Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

Yes one unforeseen tragedy doesn't forgive voluntarily replicating the situation. The question should be if the original parents intended to hand over there kids to a homosexual in the course of time, or hold on to their kids and raise them as if they were there own (which of course they were).

As many of us were raised in extended families, we know that the bond with our maternal/paternal parents is much stronger than our unmitigated love for our grandparents. In many instances the extended family is a result of mum or dad missing in action, but the traditional links remain visibly intact, providing solid foundations for a child.....and yeah there are people who shouldn't breed either.
.

I know two people who were adopted, and both feel infinitely closer to their adopted parents than their biological ones.

One met their biological father 3 three times out of interest, but has now not seen him in 8 years, he doesn't feel the need to maintain a relationship, however he maintains a normal family relationship with his adopted parents, they are the grandparents to his children, etc.

The other one is my adopted cousin, she again has a normal family relationship with her adopted parents, but met her biological parents only a couple of times, she sends them xmas cards etc with photos of her children, but makes no real effort to be close.

 

[Value Collector]

What has that got to do with Marriage?

Exactly Tink, What do your unending reversions to children have to do with marriage?

A majority of the time its the step parents or new boyfriend/girlfriend that hurts the children, not the original parents.

And not adopted parents either.

Marriage was intended to keep families together to raise their children.

Marriage would have the same effect regardless of gender.

Gay people are accepted and have the same rights, as I said above.

except they can not get married, hence the problem

wanting a word makes no difference in the outcome.

Would you accept the same argument if we were talking about blacks instead of gays, eg Blacks have the same rights, wanting to be called the same word makes not difference.

If it's just a word, why not let them have it?

Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse/pedaphiles, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization

Are the PC mob going to advocate for each one

Why would we care what Church fathers advocated for? their opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, their arguments are only valid if they are based on facts.

You would have to have a separate debate on each topic, I have no problem with consensual Polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism. But if you think one of them should be banned you would have to make an argument against that separately, you can't ban homosexual marrriages because of a fear of polygamy or incest, that's the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Tisme]

I know two people who were adopted, and both feel infinitely closer to their adopted parents than their biological ones.

.

Yes well that is your appraisal based on conversations, inter alia, but only those two people know how they really feel and overtly betraying the adoptive parents isn't going to be high on the agenda. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who have enmeshed with their bio parent(s) and feel infinitely closer to them than the adoptive, but I can't prove that as much you can't prove the reverse.

At best we scan only speak for ourselves and even then we (colloquially) talk as not to offend those we hold dear....even on message boards.

Personally I know of several people who behave like they aren't all that happy about the fractured biological bonds, mostly through marriage breakdown and I don't see how that wouldn't translate for anyone missing that 50%. The arguments here seem to be predicated on poor outcomes of normalised coupling makes it alright to deliberately and artificially create poor potential outcomes.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes well that is your appraisal based on conversations, inter alia, but only those two people know how they really feel and overtly betraying the adoptive parents isn't going to be high on the agenda. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who have enmeshed with their bio parent(s) and feel infinitely closer to them than the adoptive, but I can't prove that as much you can't prove the reverse.

At best we scan only speak for ourselves and even then we (colloquially) talk as not to offend those we hold dear....even on message boards.

Personally I know of several people who behave like they aren't all that happy about the fractured biological bonds, mostly through marriage breakdown and I don't see how that wouldn't translate for anyone missing that 50%. The arguments here seem to be predicated on poor outcomes of normalised coupling makes it alright to deliberately and artificially create poor potential outcomes.

Considering that the vast majority of couples are not rushing out to adopt other people's children but try, sometimes for years to have children of their own, and only when that fails (or they don't want to have heterosexual relations), do they seek other means of having children.

This indicates a clear preference towards raising biological offspring over raising the children of others, and whilst non biological children may not be materially disadvantaged, emotionally there is always something missing when the BP's are not in the picture.

 

[Tisme]

Considering that the vast majority of couples are not rushing out to adopt other people's children but try, sometimes for years to have children of their own, and only when that fails (or they don't want to have heterosexual relations), do they seek other means of having children.

This indicates a clear preference towards raising biological offspring over raising the children of others, and whilst non biological children may not be materially disadvantaged, emotionally there is always something missing when the BP's are not in the picture.

You know there is strong feelings within the Family Court for the govt to legalise surrogacy here. It is being done under the guise of protecting children; I suspect it's a yet another social engineering push to legitimise the disenfranchised who cannot, will not and should not procreate using the plug and socket method.

I still remember the guarantees we got in the face of public indignation at IVF and how quickly it turned into a mini market of human product regardless.

 

[Value Collector]

So if the science was available (it is actually not far away), For a lesbian (or homosexual) couple to make a baby using the DNA of two mothers or two fathers, Would you consider that ok?

Eg, rather than chromosomes being supplied by a sperm, they artificially supply the DNA from the other mothers egg effectively making a baby using 2 eggs, or use the DNA of two sperm, to create an embryo from an empty shell of a donated egg.

Then both parents would be biological, even more so than standard IVF babies, created from donated sperm or egg.

 

[Tisme]

So if the science was available (it is actually not far away), For a lesbian (or homosexual) couple to make a baby using the DNA of two mothers or two fathers, Would you consider that ok?

Eg, rather than chromosomes being supplied by a sperm, they artificially supply the DNA from the other mothers egg effectively making a baby using 2 eggs, or use the DNA of two sperm, to create an embryo from an empty shell of a donated egg.

Then both parents would be biological, even more so than standard IVF babies, created from donated sperm or egg.

If the science was available I honestly would wonder why it would be necessary. Once again by empirical measure I have a very good friend who was shooting blanks. He went down the IVF path and conceived only to spawn a daughter who has major difficulties intellectually, organ failures and even a heart swapout pre puberty (which BTW is being arrested by chemicals). My friend is part of a community with similar outcomes, we just don't hear about it for fear of spooking the population and impacting on a profitable business ... and ROA money is all that matters these days.

My question would be how much chemical is going to be used as catalyst and how much leakage will find its way into the primordial soup? Molly the sheep comes to mind

 

[SirRumpole]

So if the science was available (it is actually not far away), For a lesbian (or homosexual) couple to make a baby using the DNA of two mothers or two fathers, Would you consider that ok?

Eg, rather than chromosomes being supplied by a sperm, they artificially supply the DNA from the other mothers egg effectively making a baby using 2 eggs, or use the DNA of two sperm, to create an embryo from an empty shell of a donated egg.

Then both parents would be biological, even more so than standard IVF babies, created from donated sperm or egg.

This is Frankenstein stuff if it's real.

Distinct male and female sexes exist for a reason. They both have different behaviours and characteristics which complement each other in a relationship and in the raising of children.

Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals ?

We don't have to make that choice, but some of us seem to be prepared to impose it on others.

 

[Value Collector]

If the science was available I honestly would wonder why it would be necessary.

Because as you pointed out, a lot of people like the idea of having their own biological children, with this technology lesbian or homosexual couple could mother or father their own biological children.

It also gets around yours and Rumpoles objection to children not being raised with their biological parents.

 

[Value Collector]

This is Frankenstein stuff if it's real.

.

not really, it's just an alternative way of joining a group of chromosomes together to make a human, whether it is done by a sperm and egg after natural sex or artificially in a lab, the end result is the same.

Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals ?

I am attached to my parents so wouldn't want to change anything, I could imagine growing up with two mothers or fathers I would be attached also, and wouldn't want to change anything.

It's a bit like an Australian that gets asked if they would have rather grow up in the USA most answer no, Australia is the best country to grow up in, People in the USA say the same of their country though.

Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals

Also lets be honest, this child wouldn't exist any other way, If it was a choice between having two fathers or never existing in the first place, I will choose existence over non existence any day.

Existing is awesome. I am pretty stoked that the right sperm met the right egg to create me, I can't really complain about how it happened, I won a lottery that was trillions to 1 odds.

 

[Tisme]

Because as you pointed out, a lot of people like the idea of having their own biological children, with this technology lesbian or homosexual couple could mother or father their own biological children.

It also gets around yours and Rumpoles objection to children not being raised with their biological parents.

My concerns are not subsets of a biological phenomenon, when I say "biological" I mean that in the broadest terms and part of that is native reproduction, with all the pump action required to consolidate success. I suppose you could argue I'm an LP in a Compact Disc world.

 

[SirRumpole]

Existing is awesome. I am pretty stoked that the right sperm met the right egg to create me, I can't really complain about how it happened, I won a lottery that was trillions to 1 odds.

Pft, billions of sperm are never fertilised and I don't hear them complaining. The point is the quality of life after you come into existence. I would prefer to have it the way I did.

 

[luutzu]

This is Frankenstein stuff if it's real.

Distinct male and female sexes exist for a reason. They both have different behaviours and characteristics which complement each other in a relationship and in the raising of children.

Lets be honest here and ask ourselves, all else being equal, would we rather have a mother and a father or would we prefer to have been raised by homosexuals ?

We don't have to make that choice, but some of us seem to be prepared to impose it on others.

I don't think the kids would care.

As long as they grew up with caring and loving parents, in a nurtured environment, I doubt any kids would ask where's the male/female parent.

All else being equal, I think children growing up in a gay marriage might turn out to be more understanding and mentally stronger adults. That is, you take two equally loving marriages - one being hetero the other homosexual... I would imagine the homosexual couple would have to put up with a lot of biases, stereotypes and discrimination to just be "normal", just to have a "normal" family.

Kids would pick up the prejudices against their parents and may grow up not to be so quick to judge; might see the mental strength and struggles their parents goes through and learn from that.

Just my opinions. But at the end of the day, gays are also human and citizens, and as such ought to have equal rights whether we like it or not. To say they can't have children because it's "bad" for the children - if it is bad and detrimental to the children, let it be judged on a case by case basis... That's why we can't just assume all heterosexual parents and marriages are automatically good for the kids.

All else equal, gay parents wanting children tend to actually want to and plan for it. There's no such thing as accidental, shotgun parenting there. When both parents plan for and desperately want to raise children, the result tend to be good for the kids being raised.

 

[Value Collector]

My concerns are not subsets of a biological phenomenon, when I say "biological" I mean that in the broadest terms and part of that is native reproduction, with all the pump action required to consolidate success.

I am a bit confused by what your saying.

Are you actually saying that you don't really care so much if the child is biologically related to the parents, just so long as the child was created by a couple having natural heterosexual sex?

Any particle position? limit it to missionary maybe?

Should we outlaw conception that's done in any other sexual acts?

 

[Tisme]

I don't think the kids would care.

As long as they grew up with caring and loving parents, in a nurtured environment, I doubt any kids would ask where's the male/female parent.

.

You think school yards don't punish the odd anymore ... fat chance.... they are where the bleeding obvious begins and the social engineering by bleeding hearts tries to counter it. It seems many succumb to the brain washing that prescribes denial of intuition.

 

[Value Collector]

I would prefer to have it the way I did.

But if you asked a person who had two fathers, they may say the same thing.

But my point is, if you asked the people who were created using two sperm or two eggs, are they happy they are alive or would they rather have never existed, I bet the vast majority choose existence.

 

[luutzu]

I am a bit confused by what your saying.

Are you actually saying that you don't really care so much if the child is biologically related to the parents, just so long as the child was created by a couple having natural heterosexual sex?

Any particle position? limit it to missionary maybe?

Should we outlaw conception that's done in any other sexual acts?

He's old school... just in out and gone in 60 seconds. None of that foreplay and those crazy rope and leather stuff.

 

[Value Collector]

You think school yards don't punish the odd anymore ... .

That's the same argument used against interracial marriages in the 60's.

You shouldn't ban things because parts of society are bigoted, otherwise we may as well ban red heads breeding.

 

[Tisme]

............. otherwise we may as well ban red heads breeding.

and you reasoning against that action is....?

 

[luutzu]

You think school yards don't punish the odd anymore ... fat chance.... they are where the bleeding obvious begins and the social engineering by bleeding hearts tries to counter it. It seems many succumb to the brain washing that prescribes denial of intuition.

Sure they'll get picked on, but bullies will always find ways and means. We can't ban gay couples from having kids because the kids might be bullied - teach those kids how to deal with bullies, or make certain the school principal talks to them about it.

To say gay couples shouldn't have kids because of this and that is like saying poor people shouldn't have kids, then prescribe that only those with x income could have y number of kids because kids costs money. Plenty of kids from poor family do perfectly fine without the private schools, trips to the zoo and summer holidays by the coast.