Three-Year Follow-Up of Same-Sex Couples Who Had Civil Unions in ::
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLgetting married, and the couple having discrepancies in auton- . satisfied with their relationship than same-sex couples not in civil. unions.
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/dev441102.pdfHOME |
After reading and posting on the same-sex couple's having the right to get married thread (which BTW i am in favor of), i started to think about same-sex couple's having the right to have kids. I think this is a completely different cup of tea altogether and a lot more gray subject area, which i would like to discuss with you guys/girls here.
I know this sounds controversial (and probably not politically correct), but i would say that i'm probably not in favor of same-sex couple's having children together. My reasons are as follows;
a. For a start, a kid which has two mums or two dads is probably going to get the piss ripped out of him/her by the other kids when he/she goes to school. This isn't nice, but its most likely what will happen.
Abstract “The Development of Children of Same-Sex Couples” Michael ::
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLThe studies that have been done on same-sex couples and their children have married couples and children raised by same-sex couples (Baumrind 1995;
http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Same-sex couples and their children, abstract.pdfHOME |
b. Psychologists say that what children learn in the first 5years of their life massively shapes the person they will become over the next 50years. This also includes relationships- children apparently learn a great deal about relationships from the relationship they view their parents having together.
Now even if a gay couple have kids together, there's no guarantee that they will grow up to be gay as well- chances are they will grow up to be straight. But they may not have a helpful view of what a normal good straight relationship is supposed to be like if all they have to judge this upon is their gay parents- their parents will not show them how a man should treat a woman and vice versa in a good relationship etc.
So being raised by a gay parents may mess up their kids views of normal straight relationships- if a kid had two fathers or mothers, then they may also grow up to have a bias against men or women that they have picked up from their parents etc.
c. Sexual education- its difficult enough for straight parents to teach their kids about where babies come from when their kids start asking such awkward questions, but imagine what it would be like for same-sex couples. It wouldn't be right for them to tell their child that mommies & mommies or daddies & daddies can create children together, but on the other hand if they told the truth and said that actually, one of them is not a true biological parents and that sperm or eggs had to be obtained from another person for their kid to be created, this could be very difficult for the child to understand and upset, and would only open up a whole new can of difficult questions etc.
How would the kid feel all of a sudden being told that one of their parents is not a true biological one and that they actually have a biological father or a mother somewhere in the world? What if their parents don't answer questions of where babies come from truthfully, and the kid is then painfully made to learn about such things in school?
d. Nature creates gay people but it doesn't intend of them having kids. We live in a "want everything" society these days, where people are finding it harder to accept that they can't have everything that they want- everyone feels that they have the right to have everything they want and thus so should this be the case.
But are same-sex couple's arguing to have the right to have children taking rights and the need to have everything too far?
I'm pro-same sex couple's getting married because whether they get married or not, their decision only affects them. But i'm not really in favor of same-sex couple's having children because i believe that regardless of your gender/status/age/race etc, whatever you do when it comes to having children, everything should be done in the best interests of the potential child. But i don't see a child having same-sex parents as something thats really in their interests, no-one can really deny that when it comes to the gender of the parents, having parents who are of opposite sex are the most ideal.
On a similar line, there was a case not so long ago in America of a transvestite who got pregnant- this women had gone through years of hormone treatments and had has sex change operations and had a beard, chest hair, no boobs, a deep manly voice etc and basically looked like a man. But while going through her sex change operations, she had decided not to have her ovaries removed. Quite a few years down the line of living life being a man, she decided to get pregnant (i think she used her ex's sperm and got artificially inseminated with it), and this of course caused a heck of a lot of controversy.
Of course she argued that it was her right as a man-woman to have kids.
But i thought to myself, life is sure going to be hard for that kid having a mother who is also his/her father at the same time! And that stuff aside, i worry about what all the years of male hormone treatments this tranny has taken over the years will affect the baby growing inside him/her/whatever- a womans hormone levels during pregnancy vastly affects how the baby develops inside her, who knows what negative effects all of his/her hormone treatments will have on the baby etc?
I just thought to myself, geez, she's decided to be a man, so stick with it- she can't decide to be a man and then decide that she wants to be a woman for a while so she can have a baby, and then who knows what gender she'll decide to be once the babys weened off her milk?
Its like some people treat the right to have kids more like the right to own children, regardless of if its in their child's best interests to be raised by them or not etc.
So anyway, i'll stop waffling on for now. Are you pro or anti same-sex couple's having children, and what are your thoughts and feelings on this controversial issue either way?
A lot of people have objected to limitations on gays having children, but few of the objectors have gone into actual debate, while those that support limitations have taken the time to flesh out more thought-out responses.
This isn't debate! This is just a I'll quickly write my position on this with little regard to what the opposition has said... I'd like to know, for example, what those who support gays having children response is to my post.
Because that's a tangential point, and has little to do with what we've been discussing here. How do you feel about straight couples that are unable to conceive paying for a surrogate mother? There is more than one way to have a child, from adoption to having a child from a previous relationship to artificial insemination and so on. You're asking about one of these things as if I'm supposed to have a different opinion just because the parents are gay.
To be honest surrogate mothers for straight couple's are a gray area IMHO. IMHO i think if you are infertile and so cannot have a child, i believe that you should adopt a child that already exists. I just don't think children should be made as part of contracts- wouldn't you question the morals of a women who got pregnant for money?
The surrogate mother thing is one of the issues of which i am against gay couple's having kids. Adoption is a different matter IMHO- children put up for adoption already exist, and to be honest a parentless child being given two loving gay parents is better than such a child having no parents at all.
But with surrogacey we are talking about planning to create new children from scratch, rather than just saving children from a worser life. I don't think children should be created as part of contracts for cash, it is taking the self-centered desires of people too far in the so-called name of rights- i think if someone desperately wants a child enough, they should adopt a child that already exists.
Of course there are many ways to have a child, but you will have to admit that if gay couple's are given the right to have children then surrogate mothers will become one of the methods available to them to conceive children.
I don't know about you, but if i found out that my biological mother created me for money, i would feel at least a bit de-valued in my heart. How can you place a price on life?
I'm not asking you questions expecting you to answer differently because the imaginary couple in question is gay. And i am not basing my opinions on this debate on some narrow-minded anti-gay mindset either- all of my issues over this debate revolve around what is best for the child, and not because i have anything against gay people.
My opinion... if in all the following family set-ups all the parents were loving, I would say that opposite sex couples would be the first choice, then same sex couples, and then single parents.
While I know that in all situations, children can and do turn out fine, I do feel that males and females think very differently. Children of single fathers have greater patience and persistence, while children of single mothers have greater sensitivity to other's feelings. If the report on these findings is true (it was in Psychology Today a few years back), then each sex seems to have something they are better at giving their children, and the traits listed above would all be good for the children to learn.
I have read that families wherein both parents are of the same sex, one parent takes on the role of the father, and the other takes on the role of the mother. I'm not sure if this produces the same effect that an actual member of that sex would have on their kids. That would require some study, but I would guess that an actual member of a sex would be more successful in promoting some traits than a non-member of that sex would be, just cause males and females have in some ways such different wirings in the brain, and very different hormonal systems.
I understand that this is hot issue, and that a view such as mine might be seen as "anti-gay". These days a lot would be considered "antigay", but I don't think my view is anti in any way. But bring out the guns if you wish... I'm prepared to consider any new evidence.
I know what the American Psychologist Association says on this.... some guy on another forum was belittling my opinion saying that I was obviously very wrong cause the APA said there was no reason to deny same-sex couples children, and that the APA said children turned out fine... RIGHT... read carefully what I wrote, I never said that children of same-sex couples turned out badly, in fact I said children from all situations have turned out fine, and I don't see my reasoning as grounds to deny gay couples children, but just rather to perhaps give straight couples priority over gay couples. As I said, it will require further study... but we must try and figure out what's best in the meantime, and that's what I would see as best.
I agree with Tokis-Phoenix. Personally, I don't see anything bad in homosexual couples having children, but it just shouldn't happen, a true parent wouldn't force his/her child into such an impossible and unreasonable situation. We're living in the 21st century, its time to quit whining about rights, and think about the kid. A child is not a toy, not a pet. If they can't ensure a non-unpleasant life for their brats (im not talking about luxury and whatnot, just a plain life), they shouldn't have children. A child is not for its parents' entertainment, and parents who can't understand it fail miserably, in fact, they should jump off a cliff.
I think you all might be making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be. Saying that same sex marriage is OK but same sex couples shouldn't raise kids (which is something that many couples do anyways, without getting married) is just another way of setting a double-standard. Claiming that this is solely for the sake of the kids just shows a deep seated sense that there is either something wrong or just too different about a gay couple with kids. Everyone grows up in a different environment, but I find it appalling that people would deny fit and able parents the chance to raise children, just because they aren't a traditional couple. We have a hard enough time keeping children out of the hands of unfit parents, is anyone suggesting that we should actively deny gay couples the chance to raise their own children, or adopt children from aforementioned broken homes?
Nothing if its only their sexual orientation, but marriage is a different thing. I mean really, If someone showed me his parents (2 dudes) holding hands on a marriage photo, I'd have a bloody hard time forcing my laugh back, and most people I know wouldn't even consider doing so, now imagine the poor guy. This issue isn't something that you'll find a solution to, you need a fresh generation and new norms, thats all.
what do you mean by "proper solution," and what kind of compromises are you talking about? If there are people willing and able to raise a child, what right do we have to tell them they can't, particularly because of their sexual orientation?
Some of you think that gay people cannot be fit parents and the children suffer a great deal because of it. Therefore, gay couples should not have children. Some of us disagree. Fine.
Having children via surrogate mothers, however, is a whole another issue, is it not? Hetero-sexual couples who are unable to have kids themselves hire women to carry and birth their children, too.
I don't think I could ever tell such a couple that it is just not meant to be. That wanting to nurture and love a child is not a reason enough to bring a baby to this world. That they are just being selfish wanting a child when the nature told them no.
Since what the OP was concerned about was the well-being of the children, let's stick to that point. The matter of surrogate mothers needs a separate thread.
P.S.
When discussing these issues concerning gay people, let us all remember that being gay is not a hobby that they picked up because it looked like fun. I just find it odd when I hear people say that they are totally OK with gays "as long as they don't flaunt it". It is like they are telling gays to "know their place". It's like saying it's OK to be gay, but only to a certain point.
It's not about supporting "gays" having children, it's about supporting able and willing parents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. My first post was partially in response to yours, particularly the "I think you all might be making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be" part.
I enjoyed the responses there folks. I do hope, ASHIKAGA san, that you will join in the debate later--since, if we all try hard, it could become a good model too (for debating style, that is).
Tokis chan has said, and I quote:
The purpose of this thread when it comes to my perspective, its not for me to convert others to my opinion, no, the purpose of this thread from my perspective is for me to broaden my understanding on this controversial issue and to see if my opinion can be changed in any sense . . . through debate.
Yes, that is exactly what I am doing too. If one were to carefully catch my presentation so far, it would be noticed that I have not taken a side--that is formed an opinion yet--but am debating the points so far raised and challenged. That is good debate, and hope we can pull it off here in this thread. (and we could give thanks to Revenant for helping that momentum get going)
Attorney-general: Let same-sex couples adopt | Israel | Jerusalem Post::
Feb 10, 2008 Until 2000, the state refused not only to allow same-sex couples having two parents of the same sex was by definition bad for the child.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1202657413991&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFullHOME |
glbtq >> social sciences >> Children of GLBTQ Parents::
Although many children of same-sex couples were conceived in traditional Yet glbtq parents typically face many more challenges in having children than
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/children_of_glbtq_parents.htmlHOME |
Yes, that is partially what I had been pointing to (Tokis_Phoenix's above post, par. 1), although my intention had been to apply it in the broadest possible scope, covering all social groups--and not just related to the theme alone here. (In that sense, we could say that there was some embedding there.)
And it is very true that it is a reality out there in the real world. That is the point (and that is what ASHIKAGA has again highlighted above) and it is due to that point, that reality's being there, and being recognized as a 'social ill,' that makes it something that we need to start working on over coming. If no one takes the first step in working towards making an effort to cure that 'social ill,' it will never be cured.
So as for point a., and may I suggest that we are still here only...at point a,... it is clear that it is no objection against the question of homosexual pair-bonds raising children from birth. Again, unless we can surgically remove 'bullying due to parents' sexual orientation and civil union format' and distincly show that it is different from any and all other surgically removed kinds of bullying at all--in the substance of bullying--we will not have discovered anything other than the circular statement that bullying is bullying, whatever the reason be.
For that reason, it is no objection. I say let's go on to point b., unless someone can show that the quality substance of the bullying that may be recieved by a person of one social group, is measureably different from that of the bullying that may be recieved by a person of another social group. I honestly don't think it can be done... so I suggest we clear this hurdle and move on to number b.
What do you feel about the scenario of women producing babies for money as part of contracts to deliver gay couple's children? Do you think children should be brought into the world this way? Few people here who are pro-gay parents have attended to this particular part of the issue.Because that's a tangential point, and has little to do with what we've been discussing here. How do you feel about straight couples that are unable to conceive paying for a surrogate mother? There is more than one way to have a child, from adoption to having a child from a previous relationship to artificial insemination and so on. You're asking about one of these things as if I'm supposed to have a different opinion just because the parents are gay.
Point a. – that is more about other peoplefs attitudes and we should be trying to combat prejudices not pandering to themc maybe Ifm too idealistic! Itfs a point but I wouldnft take that as a reason againstc but for the rest of your pointsc
Point b. – it certainly is that males and females are different, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or whatever. Same-sex relationships are different than opposite sex, that is simply a fact, not saying one is better than the other but just different. But moving on to another fact, heterosexual is a majority. What I mean to say is that most people are heterosexualc I donft believe that homosexuals should be treated badly due to being a minority group. But Tokis Phoenix is right that most people do grow up to be heterosexual. And with gay parents they will grow up without direct experience of what is in fact the majority type of one-on-one love relationship. Of course they can and will learn about this in other ways, through friends, other relatives etc., but that doesnft substitute for the eimmersion from a young agef which children of het couples get. This kind of knowledge is directly absorbed in the formative years so generally we arenft even conscious of it. That is why bad things such as a violent parent(s) are so bad for children and have a negative influence on their whole life in some way! I am not saying that gay couples are worse parents or treat their children badly, just that they are different from the majority, and this will have an effect on their children, who are statistically likely not to be in the same minority group with their parents.
Point c. – well, gay people should be able to explain straight sex (!), and kids do have to learn about gay sex at some point as well, although I agree it could make them confused (and artificial insemination etc. is quite a difficult technical topic in itself, depending on the age of the kid). I guess I feel that in teaching about straight sex and gay sex together you are presenting them as equal options from which the child will have to choose, therefore more likely to confuse the kid when they get to early adolescence. I am not saying that gay people are not enormalf but that they are not majority!
Point d. – I agree with Tokis Phoenixc having a child is not a erightf, whether that is a gay couple, straight couple, single mother or whatever. Ifm hetero, but if I was to discover I was infertile I wouldnft be tearing my hair out devastated and searching for the nearest fertility clinic. Ifd have to accept that having kids was simply not my destiny and my purpose in life was elsewhere – perhaps using some of the eadvantagesf childlessness gave me in order to do something else constructive and positive. Similarly, if I was gay I hope I would accept that motherhood was not my destiny and I was meant to be in a loving same-sex relationship and fulfil my potential in other ways.
It strikes me as ironic that people are so crazy to have kids these days at the same time as everyone is talking about keeping the population down and big families are seen as a stigma as though you donft know about contraception!
Two men or two women are biologically incapable of conceiving a child together; for them to have children together is eagainst naturef and Ifm not afraid to say it (well after all itfs an anonymous internet forum, ne?!). Okay I do realise that things like penicillin and the smallpox vaccine and other medical advances are eagainst naturef in some senses, but there is often an attitude that just because scientists can do something in the lab, they should do it, and to hell with the social consequences. Itfs a natural human curiosity of ewhat happens when I do this?f – but often applied without due consideration.
I donft wish to be eanti-gayf; Ifm not eantif any *person* whether they be gay, straight or whatever! For me, itfs not about denying gay people equal rights, itfs more of a biological issue, I would not claim the right to have flippers when I was born with feet even if that was medically possible to do, simply itfs not how I am made, itfs eunequalf in that sense butc Also, of course, a child is another person; the erightf does not affect only yourself.
Well, folks. . . I had intentionally avoided this thread due the difficulty of it actually. (far, far deeper than what even seems to have crossed Tokis chan's mind at the time of the OP--if you want to do it right, that is) For one main reason, I simply don't have the time to do it right--I mean the three threads that I've been trying to keep going {and I bet you all have forgotten about one of them even, it's so far behind} are more than enough.
However, Revenant posted, in post number 14, the following:
This isn't debate! This is just a I'll quickly write my position on this with little regard to what the opposition has said...
Well, I couldn't help but pick up vibrations of dissatisfaction at the lack of activity or argument on this thread by him, and thus felt a little obligated to join in-- SO. . . here I B!
Again. . .that quote above:
This isn't debate! This is just a I'll quickly write my position on this with little regard to what the opposition has said...
Yes, good debate is, unfortunately a bit rare around here...even in this Serious Discussions sub-forum. What we will need to do here, is firstly go back to the OP, and test it carefully. Now, although I am still studying over these posts, what I can see at the moment is that ASHIKAGA's post number 2 was discarded far too lightly, and suggest that we go back and answer more properly to his objections to the points Tokis chan had made.
Before that, however, let's get our terms settled. We are talking about homosexual pair bonds of any combination. By 'having children' we are referring to the act of raising children from birth, as opposed to adopting young children or infants older than, say, around 24 months. When we say 'right to have children,' therefore, we are talking about a social group's legal system's allowance of the act of raising children from birth.
I will come back later, with further thoughts on the OP's point a.
a) That is something the parents/educators need to work on teaching our children about tolerance/acceptance/understanding. If the possibility of getting picked on was enough reason not to have children, you may have the same opinion about inter-racial couples having children, couples adopting children and single parents having children.
None of these reasons on their own are intended to be reason enough, but these reasons altogether are what add more weight to my side of the debate.
But anyway. Children are children, adults are adults- while adults can often appreciate, understand and sincerely believe in being more tolerant/understanding/accepting etc, children are children and you simply cannot expect children to always view life in a mature manner.
For example, we've been teaching kids for generations now stuff like how men and woman or Asian and Middle Eastern people are equal and should be treated the same, but has that ruled out sexist and racists bullying amoungst children in schools? Adults have hardly started to follow these ideals properly, let alone children. The fact of the matter is that kids bully each other just as much as they always have done. If your parents were a gay same-sex couple, don't you think you would have experienced a fair amount of bullying at school about it?
Especially to expect to change these issues by the next generation in society, would be an impossible task.
b) IF the parents are treating eachother with love and respect, why would that matter if they were man/woman couples or same-sex couples? I would want my children to know that no matter which sex your partner is, you treat them with love and respect.
The thing is though, you could apply the "as long as the parents love their kids" argument to any type of couple- including relatives marrying each other and having children.
How would you feel if a brother and sister were arguing for the right to have offspring, arguing that gay couples are hardly ideal but they're allowed to have their own kids, and so so should they have the right? How would you feel about this?
What if the gay couple have a negative view toward a certain gender? I know and know of many parents, straight parents who have narrow views when it comes to the roles of each gender in relationships and in general. Heck, my own parents sometimes make me groan with theirs. There are many sexist people out there and I am sure it has a lot to do with how they were raised by their parents. However, I don't think anyone would point fingers at the fact their parents are straight. There WILL be gay parents who will influence their children in some negative way but suggesting gay parents are more likely to be bad influence on their children than straight parents? I don't think that theory holds up.
You've probably picked up an awful lot more about your parents relationship than what you realize- a lot of this sort of stuff is unconscious rather than conscious. And your parents don't have to be good role models for them to affect your view of relationships, anti-role models in our lives can have a far greater affect on us than positive role models (i.e. a father never spends anytime with his son and this hurts his son, so when his son grows up he decides that when he has kids he will be nothing like his father and will spend lots of time with his children etc).
But i'm not suggesting that gay couples will be a bad influence, but rather there are things that gay couple's cannot substitute for in straight couples.
At the end of the day, psychologically women and men are just different- we have different instincts and drives, and these affect how we as people are different from each other.
In a gay male couple, one of the men might take on the more maternal motherly role, however you simply cannot substitute a man for a woman, and while both parents may have a good relationship together, they cannot change the gender they were born as and thus cannot change their basic gender psychology that they were born with.
Having taken this into consideration, its not so much that having same-sex parents will have a bad influence via their relationship on their child, but rather that they simply cannot make up for things that they will naturally lack as a couple in comparison to a different gender couple.
But they will inevitably try to play the roles of mother and father (perhaps in an attempt to encourage equality and difference between them as parents and to also help bring normality to the child's upbringing and make up for certain losses etc), but by trying to do this instead of helping the child, they will only end up confusing it.
Children need a stable environment, and they instinctively view their family in certain roles. When you start to mess up and change the roles evolutionally played in the human family unit, it is not positive for the child's upbringing. At the end of the day a man cannot substitute a mother nor can a woman substitute for a father. It is easier for children to deal with not having these things when they have never had them and when no one is trying to fill such roles in a socially confusing manner.
c) I never learned ANYTHING that is remotely related to sex from my parents.
How gay couples talk to their children about the birds and the bees are their business/problem. I have a feeling that BECAUSE OF the hurdles they have to clear to have kids, potential gay parents might be more prepared to deal with this and other parenting issues compared to a straight couple whose condom broke one night and is suddenly facing the possibility of raising a child. OK, that was a cheap shot... but I hope you know what I meant.
Children finding out that the person whom they have been calling Dad is not their biological father. I myself was raised by a couple other than my biological parents and never in my life I resented them for it. I am sure some of you out there who were adopted have your own stories.
How difficult it would be for straight children of gay parents?? How extremely difficult is it for gay children of straight parents so much so that many of them end their own lives?
It is different from standard adoption though. With normal adoption, people don't have kids with the intention of getting rid of them at some point after they are born, and IMHO to be honest i think anyone who thinks that way should probably be sterilized. Children should only be put up for adoption if their parents fail to be good parents to them.
But when a male gay couple have kids, neither of them can of course naturally grow a baby in them, and so woman will at some point have to be contracted to be artificially inseminated by one of the men and then used to grow the baby inside her and then give birth to it and the baby will then be given to the gay male couple ASAP after that.
I know it sounds harsh, but such a process is not unlike farming or producing babies to order just to make people happy.
The biological father will not love the mother of his child, she is simply a vehicle for the creation of the child, and she is not having the child out of love or because she personally wants it, she is simply being payed to have a child to make some gay couple happy. How would you feel if you found out that when your mother got pregnant with you, she didn't love nor want you, she was only having you so you could be given away?
Surely this is not ideal, it isn't the right way to do things, to bring a child into the world this way? Wouldn't you question the morals of a woman who was just having children to sell to gay couples? Would you really want such women breeding in society?
With children who are adopted and end up finding out who their real parents are, they either have to face the fact that they were adopted because despite the fact that their biological parents loved them they didn't look after them properly and thats why they were taken away and put up for adoption. Or they have to face the fact that their parents never loved or wanted them and that they were simply the result of some fling their parents had together many years ago.
But if gay male couples start demanding the right to have babies of their own, then a new generation of partially-adopted children will start growing up and then have to face the fact that they were created as part of a contract. Surely this is one of the worst things? The child wasn't even saved from their biological mother, they were simply conceived for cash in part of a contract.
Don't you think this is an immoral way of bringing children into the world? I think mothers should only give birth to children they want to raise themselves and love, i don't ever think mothers should be encouraged to have children that they don't personally want to keep.
d) What is most important for a child, I believe, is having parent/s or parental figures who love you. Do we go around telling couples, gay or straight, " Ummmmmm.... I don't think you should bring a child into this world because you don't fit the social norm"?
As said before, this could be applied to relatives having children together as well. How would you feel if a brother and sister were fighting for the right to conceive children together? Would you feel differently about it then?
There WILL be bad gay parents as there are bad straight parents. No matter what the study or what you believe to be the voice of "Nature" says, what we are talking about is human beings with LIVES.
Its not about what i believe nature says, its about what nature is- nature didn't make men capable of having babies naturally together, this isn't some personal opinion i've formed on this part, its just the way things are. Nature created same-sex couples capable of sexually and non-sexually loving each other, but it didn't make them capable of conceiving children together.
Is your life complicated with many issues? Mine is. Do you ultimately make important decisions in your life based on what YOU believe to be right? I do. Shouldn't they be able to do the same?
This isn't just about making personal decisions though, this is about bringing children into the world and in what sorts of environments etc. To me, once children are brought into the mix everything changes and should be open to discussion and judgment, since we are not just talking about the lives of adults, but the lives of potential new children and existing children etc. IMHO simply saying people should be able to do whatever they want because of how they decide things is not how things work in society nor should do. I don't like poking my nose into other people's business, but whenever people are having kids together, i think it needs to be looked into with stuff like whether they are doing the right thing for the child or not etc- kids need to be protected in society.
Better to have two parents in a stable relationship, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
a. For a start, a kid which has two mums or two dads is probably going to get the piss ripped out of him/her by the other kids when he/she goes to school. This isn't nice, but its most likely what will happen.
b. Psychologists say that what children learn in the first 5years of their life massively shapes the person they will become over the next 50years. This also includes relationships- children apparently learn a great deal about relationships from the relationship they view their parents having together.
Now even if a gay couple have kids together, there's no guarantee that they will grow up to be gay as well- chances are they will grow up to be straight. But they may not have a helpful view of what a normal good straight relationship is supposed to be like if all they have to judge this upon is their gay parents- their parents will not show them how a man should treat a woman and vice versa in a good relationship etc.
So being raised by a gay parents may mess up their kids views of normal straight relationships- if a kid had two fathers or mothers, then they may also grow up to have a bias against men or women that they have picked up from their parents etc.
c. Sexual education- its difficult enough for straight parents to teach their kids about where babies come from when their kids start asking such awkward questions, but imagine what it would be like for same-sex couples. It wouldn't be right for them to tell their child that mommies & mommies or daddies & daddies can create children together, but on the other hand if they told the truth and said that actually, one of them is not a true biological parents and that sperm or eggs had to be obtained from another person for their kid to be created, this could be very difficult for the child to understand and upset, and would only open up a whole new can of difficult questions etc.
How would the kid feel all of a sudden being told that one of their parents is not a true biological one and that they actually have a biological father or a mother somewhere in the world? What if their parents don't answer questions of where babies come from truthfully, and the kid is then painfully made to learn about such things in school?
d. Nature creates gay people but it doesn't intend of them having kids. We live in a "want everything" society these days, where people are finding it harder to accept that they can't have everything that they want- everyone feels that they have the right to have everything they want and thus so should this be the case.
But are same-sex couple's arguing to have the right to have children taking rights and the need to have everything too far?
I'm pro-same sex couple's getting married because whether they get married or not, their decision only affects them. But i'm not really in favor of same-sex couple's having children because i believe that regardless of your gender/status/age/race etc, whatever you do when it comes to having children, everything should be done in the best interests of the potential child. But i don't see a child having same-sex parents as something thats really in their interests, no-one can really deny that when it comes to the gender of the parents, having parents who are of opposite sex are the most ideal.
a) That is something the parents/educators need to work on teaching our children about tolerance/acceptance/understanding. If the possibility of getting picked on was enough reason not to have children, you may have the same opinion about inter-racial couples having children, couples adopting children and single parents having children.
b) IF the parents are treating eachother with love and respect, why would that matter if they were man/woman couples or same-sex couples? I would want my children to know that no matter which sex your partner is, you treat them with love and respect.
What if the gay couple have a negative view toward a certain gender? I know and know of many parents, straight parents who have narrow views when it comes to the roles of each gender in relationships and in general. Heck, my own parents sometimes make me groan with theirs. There are many sexist people out there and I am sure it has a lot to do with how they were raised by their parents. However, I don't think anyone would point fingers at the fact their parents are straight. There WILL be gay parents who will influence their children in some negative way but suggesting gay parents are more likely to be bad influence on their children than straight parents? I don't think that theory holds up.
c) I never learned ANYTHING that is remotely related to sex from my parents.
How gay couples talk to their children about the birds and the bees are their business/problem. I have a feeling that BECAUSE OF the hurdles they have to clear to have kids, potential gay parents might be more prepared to deal with this and other parenting issues compared to a straight couple whose condom broke one night and is suddenly facing the possibility of raising a child. OK, that was a cheap shot... but I hope you know what I meant.
Children finding out that the person whom they have been calling Dad is not their biological father. I myself was raised by a couple other than my biological parents and never in my life I resented them for it. I am sure some of you out there who were adopted have your own stories.
How difficult it would be for straight children of gay parents?? How extremely difficult is it for gay children of straight parents so much so that many of them end their own lives?
d) What is most important for a child, I believe, is having parent/s or parental figures who love you. Do we go around telling couples, gay or straight, " Ummmmmm.... I don't think you should bring a child into this world because you don't fit the social norm"?
There WILL be bad gay parents as there are bad straight parents. No matter what the study or what you believe to be the voice of "Nature" says,
what we are talking about is human beings with LIVES. Is your life complicated with many issues? Mine is. Do you ultimately make important decisions in your life based on what YOU believe to be right? I do. Shouldn't they be able to do the same?
I really should re-read this and make sure I am at least making some sense in my argument as this indeed is a serious issue.... but I have to go back to work! So, my apologies if I was out of line in some places.
Some of you think that gay people cannot be fit parents and the children suffer a great deal because of it. Therefore, gay couples should not have children. Some of us disagree. Fine.
Having children via surrogate mothers, however, is a whole another issue, is it not? Hetero-sexual couples who are unable to have kids themselves hire women to carry and birth their children, too.
Who says gay couple's can't be fit parents?
Gay couple's could be good parents, but their children can still suffer for their parents same sexuality (like the bullying thing)- i was merely raising this as a point.
I don't think I could ever tell such a couple that it is just not meant to be. That wanting to nurture and love a child is not a reason enough to bring a baby to this world. That they are just being selfish wanting a child when the nature told them no.
Are you talking about straight couple's here? Because it doesn't make sense if you were referring this part of the post to a gay couple situation, i mean, really it would be like "Fertility Expert: "I'm sorry mr and mr Johnson, i'm afraid you cannot conceive children together" Mr Johnson: "Oh no sh*t, really? I didn't know that!". Of course it is not naturally meant to be for gay couple's to have children, they're biologically incapable of having them together, its not like straight couple's where infertility tends to be some cruel stroke of fate.
Just because you want something, doesn't mean that you have the right to have it. Fighting for the right to a have children is not like like fighting for the right to get married, wear mini skirts, drive a car etc- having children is more than just about what the couple wants.
If you use the argument that you should have the right to have a child because you want one, then such an argument could be equally applied to relatives justifying their right to have children together. How would you answer a couple who were brother and sister and fighting for the right to have their own children together, when you have passed a law that allows gay couples to have children if they want them and the brother and sister are asking you why they aren't allowed to have children for the same justification as what gay couple's can have children for?
Since what the OP was concerned about was the well-being of the children, let's stick to that point. The matter of surrogate mothers needs a separate thread.
The well-being of children is related to the matter of surrogate mothers- you cannot have a proper discussion about gay couple's having the right to have children when you are not allowed to discuss the subject area's of gay couple's obtaining children. To say that surrogate mothers and adoption are not relevant to the welfare of children is incorrect.
P.S.
When discussing these issues concerning gay people, let us all remember that being gay is not a hobby that they picked up because it looked like fun. I just find it odd when I hear people say that they are totally OK with gays "as long as they don't flaunt it". It is like they are telling gays to "know their place". It's like saying it's OK to be gay, but only to a certain point.
Of course, I'm a firm believer that the large majority of gay people are born the way they are and don't have any choice over the direction of their sexuality.
And for the matter, i'm not keen on anyone forcefully flaunting their sexuality in my face to a high degree regardless of what sexual standing they are- I think everyone should be considerate of others in this sense. I hope expect a decent level of basic manners/politeness from any random person in society, regardless of their gender/status/sexuality/race/religion etc.
In the OP, point a. was as follows:
a. For a start, a kid which has two mums or two dads is probably going to get the piss ripped out of him/her by the other kids when he/she goes to school. This isn't nice, but its most likely what will happen.
In response to that point, ASHIKAGA san gave the following:
a) That is something the parents/educators need to work on teaching our children about tolerance/acceptance/understanding. If the possibility of getting picked on was enough reason not to have children, you may have the same opinion about inter-racial couples having children, couples adopting children and single parents having children.
As regards the point itself, I would argue that it is more than obvious that bullying and 'picking on others' happens in the public school systems, just as it happens in the social group at large, just as it happens between social groups, sex states, and family descent linage groups--well, in short, all in .vs. out groups.
What we need to do here, is consider the consequences and determinants of the state of bullying those of the non-in-group. What is it we are admitting to when we conclude that any member of any group, as a matter of present real-time circumstances, is going to face disparaging and abusive behavior from members of an out-group?
By agreeing in consensus that that's the way things are, are we thus agreeing that that is the way things ought to be? Would it not be truer that by agreeing that that's just the way things are, we are suggesting, even if so indirectly, that there is a correctness in that state of affairs, or real-time circumstances, than opting for a betterment of a given wrong in society in the first place?
I will argue here, that this point is moot and non-bearing. It is moot because all individuals are possible targets for bullying (in its various forms), and many are bullied--regardless of anything else at all, other than being a non-in-group member. It is moot because this particular social ill should not be allowed to be used as any kind of tool--regardless of how indirectly so--to reinforce the norm of a social group which houses that very ill.
This is my stance on point a., and it is open for further detailed argumentation, for now.
So because you and other people have a hard time accepting the concept of same sex parenting, these children should be spared from having an otherwise loving and well-adjusted childhood?
Do you think that this sort of attitude is something that's going to suddenly change some day? Generations don't just switch over like that, social progression is an ongoing process in which we all play a part. Pretending that you're not involved is the same as actively trying to retard the process.
One of my mother's closest friends and coworkers helped raise her partner's children as if they were her own. To me it is completely normal and there's nothing funny about it; it'd be like laughing when someone shows you a photo of their parents when they have dwarfism, or are wheelchair-bound, or blind*. That sort of reaction just exposes how childish you are, and makes you look like a douchebag. If most people you know feel the same way, perhaps that goes to show how these attitudes are perpetuated.
*To clarify, I'm not looking to equate homosexuality to a disability, but the reaction when someone is unexpectedly different reveals a lot about our attitudes towards those differences.
So, it has taken hundreds of years for people to accept inter-racial and inter-belief couples and their offsprings (to a certain degree), and it is very true that many people suffered during those years. Now, do you think they should have avoided all that pain by just accepting the society as it was and not having children together and they were being selfish when they did have children knowing that they would have a tough time because of their parents being different?
I'm not saying at all that we should accept things the way they are because they are the way they are, i'm simply saying i don't think it would be a wise idea to give gay couple's the right to have kids before we have even made any effort to educate people on these matters- people need to warm to to this idea for there to be any acceptance of it in reality, otherwise are the first generation of same-sex couple raised kids are undoubtedly going to have a very hard time through not being accepted by society as a whole etc.
You suggest that we should educate people who might be prejudiced against these children before letting gay couples have kids. While I agree that education IS a big factor in this issue but I doubt that would be enough.
In order for any minority groups to be accepted in any society, they need to be visible. They need to be working with you. They need to be walking along beside you on your city streets. They need to be studying side by side with your children in schools. Only then, they will be PEOPLE, not "those whom they taught us about in school / talked about in books".
I personally think that education needs to become before action- otherwise you will only be sacrificing the childhoods of children raised by such parents for the sake of their parents rights. These kids will not have anything to benefit for the sake of their parents rights if we just put them into the firing line to be hurt until people eventually begin to accept them (which even then will probably not happen during their childhoods).
That's why I used the word "tangential." The relationship between surrogates and gay couples is not exclusive. If you have a problem with surrogate mothers (and it seems like you're really just taking issue with the idea that someone would carry a baby to term for money, are you also against, say, a family friend carrying a child via IVF?), that is most certainly an issue for another conversation.
Of course it is not exclusive, but it would make it even less exclusive if gay couple's were allowed to have children. My main issue with the surrogate mothers thing is the deal of money that passes between the mother and the couple- children shouldn't be bought or made for money.
I would have a lot less issue with a gay couple adopting a child that already exists and needs a loving home, because in this scenario while on the one hand a gay couple is not more ideal than a straight couple for parenting, chances are they are going to be better for the child as parents than the child having no parents at all.
But i don't think children should be intentionally created for gay couple's, because at the end of the day a gay couple is not more ideal than a straight one. I believe that if a gay couple really wants children badly enough, then they should do the non-selfish thing and adopt a child that really needs two loving parents, rather than just bring another child into the world. Don't you think this would be most ideal?
Better to have two parents in a stable relationship, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. (Same here Buddy)
Yes, thats true, but we will never reach a proper solution, so we must make compromises.
So, it has taken hundreds of years for people to accept inter-racial and inter-belief couples and their offsprings (to a certain degree), and it is very true that many people suffered during those years. Now, do you think they should have avoided all that pain by just accepting the society as it was and not having children together and they were being selfish when they did have children knowing that they would have a tough time because of their parents being different?
You suggest that we should educate people who might be prejudiced against these children before letting gay couples have kids. While I agree that education IS a big factor in this issue but I doubt that would be enough.
In order for any minority groups to be accepted in any society, they need to be visible. They need to be working with you. They need to be walking along beside you on your city streets. They need to be studying side by side with your children in schools. Only then, they will be PEOPLE, not "those whom they taught us about in school / talked about in books".
Gay people would certainly know how hard it could be being different in this world. They should teach their kids how to be proud of who they are, be respectful of others, how to survive and ultimately, be happy. And those are exactly what straight parents should be teaching their kids, too.
As I said before in my previous post, you are absolutely correct about how tough it could be for these children. That is why those who have in mind the best interests of the children should show support and do what they can to make their lives safe and happy instead of saying, "We know it's wrong but that is just the way it is".
Anything other than the "bullying" issue really comes down to the person's beliefs (religious and otherwise) regarding by whom and how a child should be brought into this world, so there should be several conflictiong opinions about them, and we have seen them on this thread.
So, what more can we say? I think I have said all I wanted so I am moving on.
I really hope it won't take hundreds of years for this to become a non-issue.
I would think that we'd need enough examples then, of social-changes of major reversal reached through non-active education, that clearly outweigh those of the other kind--changes of major reversal due to action--before we could reach the conclusion that you seem to be settling for, though, Tokis chan.
For example, how long, really would it have taken for women in the USA to have recieved voting rights, if it would have been left to nothing more than an education program. How long would it have taken African Americans to have been able to attend non-segregated universities in especially the southern states of the USA, if it had had to wait for an education's being applied firstly? And who's going to be doing the educating, if not the state? which laws say that it's illegal? That would never happen.
Again, we come to some questions. What, exactly, is education, if not learning through observation of trial and error? How, exactly, could a state implement an education drive which directly works against the very laws of the state? (assuming a scenario where it has become law, that a certain sub-social group will not have a certain right as those of another sub-social group)
Again, folks, let's be careful about our debating format. The entire argument cannot rest only on point a. alone, and so we cannot yet reach any conclusion. That said, it is most obvious that point a. is a non-contestant, and therefore should be struck from the list of objections towards a positive conclusion.① To educate the public at large in a social situation, only what is legally possible, can be taught so as to have the public accept it.
For the third time, now I suggest that we move on to point b., which I will do in my next post (unless it can actually be shown that the state's having made something illegal's being taught to be accepted through public education, in order to legalize it, is a realistic and plausible scenario.
① Not to misconstrue here. The objections listed in the OP were objections against a positive conclusion, which thus led to a negative conclusion. Therefore, any effort to reach a positive conclusion will be found only in the rejection of the objections. At the moment, we have no conclusion at all, for we have only looked at one poi
That's why I used the word "tangential." The relationship between surrogates and gay couples is not exclusive. If you have a problem with surrogate mothers (and it seems like you're really just taking issue with the idea that someone would carry a baby to term for money, are you also against, say, a family friend carrying a child via IVF?), that is most certainly an issue for another conversation.
It's not about supporting "gays" having children, it's about supporting able and willing parents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. My first post was partially in response to yours, particularly the "I think you all might be making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be" part.
But its not really about that. These people aren't yet parents, they don't have any children and are incapable of having them themselves alone. What do you feel about the scenario of women producing babies for money as part of contracts to deliver gay couple's children? Do you think children should be brought into the world this way? Few people here who are pro-gay parents have attended to this particular part of the issue.
As far as the bullying goes, I think that most gays move to places that are more accepting of gays, so there probably would be some bullying or gossip, but a lot of people would also support gays and their children.
Still feel that straight parents should be given priority for children, and that should be via adoption (plenty of kids still in foster homes). Mostly cause children learn a lot from having both sexes as parents, and that since for most children, they'll grow up straight regardless of whether or not their parents are gay or not, so it seems that most would be better off learning from their parents about straight relationships and how all that works.
I take it for granted that there will be both good and bad parents of any sexual orientation, and that's something that the adoption organizations are aware of, and probably attempt to screen out unfit would-be-parents.
I understand what you are saying, that by acknowledging that the bullying thing is a likely consequence of a child being raised by same-sex parents and that by acknowledging it as a deterrent you could end up allowing/excusing it. But at the moment, its a state of reality, and this probable issue is not confined to any country in particular.
I agree it needs to be sorted out. IMHO, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with same-sex couple's having children, their kids don't deserve to get a hard life because of their parents sexuality etc. But i don't think that simply ignoring this matter and letting same-sex parents have children of their own will necessarily help this problem- yes, perhaps over many generations things might get better, but i don't think its the best solution to the problem.
Personally i view it as a very similar issue to that of couple's of certain different races or religions having children together. When it comes to black and white people, this was a taboo and highly looked down upon in society for hundreds of years. Although certainly now days this problem is a lot better, its still a problem sometimes none the less in society.
I personally don't think that sorting out the problem by allowing same-sex couple's to have children is the best solution, because it if it turns out to be anything like the different race/religion issue, it could mean that things only start to get better after many generations of children, and i don't think generations children should have to bear the brunt of these problems in society just so certain couple's can satisfy their desire to have children of their own.
The best way to solve such a problem in society is to start and try and change people's opinion's on stuff like this before same-sex couple's are given the right to have children of their own, so at least their children have more of a chance of leading a normal childhood, rather than simply allowing same-sex parents to have their right to have kids before society as a whole is even worked on in this issue.
These problems are not right in society, but i don't think generations of children should be put in the firing line so they have to sort out the issue themselves when they're older and bitter because of the negative treatment they've received on this issue during their childhood.
With the definition of same-sex parents having children of their own, this would include every form of same-sex couple's obtaining children of all ages.
Personally i'm happier about gay parents adopting children rather than recruiting surrogate mothers to produce babies.
On the issue of surrogate mothers as a whole, i'm not generally in favor of it. I know this may sound controversial to some, but in my honest opinion i think the human race is already too large and that we already have far too many unwanted or uncared for children already needing good parents in the world, than for us to be encouraging more people to make more children of their own.
I can understand someone wanting to have a child that is of their own flesh and blood, but to be honest when it comes to a same-sex couple using a surrogate mother to help create their child, only one of the couple is going to be the childs biological parent anyway. This is harsh i know, but this is the way nature has decided things to be- one in the same-sex couple is always going to lose out when it comes to being the child's biological parent.
I don't know how this issue would effect two same-sex parents, i'm sure it will certainly have some effect though on their relationship as parents to some certain extent though.
I'm not assuming i know whats best for people, but when it comes to same-sex couple's having children, i think it would be far better to allow them only to adopt rather than use surrogate mothers, because i think this would be better for the sake of the child, and probably better for the same-sex couple as well. Adopting a child would mean that biologically the parents are equal (equal too in the legal sense as well), and also it would mean that the child is really getting a better life than the life they would have had without the same-sex couple as parents (while with the surrogate mother thing there is some doubt over this process and its benefits over adopted children and their welfare etc etc).
What do you think on this?
The purpose of this thread when it comes to my perspective, its not for me to convert others to my opinion, no, the purpose of this thread from my perspective is for me to broaden my understanding on this controversial issue and to see if my opinion can be changed in any sense (since i myself have conflicting opinions/emotions on this subject, regardless of what standing my opinion becomes, i want to be more sure of my opinion etc) through debate.
 Red Hat's Rough Recovery From CFO Exit
 Windows Live Finds a New, Pre-installed Home
|
Same-sex couples having kids 
PRINT
Add to favorites