Should male/male - female/female - couples be allowed to have children?

[Ulysses]

Well, so far I've managed to stay out of this discussion (for the most part). Some very interesting comments I must say. However, I was wondering, what about transgendered people. What I mean is...what about adoption for a couple - one of which was formally a man or woman? Has anyone given any serious thought to that scenario?

 

c4 :thinking:

 

Hiya C4 yeah i have also stayed out of this one as well, to be honest i would naturally vote no, but its abit more complicated and also hard to say yes or no when you think about it.

 

After thinking about it, it should be a dealed with on a case-by-case situation.

[mcant]

my instinctive gut reaction answer is no.. however I then have to qualify it to myself with a list of names of gay couples whom I know would make excellent parents. I can also think of a number of straight couples who I would disbar from raising puppies! so ultimately I suppose it would depend on the people concerned which is a really lousy answer for a poll

[philly]

It could be debated that regardless, any couple shouldnt raise kids if they dont know what their doing. I know plenty of ppl who would make good parents, and plenty who should be shot out of a cannon into the sun. So regardless i voted yes some time ago and i stick by it.

[Hawkboy]

"I dont think it is right for a parent to "teach their kid to be gay"

 

Is there an award for most redneckedignorantstatement of the year on this forum??

[Hawkboy]

"After thinking about it, it should be a dealed with on a case-by-case situation."

 

In other words yes. Saying yes just allows everyone the right but doesn't exclude them from being reviewed to see if they are fit parents, gay or straight.

[Beawulf]

"I dont think it is right for a parent to "teach their kid to be gay"

 

Is there an award for most redneckedignorantstatement of the year on this forum??

 

Wooohoo!! what do I win??

 

Also I think my comment has been slightly missunderstood. It was in a response to GhostShadow who said a guy at his school had been taught to be gay by his parents. I personally dont think it is actually possible to "teach" sexuality. Which was why I questioned if GhostShadow had actually witnessed anything or if it was just hearsay...which appears to be the case.

 

Essentially what I think is wrong is denying someone from exploring their own sexuality naturally, or pressuring them one way or another. Note I think this applies more to straight parents who think they can change a gay son, healing through prayer or some harebrained mental treatment. Gay people who have had to go life dealing with people who cant accept their sexuality are in my opinion more likely to be understanding of any persuasion their children might have.

 

edit: I want that award :P I think it's hillarious

[SkynetX]

What the heck ... why not if they choose to ... Not my decision !

[Soulreaper]

I voted yes on all options

[StitchInTime]

"I dont think it is right for a parent to "teach their kid to be gay"

 

Is there an award for most redneckedignorantstatement of the year on this forum??

 

Wooohoo!! what do I win??

 

Also I think my comment has been slightly missunderstood. It was in a response to GhostShadow who said a guy at his school had been taught to be gay by his parents. I personally dont think it is actually possible to "teach" sexuality.

Of course it's possible to teach sexuality. We teach hererosexuality and gender roles all the time, as our culture and society are saturated with the applicable images.

 

The ancient Spartans taught and enforced homosexual behaviour, and so that was the predominant means of sexual expression among both men and women in that society. As a result of that extreme practice, Spartan citizens had difficulty reproducing and hence they virtually went extinct.

 

That is partially where the taboos against such behaviour originated. Nowadays, however, the situation is radically different. The world is terribly overpopulated, and we have the technology to make it possible for gays to be parents if that is what they want.

 

Essentially what I think is wrong is denying someone from exploring their own sexuality naturally, or pressuring them one way or another.

For human beings, almost nothing develops 'naturally.' Most of what we do is unnatural already, because we are so pliable and to a large degree, society and culture determine who we are. That is not to say that we are not affected by our genetic makeup, but more and more evidence is suggesting that even this is subject to environmental influences.

[Taleitha]

took a look at the vote - glad to see most of us are open-minded enough to see that everyone deserves to have a family of their own, regardless of any sexual preference they may have.

 

What difference is there between a m/m couple and a single dad raising kids?

What difference is there between a f/f couple and a single mum raising kids?

 

Simply: there are 2 parents. There is no difference due to both the parents being the same gender - the kid has 2 parents that love each other and their child. That's all that really matters in the long run.

 

In my experience, there are a lot more screwed up kids from "nuclear" families (2 parents, 2.5 kids, and a dog) than there is from single parent or same-sex parent families.

 

This is a topic that is close to heart for me, seeing as half my family are in same-sex relationships. While most of them don't want kids, they doesn't mean they shouldn't have the RIGHT to have kids.

 

Then again, a lot of heterosexual couples should be screened before breeding...

 

;)

[Exterus]

Yes, homosexual couples should be allowed to have children. You know, the whole idea that we are suppose to "allow" two loving adults to raise a child together leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It reeks of hypocrisy. Freedom for all? Right, right. You mean only the ones who fit into the white, christian world view, don't you? :rolleyes:

 

The kid might get teased? Well...I was teased a lot in school. You know why? Because I had thick glasses and stuttered. Should my parents have been forbidden to raise me because of it? Hell no. My parents are great people and me being teased in school doesn't change that.

 

There's no reason beyond narrow-minded religious dogma to restrict the rights of homosexual couples in ANY way. They're human beings and deserve to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. It's as easy as that in my book.

 

[mcant]

Yes' date=' homosexual couples should be allowed to have children. You know, the whole idea that we are suppose to "allow" two loving adults to raise a child together leaves a bad taste in my mouth.[/quote']

 

and which partner gets which pregnant there's a lot of chat here like its a natural right thats being denied to gay couples. the law is not preventing gay pregnancy, biology is

[GorunNova]

Ummm... I think adoption and in-vitro fertilization for lesbian couples is being assumed as part of the 'having kids' thing... and preventing homosexual couples from raising adopted kids or having in-vitro kids because 'biology doesn't agree' would also mean that adoption would have to be rejected for sterile heterosexual couples... thus kind of negating the usefulness of adoption / artificial insemination.

[Exterus]

Yes' date=' homosexual couples should be allowed to have children. You know, the whole idea that we are suppose to "allow" two loving adults to raise a child together leaves a bad taste in my mouth.[/quote']

 

and which partner gets which pregnant there's a lot of chat here like its a natural right thats being denied to gay couples. the law is not preventing gay pregnancy, biology is

If we were to follow what "biology" dictates in our lives and society as a whole, you would most likely not be here right now. Medicinal science and technology supplement our lives on a daily basis, and is almost always considered a natural part of our lives. A gay couple have the option to adopt and a lesbian couple has the option to adopt or get artificially inseminated. And like the poster before me stated, straight couples that are unable to have children adopt and get inseminated all the time, why should that be any different in that case?

 

No, that "it's not natural"-argument is just a cop-out if you ask me. It really doesn't hold up.

[mateya]

I voted never but I suposse thats becose I find it unnatural. I know many lesbians and dont have anything agaist homosexuals, male or female (designed some flyers for them mind you:)).

I just see it as a sort of copying of the heterosexual nuclear family which happens/occurs naturally if you let our species to form the most close bind groups. and Im all for natural - so I voted never, no offense to anyone..

[ZaphodiLe]

It all comes down to what's good for a child. I have no doubt there are as many bad parents among heterosexuals as among gays...

So the only somewhat "valid" reasons why they can't have children are:

1. Kids get teased because of having gay parents.

2. It's not "natural" for gays to have kids.

 

However I don't think those reasons are enough to forbid it. I mean, if because of reason nr. 1, then you've already given in to prejudice, and then you can never beat it.

If because of reason nr. 2, then couples who can't have children the natural way should also be forbidden to have children.

 

The only thing I think would be valid is if homosexuality is genetical, wich I don't think it is (?). Then forbidding it would be like with incest, wich is understandable.

[mateya]

there are some studies which point to that might be some genetic predispositon but some concrete evidence? no(t yet). the human genom is a vast unknown aeria we have yet to research.

[Sly12]

I think it's fairly difficult to decide reading the odd comment i think i was abit to put no straight off, but these i my ideals on the subject.

 

a child needs to have different parental figures, a male and a female, so i think the child would lose a certain amount of a "natural" child hood. although i might be comming across abit harsh but it's main way i see it.

 

Another point is that say if you had a lesbian couple, if they were sexiest against men and were raising a daughter it's putting pressure on her to be a lesbian because the parents might think that best.

 

Next point to cover... Not overly religious but no matter how we were created by greater life forms (god) or evolution we were ment to reproduce through Sexual reproduction meaning through both male and female. In my eyes it seems like children are a right of hetrosexual couples.

[StitchInTime]

Another point is that say if you had a lesbian couple' date=' if they were sexiest against men and were raising a daughter it's putting pressure on her to be a lesbian because the parents might think that best.[/quote']

Saying that being a Lesbian means you hate men, is like saying that if you're a straight woman and you marry a man, it means you hate women. You are assuming that liking men is the default option, and that if you don't like them, then you must be a Lesbian.

 

In fact, being a Lesbian, simply means they prefer women as partners. Just because you love one person, doesn't mean you hate everybody else. Anyway, putting pressure on people doesn't necessarily make them a certain way. And, even if that were so, so what? How do you know that ending up straight isn't because society puts pressure on most people to be that way?

[mateya]

I belive sly12 is trying to say is that we are only humans and if you like one thing (women in lesbians case) you will naturally incline to present your case in better light. Its totally normal becose we know things we like best, the most (who wouldnt if we choose to integrate them into our life). its vice versa also.

 

and yes, we are "assuming that liking men is the default option" - in nature it is so.

"that if you don't like them, then you must be a Lesbian" - :) well that is not entirely true, but it is most likely however. instead being a lesbian you can be a pedofile, animal "lover".. but lets say this are deviations not worthy of thinking/mentioning..