Homosexual Marriage and Adoption

[Satya]

What is your stance on these issues?

 

[Lurker]

100% for it.

Marriage for me is about two individuals making an emotional, spiritual and physical commitment to one another, sexuality makes no difference in this commitment. I believe a gay marriages should have the same legal rights as I would.

The most important factor with adoption is the parents abilities to raise a responsible child, their sexuality doesn't make them incapable of this so why should they be excluded. Often these children grow up more open minded and accepting of others.

 

[Shai Gar]

Against homosexuals marrying within Christian/Jewish/Islamic institutions. This is because the religions themselves are against it and they have every right to be. If someone wants to be married within a religious institution that will love and accept them then they ought to do as these religions did, and make up one of their own that suits them better. Any group has the right to deny entry to another group, but that doesn't follow that they have the right to harm them.

I believe we should do away with all legal rights to religious marriage. Complete separation of church and state. From this, it would follow that all legal rights come from "Civil Unions" and homosexuals and heterosexuals should have exactly the same right to a civil union.

I am against homosexual couples adopting as well, but for a totally different reason. Children need to grow up with a male role model, and a female role model to study and learn from, so that they can understand the genders and gender interaction and courting rituals better.

As for the argument that they "often" grow up more accepting of others; so what? If the parents are doing their job right they should be open and accepting anyway.

 

[Shai Gar]

WHICH IS NOT TO SAY I AM SET IN STONE ON THE TOPIC IF SOMEONE HAS ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW.

 

[Satya]

My thoughts are the same in the respect that I believe that civil unions should have all the same legal rights and benefits as marriage. As it is now, civil unions enjoy only about a quarter of the rights as marriage. However, I don't think it is right to force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. There are plenty of institutions that will marry same sex couples , so there is no reason to infringe on other's religious freedom.

As far as my thoughts on adoption, I had a chance to see it from both perspectives thanks to the latest 30 Days documentary and I used it as an example and wrote a brief piece on it in my morality thread...

For example, a women who holds the mandate that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children will not care that upon success, she would be denying thousands of children living in the often horrible conditions of foster care, the chance at a happy home. To her, it may be far more important to cease the spread of homosexuality being seen as "a viable lifestyle choice". Whereas in the alternative view, gay couples may insist on being allowed to adopt children, even though it may put considerable emotional strain on children being placed in an environment where they may be stigmatized or ostracized. These gay couples would probably not care that their being able to adopt would be seen by some as a degradation of the moral fabric of society, because they would simply be happy to be providing a home to a child.

This "ends justifying the means" kind of thinking, in which a person puts their own moral position above the needs of others is the inherent danger of morality. In the adoption case mentioned above, both sides failed to truly consider the children. One side failed to recognize that some children would profit immensely from being raised in a happy same sex home, and the other side failed to realize that they would be forcing children into a situation in which they could be judged and put through emotional turmoil that they may not even understand.

 

[Shai Gar]

My thoughts are the same in the respect that I believe that civil unions should have all the same legal rights and benefits as marriage. As it is now, civil unions enjoy only about a quarter of the rights as marriage. However, I don't think it is right to force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. There are plenty of institutions that will marry same sex couples , so there is no reason to infringe on other's religious freedom.

Precisely the same views as mine.

As far as my thoughts on adoption, I had a chance to see it from both perspectives thanks to the latest 30 Days documentary and I used it as an example and wrote a brief piece on it in my morality thread...

Yeah it had the word morality in it, I apologise for not reading it, but I get bored easy.

For example, a women who holds the mandate that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children will not care that upon success, she would be denying thousands of children living in the often horrible conditions of foster care, the chance at a happy home. To her, it may be far more important to cease the spread of homosexuality being seen as "a viable lifestyle choice". Whereas in the alternative view, gay couples may insist on being allowed to adopt children, even though it may put considerable emotional strain on children being placed in an environment where they may be stigmatized or ostracized. These gay couples would probably not care that their being able to adopt would be seen by some as a degradation of the moral fabric of society, because they would simply be happy to be providing a home to a child.

This "ends justifying the means" kind of thinking, in which a person puts their own moral position above the needs of others is the inherent danger of morality. In the adoption case mentioned above, both sides failed to truly consider the children. One side failed to recognize that some children would profit immensely from being raised in a happy same sex home, and the other side failed to realize that they would be forcing children into a situation in which they could be judged and put through emotional turmoil that they may not even understand.

notes:
1. homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's a born sexual preference
2. I do agree that the children deserve a happy home, even within a home where they would not get a biologically appropriate upbringing
3. disagree, MOST would just want to help, there are some who would do it for the political point. (only arguing absolutes here, not the point)

 

[sriv]

1. homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's a born sexual preference

Unless someone is pansexual.

Oh, and I'm for it.

 

[Shai Gar]

pan sexual? Do you mean bisexual, or "has a thing for Syrinx pipes and goat legs"?


just checked it out, so basically someone who doesn't care about any of the sexual hangups the rest of us have. someone totally free.

 

[Satya]

notes:
1. homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's a born sexual preference
2. I do agree that the children deserve a happy home, even within a home where they would not get a biologically appropriate upbringing
3. disagree, MOST would just want to help, there are some who would do it for the political point. (only arguing absolutes here, not the point)

1. That is a matter of opinion at this juncture. Albeit, it is probably most likely a mixture of biological, psychological, and social interactions.
2. Assuming that homosexuality could be a choice for some, then allowing same sex couples to adopt poses the danger of spreading it as a viable choice for those who could be influenced into choosing it when they otherwise would not. In other words, the "homosexual agenda" to promote normalcy of the behavior while corrupting the youth.

pan sexual? Do you mean bisexual, or "has a thing for Syrinx pipes and goat legs"?


just checked it out, so basically someone who doesn't care about any of the sexual hangups the rest of us have. someone totally free.

The fact that pansexual has a label defeats the purpose of being pansexual. True pansexual just call thesmelves "equal opportunity lovers" or "human beings".

 

[Serket]

The Greek word "pan" means "all"
The god pan is from "paein"- infinitive meaning "to pasture", hence Pan is the god of shepherds

 

[Serket]

Also, for those who don't think homosexual couples should raise children...

what about one heterosexual person and one homosexual person having a child?
Eg a lesbian having a child with a straight man, where neither have another partner, and both take a role raising the child?

Is your objection based on the idea that children need two differently gendered parents?
How is this different to single parents?
Is it not possible for a child of gay parents to give their child masculine/feminine role models appart from themselves?

For the record I'm pro gay marriage and adoption. As in civil marriage btw.

 

[Shai Gar]

what about one heterosexual person and one homosexual person having a child?
Eg a lesbian having a child with a straight man, where neither have another partner, and both take a role raising the child?

That'd be absolutely fine with me, given that the child gets a same gender role model, and someone to learn about how to treat the other gender

Is your objection based on the idea that children need two differently gendered parents?

Yes

How is this different to single parents?

Cannot stand single parents either. It tends to be really damn retarded. I've met far too many single mothers with very little sense of responsibility toward the child, constantly dumping the kid on their mother or a day care because they need to make money in order to support both. I am an advocate of a stay at home parent, regardless of the gender which stays at home.

Is it not possible for a child of gay parents to give their child masculine/feminine role models apart from themselves?

It is possible within the bounds of "Anything is possible". It's not good sense. The parent is the one that they see most of the time and they tend to model themselves off of.

 

[Serket]

What about children with effeiminate fathers or masculine mothers?
Are they not getting a warped view of their gender?

 

[Satya]

Also, for those who don't think homosexual couples should raise children...

I think the common argument is that the "ideal" is for a two parent home in which there is a mother and father. Otherwise the child may have gender identity problems, be exposed to a dangerous lifestyle, and the tolerance of the behavior may allow it to spread.

What about children with effeiminate fathers or masculine mothers?
Are they not getting a warped view of their gender?

From a Christian perspective, I say they probably would.

 

[Serket]

By ‘ideal’ you mean socially accepted norm. The ideal is to have parents who love you unconditionally and who do everything they can to help you become the best you can be. The ideal is to live in a world where people are not judged on irrelevant aspects of their lives. I think the parents’ gender is irrelevant to their ability to raise a child.
You are suggesting that having homosexual parents results in gender identity issues? Gender is a social construct, a set of arbitrary definitions placed upon us in an attempt to make us conform to the expectations of less tolerant minds. While physical gender does impose certain limitations on a person I see no reason to impose more due to sexual identity. Those who identify with a gender other than that of their body may make them less usual, but it does not make them wrong, or less of a person. There is enough discrimination in this world already. I will not judge a person’s ability to raise a child just because of their gender or sexual orientation. There are so many heterosexual couples who should be sterilised and or just plain shot for what they subject their children to. If a couple (I still believe 2 parents is ideal, but accept there are many excellent single parents) want to raise a child together and they are responsible enough to do so I see no logical reason to prevent it. Would you truly rather children live in orphanages or rotate through many foster homes than have 2 dads?
Summary: There are lots of bad parents, there always will be. A person’s ability to parent is not linked to their gender. Even assuming gay parents are not ideal, they are still better than other alternatives that we accept in our world.
Moving on;
Children of gay parents may have gender identity problems. Oh really, do you know this for a fact? Have you ever met the child of a gay couple?
Children of a gay couple may be exposed to a dangerous lifestyle. So may the children of parents in a war zone, drug dealers, mafia and even ordinary heterosexual parents. I assume you refer to the reputation for homosexuals to be promiscuous and unprotected during sex? This may well be the case; therefore we should prohibit ALL promiscuous and unprotected people from having children! (I don’t disagree with this, I’m just saying it’s a not an issue of orientation, but of lifestyle choice) I agree tolerance of dangerous behaviour allows it to spread. Tolerance of well adjusted loving couples who do no harm to anyone is to be aspired to. HIV/AIDS spreads because 90% people are stupid and selfish, not because 10% of people are gay.
Bad parents come in all shapes and sizes, and so do good parents. There are many reasons to prevent people from becoming parents. Until we can stop all non-ideal parents from breeding how can we condemn homosexual parents?
And yes, I would fully support the enforcement of breeding being restricted to people who could pass a standardised test.


Also it always amuses me who Christians, who pride model their lives on Jesus would judge and exclude people, when Jesus himself would have embraced them.

I'm also guessing part of the fear around homosexual parents is the idea that they would make the children gay? Firstly this is not the case, secondly why should it matter if it was? This means you are judging that homosexuality is all out wrong, and not just different.

 

[Shai Gar]

would it be possible to rewrite that without making assumptions on what the other person means?

 

[Satya]

For the record, I'm just expressing the Christian point of view.

Children of gay parents may have gender identity problems. Oh really, do you know this for a fact? Have you ever met the child of a gay couple?

On the 30 Days documentary they just recently had, there was a women who was raised by a gay father and she advocates legislation to prohibit same sex couples from adopting because she said it messed up her gender identity and exposed her to an awful lifestyle at a very young age.

Also it always amuses me who Christians, who pride model their lives on Jesus would judge and exclude people, when Jesus himself would have embraced them.

I'm also guessing part of the fear around homosexual parents is the idea that they would make the children gay? Firstly this is not the case, secondly why should it matter if it was? This means you are judging that homosexuality is all out wrong, and not just different.

That is the point. Christians judge homosexuality to be a sin, and therefore wrong. As far as what Jesus would do when it comes to gays, the Christian perspective is that he died for their sins and asks them to repent.

 

[Serket]

Ah, yes...don't worry I irritated myself there.
I made assumptions about other peoples assumptions to save time (I'm at work)
I made an ass out of u and me


I'll work on it

 

[Serket]

Hows this:


Two differently gendered parents is ideal:
The ideal is to have parents who love you unconditionally and who do everything they can to help you become the best you can be.

Homosexual parents results in gender identity issues in children:
Heterosexual parents can have children with gender identity issues as well. Correlation does not equal causality.

Children of a gay couple may be exposed to a dangerous lifestyle:
See previous answer

 

[Satya]

Ah, yes...don't worry I irritated myself there.
I made assumptions about other peoples assumptions to save time (I'm at work)
I made an ass out of u and me


I'll work on it

I don't need you to make an ass out of myself. :mrgreen:

No problem.