Homosexuality and parenthood: your thoughts.

[Jormengand]

-some nonsensical rubbish-

Alternatively, we could just give people equal rights "freedoms/privelages"

Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

[Ecans]

They have my sympathy and best wishes. Some child is probably going to miss out on a good and loving home because of some stupid law/regulation/uptight assholes.

[Ovisterra]

And anyway, even if you think (for some reason) that homosexuality is a bad influence on kids, having foster parents of any sexual orientation is still going to be better than spending your whole life in an orphanage, unless you get abusive foster parents.

-snip-

Actually there are "rights" that everyone is entitled to if they live in a UN member state, whether the state likes it or not.

So unless you live in Kosovo, the Vatican City or Taiwan (which is under China anyway despite not liking it, so really it doesn't belong here) or a disputed territory, everyone in your country has certain rights.

[Sidhae]

-some nonsensical rubbish-

Alternatively, we could just give people equal rights "freedoms/privelages"

Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

Actually, no. It's been around for like 200 years now and still hasn't succeeded. And I doubt it ever will, at least not until we create a society of androgynous clones with a hive mind. Now, that would be equality...

[Sidhae]

And anyway, even if you think (for some reason) that homosexuality is a bad influence on kids, having foster parents of any sexual orientation is still going to be better than spending your whole life in an orphanage, unless you get abusive foster parents.

-snip-

Actually there are "rights" that everyone is entitled to if they live in a UN member state, whether the state likes it or not.

So unless you live in Kosovo, the Vatican City or Taiwan (which is under China anyway despite not liking it, so really it doesn't belong here) or a disputed territory, everyone in your country has certain rights.

And the only reason they have these "rights" is the authority of United Nations that backs them up. Without an authority (an armed force, basically) to back up and ensure that these rights are observed, the Human Rights Charter is only good for wiping one's arse.

Nobody is entitled to their rights, they are merely granted them. Without an authority that grants and enforces them, one can only have as much rights (freedoms) as one personally can safeguard. Which ain't much - most aren't even able to safeguard their own life these days, let alone anything more.

[Ovisterra]

Alternatively, we could just give people equal rights "freedoms/privelages"

Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

Actually, no. It's been around for like 200 years now and still hasn't succeeded. And I doubt it ever will, at least not until we create a society of androgynous clones with a hive mind. Now, that would be equality...

You've still failed to provide any sort of reasoning as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry and adopt kids.

[Ovisterra]

And anyway, even if you think (for some reason) that homosexuality is a bad influence on kids, having foster parents of any sexual orientation is still going to be better than spending your whole life in an orphanage, unless you get abusive foster parents.



Actually there are "rights" that everyone is entitled to if they live in a UN member state, whether the state likes it or not.

So unless you live in Kosovo, the Vatican City or Taiwan (which is under China anyway despite not liking it, so really it doesn't belong here) or a disputed territory, everyone in your country has certain rights.

And the only reason they have these "rights" is the authority of United Nations that backs them up. Without an authority (an armed force, basically) to back up and ensure that these rights are observed, the Human Rights Charter is only good for wiping one's arse.

Nobody is entitled to their rights, they are merely granted them. Without an authority that grants and enforces them, one can only have as much rights (freedoms) as one personally can safeguard. Which ain't much - most aren't even able to safeguard their own life these days, let alone anything more.

Not entitled to them? I'm going to have to stop you there.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

That's article two of the UDHR.

[Jormengand]

Alternatively, we could just give people equal rights "freedoms/privelages"

Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

Actually, no. It's been around for like 200 years now and still hasn't succeeded. And I doubt it ever will, at least not until we create a society of androgynous clones with a hive mind. Now, that would be equality...

Actually, no. There are precisely 2 countries in the world which have had equal homo rights, for about 10-15 years, and they're doing quite well out of it.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Interestingly, neither does the liberal view have any true proof besides theories. So far, no country can judge from practical experience whether supporting homosexuals and the likes brings benefits or not.

You've got this exactly backwards. You restrict freedoms if those freedoms are demonstrably doing harm. It's not a question of whether society as a whole ultimately benefits from the freedoms, it's a question of whether society ultimately suffers from them. Unless you can provide definitive, reliable evidence that society as a whole has suffered from the existence of homosexual parenting your argument amounts to little more than dust.

You've already been provided the reasons why increasing the birth rate is not inherently good, and why third and second world countries with high birth rates will ultimately suffer. So that line of reasoning is dead. You've been provided an example of a tiny country which has managed to preserve its sovereignty and culture for more than 100 years (Liechtenstein). So the line of reasoning that having a large population is vital to cultural preservation is dead. You've been informed of studies which indicate that homosexual parenting does no harm to a child's development, and merely handwaved the evidence off as "politically motivated" (a claim you've yet to justify with evidence).

This leads me to believe that when you say:

Which makes me think it's more of a matter of ideology than anything else.

You're really talking about yourself more than us.

[Iuuvic]

Actually, no. It's been around for like 200 years now and still hasn't succeeded. And I doubt it ever will, at least not until we create a society of androgynous clones with a hive mind. Now, that would be equality...

You've still failed to provide any sort of reasoning as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry and adopt kids.

Hard to provide a reasoning that is nonexistent I suppose. Request after request and all we get is more off topic nonsense.

[Sidhae]

And the only reason they have these "rights" is the authority of United Nations that backs them up. Without an authority (an armed force, basically) to back up and ensure that these rights are observed, the Human Rights Charter is only good for wiping one's arse.

Nobody is entitled to their rights, they are merely granted them. Without an authority that grants and enforces them, one can only have as much rights (freedoms) as one personally can safeguard. Which ain't much - most aren't even able to safeguard their own life these days, let alone anything more.

Not entitled to them? I'm going to have to stop you there.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

That's article two of the UDHR.

You are obviously missing my point. The Declaration and everything written in it is just a piece of paper with some ink on it, an expensive asswipe, if you will, if there is no authority to back it up. That means the rights described there are only valid and in effect as long as that authority (the UN, in this case) exists and remains functional. Which means you are only "entitled" to these rights as long as there exists a UN to enforce them.

No rights are EVER inherent or granted by default. There is always some form of authority behind each of them, and they are only valid as long as that authority keeps them valid.

A simple example - according to the Declaration, you have an inalienable right to life, but the UN and other authorities that enforce this right collapse. I in turn have decided that for some reason you deserve to die and take my chance. What precludes me from killing you, if there is nobody to enforce your right to live and deter me for that act with threat of punishment?

Of course, in the absence of protective authority, you can also take matters into your own hands and defend your life yourself, but in that case your right to live will become a purchase. You have purchased the right to live by exercising force to defend it, in which case it is no longer granted. You will have to maintain constant vigilance, constantly pay for your right to live by looking out for me, who seeks to take it.

---

As for why homosexuals shouldn't be parents - it's simply never been that way before, even in times when homosexuality was a generally accepted part of life. I simply don't see why that should change, when the traditional family model has worked just fine so far.

The problem is, homosexual marriage and parenting has been around for only a few decades, much too short period to accurately evaluate their long-term impact on society.

And yes, much of research on homosexuality is politically-motivated, exactly the same way most research on race is. Be it pro-gay or anti-gay agenda, there's almost always someone behind it interested in producing desirable results backing up their stance and sponsoring the researcher accordingly. Frankly, I think both sides produce so much bullshit it's not even worth bothering to read into. I rather trust my gut feeling than science in these matters, and it just doesn't feel right. Even putting all ideology and personal convictions aside, it doesn't feel right, like many other things promoted as good these days.

[Jormengand]

No rights are EVER inherent or granted by default. There is always some form of authority behind each of them, and they are only valid as long as that authority keeps them valid.

It's called "The Police"

As for why homosexuals shouldn't be parents - it's simply never been that way before, even in times when homosexuality was a generally accepted part of life.

So?

I simply don't see why that should change, when the traditional family model has worked just fine so far.

No, it hasn't- high divorce rates, child abuse, and so on...

The problem is, homosexual marriage and parenting has been around for only a few decades, much too short period to accurately evaluate their long-term impact on society.

Then why not test it some more?

And yes, much of research on homosexuality is politically-motivated, exactly the same way most research on race is. Be it pro-gay or anti-gay agenda, there's almost always someone behind it interested in producing desirable results backing up their stance and sponsoring the researcher accordingly. Frankly, I think both sides produce so much bullshit it's not even worth bothering to read into. I rather trust my gut feeling than science in these matters, and it just doesn't feel right. Even putting all ideology and personal convictions aside, it doesn't feel right, like many other things promoted as good these days.

"Just doesn't feel right"? What are you, some kind of bigoted hippy?

[Iuuvic]

Not to be intentionally insulting, but your gut feeling is not worth a damn to anyone but you. Especially when every bit of scientific data, which you have not proven to be bias in any way, stands in direct opposition to your personal beliefs. Feel free to air your shit if you must but don't expect anyone to actually take your opinion seriously if you cannot back it up with more than your 'gut feeling.' So you keep staring the truth in the face and calling foul, you just come out looking the fool; you've convinced me at least...

Again, I don't mean to be overly insulting but ignorance for the sake of ignorance does not paint a flattering picture.

[Old Tyrannia]

Well, firstly I applaud your friends' decision to adopt rather than use IVF or surrogacy, because I find it utterly unbelievable that so many people who have trouble producing children would resort to such measures when they could just as easily adopt one of the many poor children who need a loving home. Secondly I feel that there is no reason why a homosexual couple would not be completely capable of raising children at least as well as most heterosexual parents. My sole concern when it comes to homosexual adoption is whether it will be unfair to the child, as it will inevitably be stigmatised and feel different to its peers who have heterosexual parents. Of course, it shouldn't be that way, but to change it you must first allow homsexual couples to adopt to prove they are capable parents and make it socially acceptable, which involves potentially exposing the children to being stigmatised and feeling different to their peers, etc. Quite the vicious circle.

[Sidhae]

Not to be intentionally insulting, but your gut feeling is not worth a damn to anyone but you. Especially when every bit of scientific data, which you have not proven to be bias in any way, stands in direct opposition to your personal beliefs. Feel free to air your shit if you must but don't expect anyone to actually take your opinion seriously if you cannot back it up with more than your 'gut feeling.'

You seem to take this debate awfully seriously. If my opinions are irrelevant, why is it that you are so bothered by them?

I, for instance, am here for my personal amusement, as an anonymous nobody babbling about various irrelevant topics with other anonymous nobodies for fun, to somehow waste the time when I have no fancy of doing anything more constructive. What I say here effects nobody, and neither does anything said here effect me. It won't change the world, it won't even change any individual life. What goes on here on NS just doesn't matter in the real world.

This is the internet - stop giving a damn and just enjoy your time.

[Iuuvic]

Not to be intentionally insulting, but your gut feeling is not worth a damn to anyone but you. Especially when every bit of scientific data, which you have not proven to be bias in any way, stands in direct opposition to your personal beliefs. Feel free to air your shit if you must but don't expect anyone to actually take your opinion seriously if you cannot back it up with more than your 'gut feeling.'

You seem to take this debate awfully seriously. If my opinions are irrelevant, why is it that you are so bothered by them?

I, for instance, am here for my personal amusement, as an anonymous nobody babbling about various irrelevant topics with other anonymous nobodies for fun, to somehow waste the time when I have no fancy of doing anything more constructive. What I say here effects nobody, and neither does anything said here effect me. It won't change the world, it won't even change any individual life. What goes on here on NS just doesn't matter in the real world.

This is the internet - stop giving a damn and just enjoy your time.

Your babbling just happens to be about stealing the rights away from people like me...Excuse me for taking offence.

[Sidhae]

You seem to take this debate awfully seriously. If my opinions are irrelevant, why is it that you are so bothered by them?

I, for instance, am here for my personal amusement, as an anonymous nobody babbling about various irrelevant topics with other anonymous nobodies for fun, to somehow waste the time when I have no fancy of doing anything more constructive. What I say here effects nobody, and neither does anything said here effect me. It won't change the world, it won't even change any individual life. What goes on here on NS just doesn't matter in the real world.

This is the internet - stop giving a damn and just enjoy your time.

Your babbling just happens to be about stealing the rights away from people like me...Excuse me for taking offence.

Would you feel better if I pretended to agree with everyone instead? There isn't really a point in debating if everyone agrees, is there?

Thing is, I could just as well keep another profile and adopt the persona of a fanatic liberal gay rights activist in it, and you would never tell the difference. You would agree with most of what I would say, and never suspect that you are actually talking to a guy who is actually revolted by homos on an instinctive level. So really, don't take these debates so seriously even if there's something you don't find agreeable. It's not like you can change anything, earn or lose any prestige or respect here, or convince anybody to embrace the One True Path, whatever is your definition of it...

Besides, it's better to speak one's mind and make enemies than to make friends by feigning agreement while planning treachery against them.

[Arbites]

I am shocked, shocked and appalled that people here are suggesting homosexuals be let off easy. They should be made to suffer the same headaches of parenthood that straight couples have had to endure for centuries! In fact, they have a lot of time to make up for. Every straight couple should be made to give up one child for adoption by a gay couple. That'll learn 'em!

[Iuuvic]

Your babbling just happens to be about stealing the rights away from people like me...Excuse me for taking offence.

Would you feel better if I pretended to agree with everyone instead? There isn't really a point in debating if everyone agrees, is there?

Thing is, I could just as well keep another profile and adopt the persona of a fanatic liberal gay rights activist in it, and you would never tell the difference. You would agree with most of what I would say, and never suspect that you are actually talking to a guy who is actually revolted by homos on an instinctive level. So really, don't take these debates so seriously even if there's something you don't find agreeable. It's not like you can change anything, earn or lose any prestige or respect here, or convince anybody to embrace the One True Path, whatever is your definition of it...

Besides, it's better to speak one's mind and make enemies than to make friends by feigning agreement while planning treachery against them.

I would prefer not to waste my time with you any further, to tell you the truth. You have made it very clear that you don't care and won't acknowledge any shred of evidence that stands against your opinion, so I don’t think we have anything further to discuss.

[Sidhae]

Would you feel better if I pretended to agree with everyone instead? There isn't really a point in debating if everyone agrees, is there?

Thing is, I could just as well keep another profile and adopt the persona of a fanatic liberal gay rights activist in it, and you would never tell the difference. You would agree with most of what I would say, and never suspect that you are actually talking to a guy who is actually revolted by homos on an instinctive level. So really, don't take these debates so seriously even if there's something you don't find agreeable. It's not like you can change anything, earn or lose any prestige or respect here, or convince anybody to embrace the One True Path, whatever is your definition of it...

Besides, it's better to speak one's mind and make enemies than to make friends by feigning agreement while planning treachery against them.

I would prefer not to waste my time with you any further, to tell you the truth. You have made it very clear that you don't care and won't acknowledge any shred of evidence that stands against your opinion, so I don’t think we have anything further to discuss.

I find it rather amusing that somebody who has enough idle time to debate on internet forums complains about "wasting time".

[The Anglo Saxons]

I don't think its fair on the child

[Honorable Citizens]

About 50% of heterosexual parents end of divorced. Obviously, something is wrong. I don't think that excluding homosexual partners from being parents is a good idea.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I don't think its fair on the child

I agree. It's not fair to children that they can't be adopted because the loving couple who want to raise him/her happen to be gay.

[Booty Island]

I haven't read through the entirety of this thread so it's probably a point that's been made already but my thoughts are:

In theory homosexual couples being parents is fine. There is no logic to suggest they can't be as good parents as straight couples and as someone mentioned the fact that homosexuals are oppressed means they are far less likely to be bigoted and far more likely to try and teach their children to be accepting of others etc etc. The only potential problem with the actual quality of parenting is the lack of a mother/father figure depending on the gender of the couple but if single parents are allowed then that shouldn't be a problem. The only real problem I can think of is the potential social consequences for the child given that homophobia is still common but I guess that depends on the area you're living in for the most part. Right now it might not be best for the child to grow up with a gay couple but in a decade or two it should be a better option.

[Manahakatouki]

I'm cool with it...

As I know no one with gay parents, I can't tell you from personal experience how normal it is to be raised by gay parents...

But from the amount of healthy normal human beings that have been raised by homosexual parents, I can assure you that both have the ability to present loving affection and care to their children...