GameBanshee Forums

Yes, I was also wondering about those who said no. It'd be nice to have their commentary and opinions, too.

Life would be dull if everybody always agreed, after all.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
This may be more appropriate in the Adoption for homosexual couples thread, but by this logic, single parents should also be banned from having custody of their children and single people should be probhibited from adopting as well, since both a male and female role model are not present.

Well, Fable did mention the problem!

Second, I don't agree with the logic of your counter-argument.
I was assuming, and I still do, that children need both parental figures.
(you may disagree, but I am instinctively convinced of this)
Natural parents are the most "natural" candidates of course.
If one dies, and one of the parental figures disappears, it's bad for the child, but fate has to be blamed, not the Law.
And certainly you can't think to take away from the child even the remaining parent.

But allowing adoptions to homosexuals, Law takes the place of fate in this issue. It decides to let the child start from a position where he lack one of the parental figures.
IMHO, that's arbitrary and unjust.
You're watching with the eyes of the "open-minded" adult, not with the eyes of the child who'd want a mommy and a daddy.

@Littiz:
Would you then agree that single parents should be prohibited from adopting children because they cannot provide both a male and female role model?

One was me. That should have been an obvious one. Religion dictates my moral compass so to speak, and what i define as morally right or wrong. Same sex anything is prohibited in Islam. So marriage or no marriage, i am against the very concept.

Though i am wondering who the other 3 are...

I wouldn't call you a bigot, Littiz. I happen to agree with you on this subject. If you're labeled narrow-minded because of it, then we'll form our own club.

It seems that this topic crosses over into some grey areas, touching upon the rights of others. This is always tricky and perilous ground to tread upon, but I feel in these cases some plain common sense is called for. I don't necessarily feel that homosexuality is a natural condition, per se, even though it can appear occasionally amongst lab animal populations, like rats. At best, it is an anomaly. I don't think there's any question that from a biological standpoint, males and females are contructed to be sexually compatible , and the offspring of that natural union needs both the male and female parent-figure at different stages in their development.

In the case of a legally recognized union between two consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation), the rights of no one is unduly violated. However, the introduction of a child produced outside of this union crosses the line, in my opinion. Better that a child be reared by a single parent, than be placed in an environment with parent-figures of the same gender who openly engage in a sexual relationship. To me, homosexuality is by and large a choice, influenced mainly by environmental factors. It is a choice best left up to an individual in full possession of mature judgement, not to an impressionable child who depends upon adult parent-figures for stability and security. If a person who grew up with heterosexual parent-figures decides homosexuality best suits them, then so be it. That happens in the course of some people's lives.

Again, this is a common-sense judgement to me. Does this mean that the biological child of a homosexual parent should be taken away by the state? Of course not. Parents do indeed have rights, and in this case I feel the right to raise their own child overrides any other concerns, barring abuse of some kind.

Originally posted by Chanak
I don't necessarily feel that homosexuality is a natural condition, per se, even though it can appear occasionally amongst lab animal populations, like rats. At best, it is an anomaly.

To me, homosexuality is by and large a choice, influenced mainly by environmental factors.

I'm not getting into this discussion too much, i might get emotional... But a few points..... For me this is not going to be a scientific discussion about wether traditional marriages are a better suited environment to raise children in then same-sex marriages(I don't know the facts). If this is the case, then I'd assume that's because of societies view on these marriages(then again it might not be)....aka kids getting trouble because of external factors. I do know however(common sense) that it's better for a kid to be in a same-sex household then not be in a family at all. And knowing that 30% of all streetkids in the US are gay (sadly because of the obvious reasons) I'd say the answer to wether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children is a rather easy one.

Further more...there is not a single piece of credible scientific evidence left that shows that being homosexual is a choice. Believe me, if that were the case I would've made a different choice ten years ago. This is not an issue that you can "feel" an opinion about or that it is something that's so individual that you can use the term "to me" to make statements about it.

Oh....and I won't go into the biological details that show that males/males and females/females are sexually compatibly constructed. But they are....

I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh. I just don't like to be called un-natural or labeled an anomaly....even when I know that that's not how It's meant. Like i said, I might get emotional...

Originally posted by Audace
I'm not getting into this discussion too much, i might get emotional... But a few points..... For me this is not going to be a scientific discussion about wether traditional marriages are a better suited environment to raise children in then same-sex marriages(I don't know the facts). If this is the case, then I'd assume that's because of societies view on these marriages(then again it might not be)....aka kids getting trouble because of external factors. I do know however(common sense) that it's better for a kid to be in a same-sex household then not be in a family at all. And knowing that 30% of all streetkids in the US are gay (sadly because of the obvious reasons) I'd say the answer to wether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children is a rather easy one.

Further more...there is not a single piece of credible scientific evidence left that shows that being homosexual is a choice. Believe me, if that were the case I would've made a different choice ten years ago. This is not an issue that you can "feel" an opinion about or that it is something that's so individual that you can use the term "to me" to make statements about it.

Oh....and I won't go into the biological details that show that males/males and females/females are sexually compatibly constructed. But they are....

I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh. I just don't like to be called un-natural or labeled an anomaly....even when I know that that's not how It's meant. Like i said, I might get emotional...

I think I can applaud your bravery for disclosing the fact, but I'm afraid I have to disagree as to your argument on same-sex parents being better than single parent (I'm not discussing the aspect of no parents, I don't think anyone disagrees that any parent is better than none, I just don't think it's applicable to the situation, we're discussing what type of parents, not lack of).

The main problem I have with the aspect of homosexual adoption is that the child is an environment where he faces ridicule and hardship. And that is the truth. It is entirely unfair for a child to face taunts and abuse because of his parents, its like how legislation was brought in by the French government on naming children odd names (I think). Children can be cruel, vile and utterly hateful to those that are unlike them, its a sad fact, but true, what they don't understand is something to be afraid of, and having gay parents will not help a child to grow up. I would imagine that they would become emotionally scarred. Also, I think if parents say they won't disclose their sexual preference, they should have no right to have a child, if they aren't comfortable opening that fact, how can they be trusted to raise the child without a skewed upbringing, it may help the child in principle, but in later life when people find out (and they will) it could only get worse.

I think the aspects discussed above are one of the major problems I have with child adoption, but another extension is the simple fact that a child needs to have a balanced upbringing. Gay parents may well provide that, but it is still a situation where a child can be influenced by the surroundings. I don't want to get in a nature/nurture discussion, but that is my personal thoughts.

Overall, I believe that any person has the right to love whom they wish, thats undeniable, but the simple fact that gay parents desire to have children is, in my opinion, not enough to give them the right, going right down to the biological level, they weren't meant to have children. I'm sorry if that sounds callous, but its my beliefs on the subject.

@ Ysh and CE, my search continues on the marriage of convience point, but I'm having little luck, I'll keep on trying though.

I'd like to point out that my post is just an example, but I honestly feel that how a child is, reacts, and grows is nearly entirely based on environment.

I used to know a kid who had two mothers and no father. We were about ten, him, me, the whole group of us. We used to hang around with him because he seemed older than us and when you're that young, you always want to be older. Honestly, now that I look back on it he didn't fit in and he couldn't of. At the age of ten his explicitness (as in what sorts of sexual "things" he talked about) was about as much as a grown man. The things he did were quite odd and very different from what you would expect from a ten or eleven year old. He seemed to lack that sense of good and bad or law that "normal" children have, as if someone had never told him what was right or wrong. There's no simple way to describe it so all I can say is that he was just messed up. Not dumb, not physically inable, just disturbed. And now that he's gone (not dead, just gone), some of us remaining kids who've stuck together look back and blame it on the fact that he didn't have a father-figure as a role model. Was it his mother's fault? No, I knew her and she seemed to be a normal parent (just in a different type of relationship). I honestly have no clue why he was like that. He didn't do drugs or alcohol. He didn't fight people. He didn't have secrets from us, He was almost like the rest of us children, except "disturbing". It was as if you could feel that something was wrong. So when we were older we pointed the finger.

I'm not trying to stereotype children in a same-sex relationship. I'm simply pointing out that it's very possible for a child in that environment to be influenced by his surroundings. Now for the matter of legally recognising homosexual marriages? Sure. It's that person's way, so don't take that away from him or her.

@Nippy no problems at all, I actually agree with you on most points. (well a few of the facts that is, not the conclusions)

The main problem I have with the aspect of homosexual adoption is that the child is an environment where he faces ridicule and hardship. And that is the truth. It is entirely unfair for a child to face taunts and abuse because of his parents, its like how legislation was brought in by the French government on naming children odd names (I think).

First point. This is not limited to kids with gay parents. It's a social problem related to high-school shootings. Hierarchy and peer pressure and all that. It is not an argument against same- sex couples adopting. You might as well argue that poor people shouldn't be able to get children because their children start off in a less favourable position.

Also, I think if parents say they won't disclose their sexual preference, they should have no right to have a child, if they aren't comfortable opening that fact, how can they be trusted to raise the child without a skewed upbringing, it may help the child in principle, but in later life when people find out (and they will) it could only get worse.

Agreed. But with adoption, parents get screened first for suitability. Too bad that parents aren't obliged to get a licence before getting children. Might spare us a lot of problems.

Gay parents may well provide that, but it is still a situation where a child can be influenced by the surroundings. I don't want to get in a nature/nurture discussion, but that is my personal thoughts.

Like I said...It's a scientific issue, not a personal one.

but the simple fact that gay parents desire to have children is, in my opinion, not enough to give them the right, going right down to the biological level, they weren't meant to have children.

The human being is a tribal/social animal. Meaning the whole off society used to(and to an extent still does) take care of the children. And you can hardly argue that gay parents aren't biologically equiped to have kids. But that's an option that's always open.

@Z, you might well be right, then again you might not be. It's hard to tell since almost all disturbed kids come from traditional or one parent families. I think it has less to do with who your parents are then with how good your parents are in raising kids.
But I'd like to see some research on the subject. Don't think there is much out there though, but I'll look into it.

Originally posted by CM
One was me. That should have been an obvious one. Religion dictates my moral compass so to speak, and what i define as morally right or wrong. Same sex anything is prohibited in Islam. So marriage or no marriage, i am against the very concept.

Though i am wondering who the other 3 are...

Well I can't argue with religion. That is unless you would be a Christian instead of a Muslim, my knowledge of the Koran or Qu'ran(what's the english spelling?) is rather limited I'm afraid.

Anyways to quote Voltaire "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Originally posted by Audace
@Nippy no problems at all, I actually agree with you on most points. (well a few of the facts that is, not the conclusions)

Hehe, I wouldn't expect you too.

Originally posted by Audace
First point. This is not limited to kids with gay parents. It's a social problem related to high-school shootings. Hierarchy and peer pressure and all that. It is not an argument against same- sex couples adopting. You might as well argue that poor people shouldn't be able to get children because their children start off in a less favourable position.

Yep, completely correct, but I'm on about the extent. Being overweight can be solved, you can work out and make yourself fit, or being "apparently" not pretty is something that can be ignored as daft, most people prize the inside rather than the outside (I hope). The point is, I'm on about the extent, if you had gay parents, could you change that? No. It's all about the simple fact that having gay parents would be a lot "worse" than being fat. Your last point is absolutely correct, your social and financial situation shouldn't effect why you have kids, but the simple fact is that you can go from being poor, and its only money, its not something vitally important, people can realise that, but what kids can't realise is why they get bullied because they have gay parents, its simply not fair for a child to not understand why they are persecuted, they'd know why if they had money, but to them, they would be raised in an environment that essentially is pro-gay, so they would reflect that view (on the whole), as such, the persecution would be more harmful.

Originally posted by Audace
Agreed. But with adoption, parents get screened first for suitability. Too bad that parents aren't obliged to get a licence before getting children. Might spare us a lot of problems.

Agreed as well, would solve a hell of a lot of problems, but being screened is not something that can quantify that will arise in the future, being a good parent is not a measurable fact, it arises from experience with children, and I don't think that the same sexes combined would produce the balance required for a child.

Originally posted by Audace
The human being is a tribal/social animal. Meaning the whole off society used to(and to an extent still does) take care of the children. And you can hardly argue that gay parents aren't biologically equiped to have kids. But that's an option that's always open.

I'm on about together, I think its the entire issue that a child should be of the two partners genes, not from an outside adult. Biologically, the child isn't theirs, its one plus anothers, not the two together. Further to that, you have to agree that there is still a level of ostracization (sp?) to any gay couple, its still not entirely accepted, hence my argument that any child, by extension would be shunned.

Well...wouldn't it be more logical to work on those social issues instead off forbidding same-sex couples adopting children? And wouldn't the first phase into acceptance be that there are going to be more same-sex couples with children? Me thinks you are drawing the wrong conclusions. It's like stating; "Well we can't give women the right to vote. Society isn't ready for it." And thus denying 50% of the population the right to vote whilst knowing that it goes against your gut principles.

Originally posted by Nippy

Further to that, you have to agree that there is still a level of ostracization (sp?) to any gay couple, its still not entirely accepted, hence my argument that any child, by extension would be shunned.

Yes, but there's also ostracisation against black people or asian people in several areas. Would you suggest that these people not be allowed to adopt, solely becasue there are people who dislike them based on their race?
As I see it, the discrimination is the problem not the people being discriminated against. For the state to behave as you suggest would be to sanction discrimination.

Originally posted by Chanak
I don't necessarily feel that homosexuality is a natural condition, per se, even though it can appear occasionally amongst lab animal populations, like rats.

Whereas argument from nature is not a valid argument, I must still as a scientist dealing with behavioural neuroscience and behavioural genetics point out that homosexuality is naturally (ie spontaneous, not provoked or induced by researchers or by alterning the animals by manipulating with them) occuring in many more species than man, in their natural environment. Birds, felines, monkeys, apes and many more species, have been reported to engange in homosexual activities many times in the scientific literature. A specific monkey in Japan has been throughly studied and especially the females are actually known to prefer other females before men for sexual activities. It should be noted that copulation does not have the sole function of reproduction, it also has an important social function in group living animals with complex social behaviour...such as chimps, or humans.

This should not be taken as an argument in favour of homosexuality or in favour of homoadoption. Although I am totally pro this, and very happy that Sweden recently introduced adoption rights for same-sex couples, these are two totally different issues. Whether something is naturally occuring or not, does not make it more moral or more right - rape is also naturally occuring in many species, as is killing your own offspring in hard times, etc. However, I do think it is important that everybody, regardless of opinons, base their opinons on facts and not myths, so that's why I believe it is important to know that the "homosexuality is not natural" argument is flawed - it is natural, that's not an issue. I will provide references if needed.

I will post more in this thread later, must go now...but if anybody is interested I can also post something about current hypothesis as to why homosexuality has been selected for phylogenetically, ie why it has not "died out" during evolution but may instead be of great use in an evolutionary perspective.

Originally posted by Beowulf
Yes, but there's also ostracisation against black people or asian people in several areas. Would you suggest that these people not be allowed to adopt, solely becasue there are people who dislike them based on their race?
As I see it, the discrimination is the problem not the people being discriminated against. For the state to behave as you suggest would be to sanction discrimination.

With all due respect, I think thats quite different, we're not discussing that factor, being of a different colour may not affect how you raise a child, being gay might.

Saying that however, people probably said the same about black couples, in the US, but in my defence, on average, any different sex couple provides a better balance than same sex, and would be better for the child involved.

@ Audace, you may well be right, we may still have problems with that, but I think as a society, we may not be ready to allow same-sex couples to have children, given the fact that children are already quite brutal anyway, it would become even worse.

@ Nippy

Re: Common law marriage: I've just been told it's a misnoma and doesn't actually exist in English law. My partner with whom I'm now cohabiting told me this!

@Littiz:
Would you then agree that single parents should be prohibited from adopting children because they cannot provide both a male and female role model?

Yes HLD, I would agree.
But I realize that total prohibition, both cases, is too strong.
The correct interpretation would be to consider those situations as negative points for the adoption, but there are others, after all.
As long as there are better option for the child, those are to be taken.
But of course, a not-gay couple of assassins(!) can't be rated as a better option!

So I say, singles and gay-couples should "start" with a lower rating for the good of the child, but then all has to be taken into account.

Originally posted by Enchantress
@ Nippy

Re: Common law marriage: I've just been told it's a misnoma and doesn't actually exist in English law. My partner with whom I'm now cohabiting told me this!

Sonofa... Dammit, I was sure I had read that somewhere. Ah well, nevermind.

Sorry for the spam.

Originally posted by Nippy
With all due respect, I think thats quite different, we're not discussing that factor, being of a different colour may not affect how you raise a child, being gay might.

Now you've moved onto a different point. You started by saying that the child would be discriminated against. I pointed out the flaws in this reasoning, and you replied by saying that sexual orientation affects the how the adoptive parents would raise the child. We were discussing how the child's peers would react to having same-sex parents, not the effect that has on how the child is raised.

Saying that however, people probably said the same about black couples, in the US, but in my defence, on average, any different sex couple provides a better balance than same sex, and would be better for the child involved.

This is a scientific matter which can be tested and measured, so it's not really a matter of personal opinion. I don't know the details of the relevant studies, but I'm sure CE does, if she'd care to enlighten us.