Gay Marriage and Gay Couples having children (through surrogate, adoption etc) (2 Viewers)

[Astea]

I used to think being gay was 'unnatural' until my best friend came out as gay. I think the problem is we're not putting things into perspective. We truly can't understand what they're experiencing, but hell, we should try. Do I view my best friend as any different than before? No, he is my best friend regardless - His sexuality really does not make a difference. He is still my best friend.

What we should 'try' to understand is that being gay is 'natural'/normal for them, it's what they know and have known for their entire lives. Put things into perspective.
It's like if you grew up in an abusive household, how could kids in 'normal' families possibly understand you?
And in terms of gay marriage and adoption, why should gay people be denied that right? Is it fair for them to have their rights denied for being born gay?

The only 'excusable' arguments against gay marriage seem like personal distastes (people are entitled to their own opinion, however asinine their opinion is) or religion (we have to respect the people that follow religion, but only if they keep their business to themselves rather than bible-thumping). Everything else I believe is ignorance on the subject matter, like 'being gay is a choice', or gay people are paedophiles etc.

 

[kaz1]

being gay might be natural but gays having children isn't natural

 

[SuchSmallHands]

I actually don't really care about someone's sexuality, and i honestly have nothing against homosexual couples.
I feel i'm against people bringing a child into the world, knowing they'll be ridiculed.
I mean, yes, surely the situation will dull down a bit, but do you honestly think there won't be a group of people who will still ridicule gays and make them feel frightened? I mean the KKK still exists despite the fact that it's illegal, you'd think people would get over it but they simply don't.
I wouldn't say specifically gays shouldn't have kids, but rather generalise and say that if you're going to bring a child into the world, and fear they may be ridiculed, then you should definitely re-think it...I feel sorry for Snooki from Jersey Shore's kid for example.
idk, just my opinion. Then again, though, anyone has the chance to get bullied etc. when they're growing up, but idk, i feel like if the chances are increased dramatically, the last thing we want is more depression and sad children in this world who need to deal with bullying...but i disagree with the idea of fitting in with a "norm" ... damn these conflicting perspectives.

I don't get this argument, though a lot of people have brought it up. If gays shouldn't be parents because their kids could be ridiculed that must mean, as you have explicitly stated, no child should be brought into the world if they are going to be ridiculed. I've been ridiculed for being smart, should we only let idiots breed? Should we not allow ugly people to have children, lest they be bullied for having ugly parents? Or even worse, become ugly themselves? Should prospective parents have to pass an attractiveness test and fail a math test before they get the go-ahead to have sex? Should people of ethnic minorities be sterilized to protect children from being bullied, because surely never having been born is much preferable to dealing with mean comments from bigots. In all honesty, I don't understand this line of defense. Everything is ridiculed in modern society, we wouldn't ever even consider prohibiting those who are ridiculed for other reasons from procreating or raising children.

 

[knacknick23]

being gay might be natural but gays having children isn't natural

I think it ultimately comes down to research on whether children raised in gay families are disadvantaged or not.. I agree with the possible bullying a child may face but I think they should have the right to marry/ adopt. Just because they have the rights to do something, doesn't mean every single one of them will. Parenting is a responsibility but you have to give them the right to, before they are able to prove their responsibility

 

[nerdasdasd]

I don't get this argument, though a lot of people have brought it up. If gays shouldn't be parents because their kids could be ridiculed that must mean, as you have explicitly stated, no child should be brought into the world if they are going to be ridiculed. I've been ridiculed for being smart, should we only let idiots breed? Should we not allow ugly people to have children, lest they be bullied for having ugly parents? Or even worse, become ugly themselves? Should prospective parents have to pass an attractiveness test and fail a math test before they get the go-ahead to have sex? Should people of ethnic minorities be sterilized to protect children from being bullied, because surely never having been born is much preferable to dealing with mean comments from bigots. In all honesty, I don't understand this line of defense. Everything is ridiculed in modern society, we wouldn't ever even consider prohibiting those who are ridiculed for other reasons from procreating or raising children.

Everything isnt ridiculed in society. What's a math test and passing a attractive have in common , in relation to having sex.

Poor example.

 

[braintic]

so parents that have carefully thought out the pros and cons of having children and are willing to spend absurd amounts of money on making sure that child arrives safely and healthily in the world are not thinking about the wellbeing of a child

but a pair of drug addled adults who don't even possess the foresight to utilise birth control either at all or properly, or barely have the ability to care for themselves do have the wellbeing of a child in mind, just as long as they don't intend on having a child

right

I'm sorry, where did I mention anything about drug-addled parents??? I don't see how your second sentence has any connection at all to what I was saying. A child with those parents is exactly the type of child who I regard as having no home, and should have a better home found for them. But children should not be seen as chattels that can be bought and sold, and you cannot seriously argue that spending money on a child equates directly with caring.

 

[isildurrrr1]

being gay might be natural but gays having children isn't natural

So are people who are sterile. But I don't see anyone complaining about sterile couples having kids.

 

[braintic]

So are people who are sterile. But I don't see anyone complaining about sterile couples having kids.

So you want to compare a situation that nature never intended, with a design of nature that is simply broken??

 

[Kiraken]

Since when did nature have an intent? And why does this intent, assuming it exists, overrule that of two human beings?

 

[braintic]

Since when did nature have an intent? And why does this intent, assuming it exists, overrule that of two human beings?

I don't believe nature has intent. Its just a turn of speech. But nice work picking up on a distractor to avoid challenging the point of my comment. I was simply highlighting the stupidity of the previous argument - the two cases are not comparable. There was no comment there about people's right to chose.

 

[kaz1]

So are people who are sterile. But I don't see anyone complaining about sterile couples having kids.

I am against sterile couples having kids.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I am against sterile couples having kids.

Well aren't you a special snowflake

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Everything isnt ridiculed in society. What's a math test and passing a attractive have in common , in relation to having sex.

Poor example.

Most things are at some point, it's not just cause to prevent people from having children. Being too fat, too thin, smart, stupid, unattractive, short, tall, too dark, too white etc. A lot of people would be ridiculed for being ugly or smart, therefore I was saying (rather clearly, I might add) that if we were to deny some people to right to be parents solely because their kids might be teased, that would have to extend to those with these characteristics too. I understand that some people have a problem with it, in fact some people have brought up perfectly valid reasons for why they can't personally support it, but this one makes no sense.

 

[isildurrrr1]

I don't believe nature has intent. Its just a turn of speech. But nice work picking up on a distractor to avoid challenging the point of my comment. I was simply highlighting the stupidity of the previous argument - the two cases are not comparable. There was no comment there about people's right to chose.

Animals adopt kids that aren't theirs. Some even birds even steal eggs from other birds and raise it as their own. Guess adoption isn't unnatural after all. And why are people going about it's "unnatural," polyester mixing in with cotton is unnatural. So is pretty much everything in modern processed food. Don't see you fuckers bitch about that either.

 

[braintic]

Animals adopt kids that aren't theirs. Some even birds even steal eggs from other birds and raise it as their own. Guess adoption isn't unnatural after all. And why are people going about it's "unnatural," polyester mixing in with cotton is unnatural. So is pretty much everything in modern processed food. Don't see you fuckers bitch about that either.

OK, you've quoted me, so I'll assume that your comment was intended to bear at least some relevance to my comment, however well hidden that relevance might be. I have not as yet subscribed to this natural/unnatural argument in this forum - my only comment relating to that was to challenge the validity of your statement. I personally don't believe that the rightness or wrongness of our actions should be judged by the habits of unthinking lesser animals. Your ability to relate entirely dissimilar scenarios (eg. adopting children to eating processed food) is astounding. Your thought is as deep as a eunuch's penetration. Keep up the good work.

 

[Astea]

the future is now

changing the law is now

but we are all held back because it's wrong!

women? they have had rights for a very long time.

the law is the law

universal suffrage is universal suffrage

lolsmith is lo- annoying

The future is now? What do you mean? Elaborate on that.
I think you're missing the point about women voting, it's not about how long they've had their rights. isildurrrr1 is stating that women weren't able to vote before, but gender equality progressed and now they can. Same idea with gay marriage, Australia's stance now does not mean never, the law can change to embrace equality.

"but we are all held back because it's wrong!" - What do you mean by this?

 

[townie]

Back OT

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Back OT

Sorry Mr Townie sir

 

[Tangent]

Good to see things haven't changed in three years, except for maybe the level of trolling.

Let's be blunt.
I identify as being gay, and because of that would like the opportunity of marrying someone (regardless of gender) in the future.

That is my point of view that I have established based on my sexuality.

This changed slightly over the last couple of years, though made me more adamant to advocate for the legalization of marriage equality. What is often missed in this type of conversation are trans people. A friend of mine has recently started going through transitioning, which is a courageous move upon her part. To complicate matters, she is married and has children. She cannot change her gender on her birth certificate, because it would then nullify her marriage to her partner. I can't even begin to imagine what her and her family have been through, nor are still going through - in regards to their internal struggles, as well as having to deal with what other people have to say. Imagine now having to deal with a technicality such as marriage being specifically "between a man and a woman" (Marriage Act 2004, thanks John Howard...), and all the legal ramifications that would in sue if they did decide to dissolve the marriage.
Just some food for thought.

As for gays having children, there are already families where this occurs. I'm not going to say that all of them are perfect and should be the envy of those in heterosexual families - I feel that this would be harming, instead of supporting my point. To group people based on their sexuality, and try and find a correlation between that and how good a parent they will be I think is just stupid. There will be good parents, and there will be bad parents.
For those who argue that the ideal family must have a mother and a father - I find this hard to believe again, that this outcome is based on the gender of parents rather than their ability to parent. It also ignores the change in the types of families our society is seeing. Who's to say that a children not raised by parents in conjunction with grandparents are better than just the nuclear family model, or children that are raised by their parents and friends. I feel that as soon as someone screams "Won't someone please think of the children" minds close, rational thought goes out of the window. Please feel free to argue strongly about this point in particular, as I want to flesh out some more discussion around this.

Personally, I would rather adopt than go through IVF. There are people I know that find it important to continue their legacy, and have a child that is biologically theirs, which I can also understand. I disagree with the term "acquiring" a baby, as it sterilises the process of all emotion. There is are lots of things to consider when having a baby, and even though it is through IVF treatment, the commitment and the work that has to be done is no less. If anything, IVF is the more painstaking process, considering all the money hungry legal processes and waiting that has to be endured. To think that people would go through this process on a whim because they have the cash lying around, is quite ignorant.

I'd like to propose a question:

"If marriage equality was passed, in your opinion how would this affect marriage as an institution, and those already married?"

 

[kaz1]

IVF for gays shouldn't be allowed, do we really want the gay gene to continue on?