men, I think a blanket [blood donation] ban is just stupid and clearly discriminatory.

No medical test will be completely accurate. There's always a possibility some infected blood will slip through the cracks. If your figures are right, then homosexual men are about four times as likely to be infected than non-homosexual-male donors. To tighten the test's margin of error to compensate for this would require more double checking, which costs money. Also, I'm not sure the IBTS is short on donors. If they aren't, why should they be forced to accept a riskier demographic when there's a safer option?

Other than that, I'm firmly in agreement with you.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That does seem a little confused to me - heterosexual couples who cannot conceive are flawed, but that's OK because it can be fixed, whereas homosexuality isn't a flaw, and therefore cannot be fixed, and therefore isn't OK...?

Actually, the reasons a couple can't conceive aren't usually gross flaws such as dodgy heart or deformed limb, but rather various physiological or genetic incompatibilities - which, being genetic, would in any case be entirely irrelevant to the adopted child!

OK - the second point is that the flaw DOESN'T affect the child, so it's OK to intervene .....obviously, someone who couldn't conceive because of serious psychological issues as in being a "psycho" wouldn't be suitable for "intervention" or "interfering" - i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Lets take the comparison to another, so that hopefully my point can be accepted without being viewed as a prejudice or some other chicken-and-egg reversal.....

Some people can't breathe naturally, so we "fix" this through inhalers or operations or whatever so that they can live in the outside world.

No-one can breathe underwater, so we don't artificially facilitate underwater living, or "fix" this by tampering with genetics, etc.

That's what I mean about fixing a "natural" flaw versus not "fixing" an "un-natural" one.

Of course, that's a black-and-white issue, because it's "no-one" in the second scenario, and therefore "no-one" feels discriminated against.

Could we possibly "engineer" it so that men could "carry" a baby ? Possibly, nowadays, or in the future. But that would be "un-natural", wouldn't it ?

Note : I'm not equating the two - just trying to explain my thinking

So that's where I'm coming from......hope I've explained it properly.

Yes, I'm aware that you can also say that it's "un-natural" for humans to fly, etc, so I accept that "what nature intended" is a grey area.

And personally, I think the "flaw" is that - while accepting someone's orientation, that nature made them feel maternal/paternal.

Do I know for definite ? No. I don't really even understand that aspect of sexuality, or the aforementioned "experimentation", because I've never experienced it.

But - like I said - nature works to creating a natural pairing in almost every species in order to create a family, and that can't really be dismissed.

Eliot Rosewater

So, if I understand you correctly Liam Byrne, you are against gay couples adopting because it's not what "nature intended".

There's a number of flaws in this reasoning. Firstly, who ever said nature was a good guide to follow? There's plenty of examples of male animals who pull a runner as soon as the female is impregnated. Should we follow this? You know, it is nature, after all.

More importantly, nature isn't interested in "families". It's interested in keeping the species going for as long as possible through reproduction. A 16 year old girl who gives birth to a child outside of a stable relationship is, by all means, adhering to nature's standards. Is this desirable as a result?

The underage girl provides one good reason why homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. Who do you think is going to be a better parent and create a better family: the aforementioned 16-year old who's had a baby by accident, or two people in a (presumably stable) relationship who are going out of their way to navigate the adoption service so as to care for a baby?

Laminations

I think what Liam is trying to say is that it is not 'natural' for a homosexual couple to have a baby because no homosexual couple can ever conceive. But it is 'natural' for a heterosexual couple to have a baby so this should be assisted where there are individual problems. His argument is technically true but i think its irrelevant. It comes down to whats best for the child and if a couple, be they homo or heterosexual, would make good parents and provide a good home then they should be allowed adopt. And no one need worry about children being brainwashed into a sexual orientation, it simply doesn't work that way

LookingFor

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Possibly think I'm also empathising with the adopted kid getting stick from bullies. But there's plenty of overriding comparison's to other bullying to leave that position obselete.

Reminds me of Miss Panti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpHzoXg9HE

Anyway, I saw a heart-wrenching story from California that underlines the absolute and urgent need for marriage/partnership rights for gay couples.

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/suit-charges-elderly-gay-couple-was-forced-apart/

Mr. Greene, a 78-year old gay man from Sebastopol, has filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County after claiming a spate of indignities he suffered at the hands of officials during a bizarre estate battle that took place when his partner, who was 88, fell and became hospitalized in 2008.

Mr. Greene’s troubles began when Harold Scull, Mr. Greene’s partner for more than 20 years, fell down the steps of their home in April 2008. At the time, the complaint said, Mr. Scull was showing signs of mental impairment.

County officials successfully petitioned the court to gain some powers of conservatorship. Then they “sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of” almost $500,000 worth of belongings from the home shared by the two men — including furniture, art objects, memorabilia from the years Mr. Scull spent working in Hollywood, as well as a truck and two cats, the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Greene said that he and Mr. Scull had previously specified each other as executors in case either became incapacitated, but the county ignored the legal documents and the history of their relationship, and at one point referred to Mr. Greene as Mr. Scull’s “roommate.”

Citing the state of his mental health, county officials then moved Mr. Greene against his will into a nursing home and sold the rest of his belongings, the suit charged. He was not allowed to visit Mr. Scull, who died several months later, in August 2008.

At one point, as county officials moved through the couple’s home, the complaint alleged, they commented on the “quality” and “desirability” of the furnishings. They also mocked Mr. Greene, he said, calling him a “crazy old man,” said he had “dementia” and was a lost cause, laughed at him, and told him to “shut up and go to your room.”

On another instance, Mr. Greene claimed that employees acting as the county’s Deputy Public Guardians rolled their eyes and said in his presence, “you know how those gay boys are” and later expressed “displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his long-time partner.”

This angers me - and should anger any human with any capacity for empathy. It highlights a cruel cruel streak that can emerge in people if they're given half a chance.

This is what happens today in America when you are elderly, gay, and cannot marry/have your partnership legally recognized. It's a mix of the kind of treatment old people can get, compounded by their sexuality.

It is why - among other things - I get so pissed off watching documentaries like 'Suddenly, Last Winter' (about attempts to legalise civil partnership in Italy) and see people say that gay people don't need any law or rights.

Regarding an earlier post saying gay people should focus on cultural discrimination rather than legal: they're linked, and it's precisely why many gay people won't be happy until they have civil marriage vs 'separate but equal' civil partnership.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - the second point is that the flaw DOESN'T affect the child, so it's OK to intervene .....obviously, someone who couldn't conceive because of serious psychological issues as in being a "psycho" wouldn't be suitable for "intervention" or "interfering" - i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Lets take the comparison to another, so that hopefully my point can be accepted without being viewed as a prejudice or some other chicken-and-egg reversal.....

As I said, I really don't mean any offence by the term 'prejudice', I just literally mean that you probably instinctively object to the idea at a gut level rather than having come to opposition as a conclusion.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Some people can't breathe naturally, so we "fix" this through inhalers or operations or whatever so that they can live in the outside world.

No-one can breathe underwater, so we don't artificially facilitate underwater living, or "fix" this by tampering with genetics, etc.

That's what I mean about fixing a "natural" flaw versus not "fixing" an "un-natural" one.

Of course, that's a black-and-white issue, because it's "no-one" in the second scenario, and therefore "no-one" feels discriminated against.

Could we possibly "engineer" it so that men could "carry" a baby ? Possibly, nowadays, or in the future. But that would be "un-natural", wouldn't it ?

Note : I'm not equating the two - just trying to explain my thinking

So that's where I'm coming from......hope I've explained it properly.

As well as such a concept can be explained, I think!

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that you can also say that it's "un-natural" for humans to fly, etc, so I accept that "what nature intended" is a grey area.

As I said earlier, it's "unnatural" for men to be able to feed a baby milk.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And personally, I think the "flaw" is that - while accepting someone's orientation, that nature made them feel maternal/paternal.

Do I know for definite ? No. I don't really even understand that aspect of sexuality, or the aforementioned "experimentation", because I've never experienced it.

But - like I said - nature works to creating a natural pairing in almost every species in order to create a family, and that can't really be dismissed.

I think it can be dismissed out of hand, myself, but since you don't, let's choose the closest possible parallel in nature - if you were shown examples of male 'couples' of animals adopting young, would you then consider it natural? I ask because that, by your lights, clearly makes it "natural", and it's very well documented:

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oppenheimer1

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, if I understand you correctly Liam Byrne, you are against gay couples adopting because it's not what "nature intended".

There's a number of flaws in this reasoning. Firstly, who ever said nature was a good guide to follow? There's plenty of examples of male animals who pull a runner as soon as the female is impregnated. Should we follow this? You know, it is nature, after all.

More importantly, nature isn't interested in "families". It's interested in keeping the species going for as long as possible through reproduction. A 16 year old girl who gives birth to a child outside of a stable relationship is, by all means, adhering to nature's standards. Is this desirable as a result?

The underage girl provides one good reason why homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. Who do you think is going to be a better parent and create a better family: the aforementioned 16-year old who's had a baby by accident, or two people in a (presumably stable) relationship who are going out of their way to navigate the adoption service so as to care for a baby?

Your argument would be valid if it was the case that there were a shortage of hetrosexual couples willing to adopt. The fact is quite the opposite is true. Traditionally the best way to raise children is in a nucleated family where both the adult male and female bring something different to the relationship. The stable nucleated family has been the cornerstone of society for a long time, and we see the consequences all too often when this breaks down.

Say there is complete equality for homosexual couples in adoption. We have one baby and both a hetrosexual and homosexual couple of equally good character willing to adopt. Non discrimination would mean that 50-50 chance of being placed with either. Is that right? Is that the best outcome for the child?

Adoption is far too important an issue to deal with in the context of placating a vocal minority about their "rights". No one has the right to adopt a child. What should be done is always in the best interest of the child, and quite frankly if a child was able to make a decision regarding ther upbringing, how many times do you think they would pick the homosexual couple over the straight couple all other things being equal?

oppenheimer1

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said, I really don't mean any offence by the term 'prejudice', I just literally mean that you probably instinctively object to the idea at a gut level rather than having come to opposition as a conclusion.



As well as such a concept can be explained, I think!



As I said earlier, it's "unnatural" for men to be able to feed a baby milk.



I think it can be dismissed out of hand, myself, but since you don't, let's choose the closest possible parallel in nature - if you were shown examples of male 'couples' of animals adopting young, would you then consider it natural? I ask because that, by your lights, clearly makes it "natural", and it's very well documented:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Humans aren't swans. Existance of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far rarer than it is Humans, very much the exception to the rule.

Scofflaw

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Humans aren't swans. Existance of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far rarer than it is Humans, very much the exception to the rule.

No, that's not the case. Homosexuality is common in "the animal kingdom". Even the case I cited, where a quarter of black swan couples are same-sex, beats humanity hands-down - nothing like that proportion of human couples are same-sex. The point that humans aren't swans is irrelevant - humans are animals, and we have same-sex couples just as other animals do. If it's natural for them, it's natural for us.

One is entitled to prejudices (that is, pre-judgements) in respect to one's opinions, but they don't override facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's not the case. Homosexuality is common in "the animal kingdom". Even the case I cited, where a quarter of black swan couples are same-sex, beats humanity hands-down - nothing like that proportion of human couples are same-sex. The point that humans aren't swans is irrelevant - humans are animals, and we have same-sex couples just as other animals do. If it's natural for them, it's natural for us.

One is entitled to prejudices (that is, pre-judgements) in respect to one's opinions, but they don't override facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

I fully agree with your line of reasoning and would like to say you are spot on in this thread.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Adoption is far too important an issue to deal with in the context of placating a vocal minority about their "rights". No one has the right to adopt a child.

No one said so.

What some in the gay community have petitioned for is the right to be considered as adoptive parents, as candidates to adopt.

Moreover, the typical 'use case' for this kind of law among gay people is wrt a couple where one parent is a biological parent of the child and the other is not. Currently the other partner, if in a homosexual couple, has no rights or responsibilities over that child. There are children in Ireland today being raised by gay couples where the child has a legal relationship with only one parent. It's not just, or primarily, about childless gay couples wanting to adopt a third party child. This should be fixed, should it not? The currently proposed civil partnership bill, AFAIK, does not make any provision for these circumstances.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What should be done is always in the best interest of the child, and quite frankly if a child was able to make a decision regarding ther upbringing

Best interests of the child is not necessarily represented by what the child would choose. If the child had a choice in the first place it would likely choose not to have been put up for adoption at all.

The question is fundamentally if gay people should be in a position to adopt a child of their partner and/or if the pool of potential adoptive parents is improved or disimproved by admitting gay couples (and thus does it improve or disimprove the chances of a child being placed in a good home). That's what it boils down to.

oppenheimer1

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's not the case. Homosexuality is common in "the animal kingdom". Even the case I cited, where a quarter of black swan couples are same-sex, beats humanity hands-down - nothing like that proportion of human couples are same-sex. The point that humans aren't swans is irrelevant - humans are animals, and we have same-sex couples just as other animals do. If it's natural for them, it's natural for us.

One is entitled to prejudices (that is, pre-judgements) in respect to one's opinions, but they don't override facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

The article you link would suggest that animals exhibit bisexual tendencies frather than being true homosexuals when viewing from a human context. I do accept that there are cases of long lasting homosexual pairings in the animal kingdom.

I do think pointing to animal behaviour is pointless because I'm not saying gay couples are wrong and shouldn't be allowed. In fact I'm quite for civil partnership if it can be shown that a substantial proportion of these relationships can last, but if they are almost all ending in separation and dissolution then it becomes a farce and an administrative nightmare.
How many gay marriages last more than 15 years? (genuine question)

My argument is against Homosexual adoption, on the grounds that a child gets the best upbringing from a straight couple, with all other things being equal. It is well documented that a child requires both maternal and paternal influences for increasing the outcome that the child will grow up to be a balanced and adjusted individual. When putting a child in someones care we should always be operating in the best interests of the child, not pandering to the "rights" of self interested group.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it can be dismissed out of hand, myself, but since you don't, let's choose the closest possible parallel in nature - if you were shown examples of male 'couples' of animals adopting young, would you then consider it natural?

What's "natural" and what "happens in nature" aren't precisely interchangeable, because we have - supposedly - a civilised society.

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.

Do you think that a homosexual couple stealing a child and hunting away the mother would be viewed as OK in society ? Do you think that I do ?

Likewise, an animal will - in its "nature" - kill another animal for food / resources; something else that most of normal society would be horrified by. Just because some criminals think it's "their right", and it also happens in nature, should we accept it in society ?

So therefore there's more to it than what you implied. And what I mean by "nature / natural" is related to what is physically possible under normal conditions in nature - "natural" - rather than using animal behaviour as a norm.

Yes, we've "evolved" (although that's debatable in itself if you watch Jeremy Kyle or the behaviour of the ruling classes)......does that negate the basis ? I don't know.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A 16 year old girl who gives birth to a child outside of a stable relationship is, by all means, adhering to nature's standards. Is this desirable as a result?

Firstly, the 16 year old girl wasn't strictly "single" at the moment of conception, so no, I don't accept that that's "nature's standards". If she had an immaculate conception, then I might agree with you.

Secondly, this is a slightly different scenario, because "adoption" is a man-made concept to make sure abandoned children, etc, are "looked after".

Nature doesn't have that concept, and while there are occasional documented cases of a foal, etc, being fostered, it definitely doesn't have a concept of what's in the "best interests" of the child, which is a completely human ideal.

So if we compare like with like, that 16 year old girl - or, indeed, any "straight" single person - shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, IMHO, because (a) they're not in the "ideal" relationship scenario - the one that is required (all things being equal) to create a child and (b) they physically can't!

Therefore it's not discrimination - there are many people other than gay people who simply don't fit the required criteria.

Anyway, I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone, or they me, so we'll leave this aspect at that and let the thread continue on the more general subject....

My main point was that having a thread that says "full rights" is very subjective.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's "natural" and what "happens in nature" aren't precisely interchangeable, because we have - supposedly - a civilised society.



Do you think that a homosexual couple stealing a child and hunting away the mother would be viewed as OK in society ? Do you think that I do ?

Likewise, an animal will - in its "nature" - kill another animal for food / resources; something else that most of normal society would be horrified by. Just because some criminals think it's "their right", and it also happens in nature, should we accept it in society ?

So therefore there's more to it than what you implied. And what I mean by "nature / natural" is related to what is physically possible under normal conditions in nature - "natural" - rather than using animal behaviour as a norm.

Yes, we've "evolved" (although that's debatable in itself if you watch Jeremy Kyle or the behaviour of the ruling classes)......does that negate the basis ? I don't know.



Firstly, the 16 year old girl wasn't strictly "single" at the moment of conception, so no, I don't accept that that's "nature's standards". If she had an immaculate conception, then I might agree with you.

Secondly, this is a slightly different scenario, because "adoption" is a man-made concept to make sure abandoned children, etc, are "looked after".

Nature doesn't have that concept, and while there are occasional documented cases of a foal, etc, being fostered, it definitely doesn't have a concept of what's in the "best interests" of the child, which is a completely human ideal.

So if we compare like with like, that 16 year old girl - or, indeed, any "straight" single person - shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, IMHO, because (a) they're not in the "ideal" relationship scenario - the one that is required (all things being equal) to create a child and (b) they physically can't!

Therefore it's not discrimination - there are many people other than gay people who simply don't fit the required criteria.

Anyway, I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone, or they me, so we'll leave this aspect at that and let the thread continue on the more general subject....

My main point was that having a thread that says "full rights" is very subjective.

I never thought I'd ever agree with a post of yours Liam

Scofflaw

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The article you link would suggest that animals exhibit bisexual tendencies frather than being true homosexuals when viewing from a human context. I do accept that there are cases of long lasting homosexual pairings in the animal kingdom.

I do think pointing to animal behaviour is pointless because I'm not saying gay couples are wrong and shouldn't be allowed. In fact I'm quite for civil partnership if it can be shown that a substantial proportion of these relationships can last, but if they are almost all ending in separation and dissolution then it becomes a farce and an administrative nightmare.
How many gay marriages last more than 15 years? (genuine question)

My argument is against Homosexual adoption, on the grounds that a child gets the best upbringing from a straight couple, with all other things being equal. It is well documented that a child requires both maternal and paternal influences for increasing the outcome that the child will grow up to be a balanced and adjusted individual. When putting a child in someones care we should always be operating in the best interests of the child, not pandering to the "rights" of self interested group.

I think it has already been said that in fact there isn't any evidence to support that view - so I'd be interested to see what documentation is referred to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I do think pointing to animal behaviour is pointless because I'm not saying gay couples are wrong and shouldn't be allowed. In fact I'm quite for civil partnership if it can be shown that a substantial proportion of these relationships can last, but if they are almost all ending in separation and dissolution then it becomes a farce and an administrative nightmare.
How many gay marriages last more than 15 years? (genuine question)

Wowzers. We have to meet a longevity test?

After what straight people did to the notion of 'permanent' marriage? And after straight people introduced divorce?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

My argument is against Homosexual adoption, on the grounds that a child gets the best upbringing from a straight couple, with all other things being equal. It is well documented that a child requires both maternal and paternal influences for increasing the outcome that the child will grow up to be a balanced and adjusted individual.

You are making these statements but not backing them up. They seem to be based purely on your own judgment or opinion (which I would guess is based on little to no exposure to real gay couples with children).

A Canadian government review of over 100 studies in the area, commissioned at the height of its own civil partnership debate, concluded that children of lesbian couples were as well off as children of a male/female coupling. Some studies showed they were actually better adjusted, fewer showed they were less well adjusted, and the vast majority showed no difference.

You also continue to ignore the scenarios that are chiefly driving calls for gay couples to be allowed to adopt - that were a child is already being raised by a gay couple, but because of the current legal situation only a relationship with one of the parents is legally recognised. You ask what the child would choose - do you think such children would not choose to have their other parent be legally their parent too?

Denerick

Personally I'm in favour of gay couples adopting a child. People like to say that both maternal and paternal influences are needed, but what about the huge number of children who grow up in this country with only one parent? I think their efforts are somewhat derided if you constantly complain that their children are not getting the appropriate upbringing (And I'm not just talking about seperation, there is also examples of widows etc.)

The 'ideal upbringing' response is in my opinion limited because my 'ideal upbringing' would have involved me growing up in a castle somewhere in southern Germany and then going on to criss cross the world on my inherited wealth.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's "natural" and what "happens in nature" aren't precisely interchangeable, because we have - supposedly - a civilised society.

And that, I think, neatly illustrates the uselessness of the claim that same-sex adoption is unnatural.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you think that a homosexual couple stealing a child and hunting away the mother would be viewed as OK in society ? Do you think that I do ?

Likewise, an animal will - in its "nature" - kill another animal for food / resources; something else that most of normal society would be horrified by. Just because some criminals think it's "their right", and it also happens in nature, should we accept it in society ?

So therefore there's more to it than what you implied. And what I mean by "nature / natural" is related to what is physically possible under normal conditions in nature - "natural" - rather than using animal behaviour as a norm.

Yes, we've "evolved" (although that's debatable in itself if you watch Jeremy Kyle or the behaviour of the ruling classes)......does that negate the basis ? I don't know.

But nobody is asking a same-sex couple to conceive, Liam. They're asking about adoption, and I've pointed out that adoption is perfectly possible for same-sex couples, and is found quite naturally.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, the 16 year old girl wasn't strictly "single" at the moment of conception, so no, I don't accept that that's "nature's standards". If she had an immaculate conception, then I might agree with you.

Secondly, this is a slightly different scenario, because "adoption" is a man-made concept to make sure abandoned children, etc, are "looked after".

Nature doesn't have that concept, and while there are occasional documented cases of a foal, etc, being fostered, it definitely doesn't have a concept of what's in the "best interests" of the child, which is a completely human ideal.

So if we compare like with like, that 16 year old girl - or, indeed, any "straight" single person - shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, IMHO, because (a) they're not in the "ideal" relationship scenario - the one that is required (all things being equal) to create a child and (b) they physically can't!

Therefore it's not discrimination - there are many people other than gay people who simply don't fit the required criteria.

And where they don't fulfil the necessary criteria for adoption, they won't be allowed to adopt - and Lord knows it's hard enough for heterosexual couples to adopt. Same sex couples will have to fulfil the same criteria of relationship and financial stability as heterosexual couples, as well as the variety of other hoops that adoption services place along the way. The fact that they cannot conceive together is, as I pointed out earlier, entirely irrelevant, since it applies to virtually every couple that wish to adopt...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulmac

This has been doing the rounds on the internet for a while, it's from an American viewpoint but it's still pretty valid:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Scofflaw

I'd just like to make entirely clear that I have no objection to anyone having a prejudice against same-sex adoption. I disagree with that prejudice, but I don't disagree with the right to hold it, or any other prejudice - however, I do take exception to people using false arguments to support their personal feelings.

For better or for worse, it is the right of a society to decide by common consent what is felt to be acceptable in that society. It is up to the LGBT community to argue for social acceptance of the rights they want, and for legal implementation of those rights - and it is the equal right of people who oppose that such acceptance to argue against it. Both parties, however, are bound to accept the majority verdict, and both parties to the debate have a duty to honesty in that debate.

Personally, I would add that anyone arguing in a public debate also has a duty of "due diligence" in respect of his or her arguments just as much as in respect of the arguments of his or her opponents - one should not simply say "such and such is well documented" unless one really knows that to be the case, and can, if required, lay one's hands on or at least point to such documentation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oppenheimer1

Sulmac wrote: »

This has been doing the rounds on the internet for a while, it's from an American viewpoint but it's still pretty valid:

The jury is still out on the causes of homosexulity. Some believe there is a genetic disposition to it and requires nurture to flick the switch.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that, I think, neatly illustrates the uselessness of the claim that same-sex adoption is unnatural.

I've already made the distinction between what is naturally possible and what is animal nature - they are not the same. I have simply said that there is - in my view - a reason that both parents of different sex are required.

One parent missing is the equivalent - in my view - of a single person adoption.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And where they don't fulfil the necessary criteria for adoption, they won't be allowed to adopt.....

....and the criteria is a mother and a father.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The fact that they cannot conceive together is, as I pointed out earlier, entirely irrelevant, since it applies to virtually every couple that wish to adopt...

That's your view, and I accept it - as your view.

It's not my view. And - in the context of the discussion - I don't view it as discrimination (or even a "right"), in the same way as I don't view it as my right to adopt even though I would be a loving, caring parent - it's not my right because I'm single : I don't fit the criteria.

Someone else who's single might view it as their "right" (which I'd likewise disagree with) and I think it has been allowed in certain countries (which I disagree with).

But I am not discriminating, and no-one's "full rights" are being affected, just as mine aren't by me not being allowed to adopt.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

For better or for worse, it is the right of a society to decide by common consent what is felt to be acceptable in that society.

That's a nice sentiment, but don't you think that there should be protections for minorities against majority rule? As we've seen in the past, majorities can abuse their position to make life hell for some groups.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a nice sentiment, but don't you think that there should be protections for minorities against majority rule? As we've seen in the past, majorities can abuse their position to make life hell for some groups.

Protections? Would this be some form of regulation? Thats not very libertarian of you Joking aside I agree with you on this topic. Raised by a single parent, I find the argument of 'ideal family' insulting. Mother and father should not be the criteria, stable and loving parents should be the main requirement for eligibility to adopt. And the 'all things being equal' argument of oppenheimer does not work either. All things being equal between two hetero couples, which one gets to adopt? Its just a hard decision, same as if all other things are equal between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. They are both equally eligible, so yes it should be 50-50.

Natural or not (that is the ability to conceive) shouldn't come into it. Adoption should be in the best interests of the child and a loving family is in their best interests. I got that love from my mother and grandmother, unorthodox but wholly adequate, in fact more than adequate - I wouldn't change it now if I could.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a nice sentiment, but don't you think that there should be protections for minorities against majority rule? As we've seen in the past, majorities can abuse their position to make life hell for some groups.

That's the "for better or for worse" aspect - the protections for minorities are the universal rights enshrined in law, but a society is only going to enshrine universal rights in law that the majority accepts.

Imperfect, but how else would one do it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already made the distinction between what is naturally possible and what is animal nature - they are not the same. I have simply said that there is - in my view - a reason that both parents of different sex are required.

One parent missing is the equivalent - in my view - of a single person adoption.

....and the criteria is a mother and a father.

That's your view, and I accept it - as your view.

It's not my view. And - in the context of the discussion - I don't view it as discrimination (or even a "right"), in the same way as I don't view it as my right to adopt even though I would be a loving, caring parent - it's not my right because I'm single : I don't fit the criteria.

Someone else who's single might view it as their "right" (which I'd likewise disagree with) and I think it has been allowed in certain countries (which I disagree with).

But I am not discriminating, and no-one's "full rights" are being affected, just as mine aren't by me not being allowed to adopt.

Regrettably circular - you've simply defined the criteria as being a mother and a father, which is just begging the question of what the criteria should be. Clearly the LGBT community (and people like myself) wouldn't see that as part of the criteria.

However, I can't see much point in poking you with a stick over this - you disagree with the idea, and as I said, I accept that as your right whether you can give a rationale or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw