Full rights for the LGBT community.

Denerick

Personally I'm in favour of gay couples adopting a child. People like to say that both maternal and paternal influences are needed, but what about the huge number of children who grow up in this country with only one parent? I think their efforts are somewhat derided if you constantly complain that their children are not getting the appropriate upbringing (And I'm not just talking about seperation, there is also examples of widows etc.)

The 'ideal upbringing' response is in my opinion limited because my 'ideal upbringing' would have involved me growing up in a castle somewhere in southern Germany and then going on to criss cross the world on my inherited wealth.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's "natural" and what "happens in nature" aren't precisely interchangeable, because we have - supposedly - a civilised society.

And that, I think, neatly illustrates the uselessness of the claim that same-sex adoption is unnatural.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you think that a homosexual couple stealing a child and hunting away the mother would be viewed as OK in society ? Do you think that I do ?

Likewise, an animal will - in its "nature" - kill another animal for food / resources; something else that most of normal society would be horrified by. Just because some criminals think it's "their right", and it also happens in nature, should we accept it in society ?

So therefore there's more to it than what you implied. And what I mean by "nature / natural" is related to what is physically possible under normal conditions in nature - "natural" - rather than using animal behaviour as a norm.

Yes, we've "evolved" (although that's debatable in itself if you watch Jeremy Kyle or the behaviour of the ruling classes)......does that negate the basis ? I don't know.

But nobody is asking a same-sex couple to conceive, Liam. They're asking about adoption, and I've pointed out that adoption is perfectly possible for same-sex couples, and is found quite naturally.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, the 16 year old girl wasn't strictly "single" at the moment of conception, so no, I don't accept that that's "nature's standards". If she had an immaculate conception, then I might agree with you.

Secondly, this is a slightly different scenario, because "adoption" is a man-made concept to make sure abandoned children, etc, are "looked after".

Nature doesn't have that concept, and while there are occasional documented cases of a foal, etc, being fostered, it definitely doesn't have a concept of what's in the "best interests" of the child, which is a completely human ideal.

So if we compare like with like, that 16 year old girl - or, indeed, any "straight" single person - shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, IMHO, because (a) they're not in the "ideal" relationship scenario - the one that is required (all things being equal) to create a child and (b) they physically can't!

Therefore it's not discrimination - there are many people other than gay people who simply don't fit the required criteria.

And where they don't fulfil the necessary criteria for adoption, they won't be allowed to adopt - and Lord knows it's hard enough for heterosexual couples to adopt. Same sex couples will have to fulfil the same criteria of relationship and financial stability as heterosexual couples, as well as the variety of other hoops that adoption services place along the way. The fact that they cannot conceive together is, as I pointed out earlier, entirely irrelevant, since it applies to virtually every couple that wish to adopt...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulmac

This has been doing the rounds on the internet for a while, it's from an American viewpoint but it's still pretty valid:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Scofflaw

I'd just like to make entirely clear that I have no objection to anyone having a prejudice against same-sex adoption. I disagree with that prejudice, but I don't disagree with the right to hold it, or any other prejudice - however, I do take exception to people using false arguments to support their personal feelings.

For better or for worse, it is the right of a society to decide by common consent what is felt to be acceptable in that society. It is up to the LGBT community to argue for social acceptance of the rights they want, and for legal implementation of those rights - and it is the equal right of people who oppose that such acceptance to argue against it. Both parties, however, are bound to accept the majority verdict, and both parties to the debate have a duty to honesty in that debate.

Personally, I would add that anyone arguing in a public debate also has a duty of "due diligence" in respect of his or her arguments just as much as in respect of the arguments of his or her opponents - one should not simply say "such and such is well documented" unless one really knows that to be the case, and can, if required, lay one's hands on or at least point to such documentation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oppenheimer1

Sulmac wrote: »

This has been doing the rounds on the internet for a while, it's from an American viewpoint but it's still pretty valid:

The jury is still out on the causes of homosexulity. Some believe there is a genetic disposition to it and requires nurture to flick the switch.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that, I think, neatly illustrates the uselessness of the claim that same-sex adoption is unnatural.

I've already made the distinction between what is naturally possible and what is animal nature - they are not the same. I have simply said that there is - in my view - a reason that both parents of different sex are required.

One parent missing is the equivalent - in my view - of a single person adoption.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And where they don't fulfil the necessary criteria for adoption, they won't be allowed to adopt.....

....and the criteria is a mother and a father.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The fact that they cannot conceive together is, as I pointed out earlier, entirely irrelevant, since it applies to virtually every couple that wish to adopt...

That's your view, and I accept it - as your view.

It's not my view. And - in the context of the discussion - I don't view it as discrimination (or even a "right"), in the same way as I don't view it as my right to adopt even though I would be a loving, caring parent - it's not my right because I'm single : I don't fit the criteria.

Someone else who's single might view it as their "right" (which I'd likewise disagree with) and I think it has been allowed in certain countries (which I disagree with).

But I am not discriminating, and no-one's "full rights" are being affected, just as mine aren't by me not being allowed to adopt.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

For better or for worse, it is the right of a society to decide by common consent what is felt to be acceptable in that society.

That's a nice sentiment, but don't you think that there should be protections for minorities against majority rule? As we've seen in the past, majorities can abuse their position to make life hell for some groups.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a nice sentiment, but don't you think that there should be protections for minorities against majority rule? As we've seen in the past, majorities can abuse their position to make life hell for some groups.

Protections? Would this be some form of regulation? Thats not very libertarian of you Joking aside I agree with you on this topic. Raised by a single parent, I find the argument of 'ideal family' insulting. Mother and father should not be the criteria, stable and loving parents should be the main requirement for eligibility to adopt. And the 'all things being equal' argument of oppenheimer does not work either. All things being equal between two hetero couples, which one gets to adopt? Its just a hard decision, same as if all other things are equal between a homosexual and heterosexual couple. They are both equally eligible, so yes it should be 50-50.

Natural or not (that is the ability to conceive) shouldn't come into it. Adoption should be in the best interests of the child and a loving family is in their best interests. I got that love from my mother and grandmother, unorthodox but wholly adequate, in fact more than adequate - I wouldn't change it now if I could.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a nice sentiment, but don't you think that there should be protections for minorities against majority rule? As we've seen in the past, majorities can abuse their position to make life hell for some groups.

That's the "for better or for worse" aspect - the protections for minorities are the universal rights enshrined in law, but a society is only going to enshrine universal rights in law that the majority accepts.

Imperfect, but how else would one do it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already made the distinction between what is naturally possible and what is animal nature - they are not the same. I have simply said that there is - in my view - a reason that both parents of different sex are required.

One parent missing is the equivalent - in my view - of a single person adoption.

....and the criteria is a mother and a father.

That's your view, and I accept it - as your view.

It's not my view. And - in the context of the discussion - I don't view it as discrimination (or even a "right"), in the same way as I don't view it as my right to adopt even though I would be a loving, caring parent - it's not my right because I'm single : I don't fit the criteria.

Someone else who's single might view it as their "right" (which I'd likewise disagree with) and I think it has been allowed in certain countries (which I disagree with).

But I am not discriminating, and no-one's "full rights" are being affected, just as mine aren't by me not being allowed to adopt.

Regrettably circular - you've simply defined the criteria as being a mother and a father, which is just begging the question of what the criteria should be. Clearly the LGBT community (and people like myself) wouldn't see that as part of the criteria.

However, I can't see much point in poking you with a stick over this - you disagree with the idea, and as I said, I accept that as your right whether you can give a rationale or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, I can't see much point in poking you with a stick over this - you disagree with the idea, and as I said, I accept that as your right whether you can give a rationale or not.

Equally cordially, I'd propose that I gave a "rationale", but it just doesn't match yours.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the "for better or for worse" aspect - the protections for minorities are the universal rights enshrined in law, but a society is only going to enshrine universal rights in law that the majority accepts.

Indeed, but in the case of legislating for same-sex civil marriage the majority's consent is not needed (as far as I know), only the majority of public representatives. So my question is effectively asking: should TD's vote against the majority will of the population if those TD's feel the right of the minority to undue restriction trumps the will of the majority to maintain that restriction.

As a question it's a bit more theoretical, and beyond the scope of this thread I think.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed, but in the case of legislating for same-sex civil marriage the majority's consent is not needed (as far as I know), only the majority of public representatives. So my question is effectively asking: should TD's vote against the majority will of the population if those TD's feel the right of the minority to undue restriction trumps the will of the majority to maintain that restriction.

As a question it's a bit more theoretical, and beyond the scope of this thread I think.

It's a very general question in a representative democracy!

Liam Byrne wrote:

Equally cordially, I'd propose that I gave a "rationale", but it just doesn't match yours.

I can see that that's your view, but I'd say that what you've actually done is run the goalposts round the field a few times, and then assumed the answer to the question. As I said, though, I can't really see that discussion going anywhere profitable to the thread, although I'll happily take it up by PM or somewhere else at your convenience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oppenheimer1

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed, but in the case of legislating for same-sex civil marriage the majority's consent is not needed (as far as I know), only the majority of public representatives. So my question is effectively asking: should TD's vote against the majority will of the population if those TD's feel the right of the minority to undue restriction trumps the will of the majority to maintain that restriction.

As a question it's a bit more theoretical, and beyond the scope of this thread I think.

A referendum on the issue woldn't be a good thing as it would be utterly divisive and will be avoided at all costs by the government. Legislation through the Dáil would probably be easiest and best. I do wonder what sort of fudge they will come up with on this though.

Grounding arguments on whats natural/unnatural probably isn't the best idea, as many people have equally valid and strong opinions on it. When it comes to adoption the interests of the child and its ability to thrive in the flawed society in which we live should be paramount. This over rides all arguments relating to "rights" and entitlements based on sexual orientation.

The right to give blood is another case. Homosexuals are not discriminated against, but men who have had intercourse with men. IBTS do not want to limit the supply of donors, far from it, and the rejection isn't made on ideological grounds as some here would argue, but the increased risk of carrying a blood bourne disease. People who have lived for a substantial period of time in the UK are also deemed to be an increased risk, yet they don't complain. One often gets the feeling that militant homosexuals display a persecution complex, often at odds with reality, seeking out ways to be offended. This is of course without addressing the real issues which the community face.

Denerick

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the "for better or for worse" aspect - the protections for minorities are the universal rights enshrined in law, but a society is only going to enshrine universal rights in law that the majority accepts.

Imperfect, but how else would one do it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A benevolent dictatorship?

Snarkily,
Denerick.

oncevotedff

Pride Fighter wrote: »

...This is because they cannot marry or adopt children.

Of course they can. It's just that they cannot marry people of the same gender. You could say the same thing about heterosexual people who are separated from their first marriage partner and unable to remarry for years. Isn't that discrimination? But why does anyone actually care about marriage? If you love someone and have decided to spend your life with them, do you really need someone to give your relationship the stamp of approval?

As for the adoption thing. People, no matter their sexuality, should not have an automatic right to a child. While prospective adoptive parents should not be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality, the other side of that coin is that prospective parents should not be deemed fit just because the law says they have a "right" to be parents.

Incidentally if a heterosexual single man wanted to adopt a child do you think he'd have a chance?

LookingFor

oncevotedff wrote: »

If you love someone and have decided to spend your life with them, do you really need someone to give your relationship the stamp of approval?

You do if you want your relationship to be recognised for matters of health, inheritance, tax and so on.

See the news story I posted a couple of pages ago on what can happen to a couple in the absence of that recognition.

oncevotedff wrote: »

As for the adoption thing. People, no matter their sexuality, should not have an automatic right to a child. While prospective adoptive parents should not be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality, the other side of that coin is that prospective parents should not be deemed fit just because the law says they have a "right" to be parents.

Of course not, it's a conflation of the argument to say this is what's being asked for.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can see that that's your view, but I'd say that what you've actually done is run the goalposts round the field a few times, and then assumed the answer to the question.

I'd disagree, and I've admitted that it's a gut feeling based on the laws of nature.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said, though, I can't really see that discussion going anywhere profitable to the thread

...as have I; see the post that mentions "full rights" being subjective.

Scofflaw wrote: »

although I'll happily take it up by PM or somewhere else at your convenience.

Not much point, really, but thanks for the offer. I can appreciate that it's a grey-ish area, but I stand over it along the same lines - as pointed out - as single-parent adoption....is there anything to factually prove that a single, loving parent wouldn't be beneficial or better than nothing ? No. But is it right ? I don't think so (and that is even though it could affect me).

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The jury is still out on the causes of homosexulity. Some believe there is a genetic disposition to it and requires nurture to flick the switch.

Granted, but ask any LGBT person whether it was by nature or nurture that they are LGBT and 99% will answer that it is something they are born with.
I seriously think if I raised you gay you would "come out" as straight.

ninty9er

I know plenty of gay people raised in hetrosexual families, the family environment won't "make" anyone gay, it may be part of a complex matrix, but in fairness to any gay people that I know, many of them don't have any interest in having/adopting kids, but those that do, have actually had to think long and hard about it, which is something that doesn't really occur to hetrosexual individuals as it's just assumed it's something you can do.

Someone who has had to put so much thought into something (including hetrosexual individuals who cannot have kids) is in my mind already more prepared for parenthood than someone who "just can".

dreamer_ire

A couple of genuine questions for those opposing gay couples being eligible to be adoptive parents... if one person is the biological parent of the child would you oppose their parent adopting that child?

The second question is that if a gay teenager is to be adopted would you have the same objections to a gay couple being the adopters?

From my own perspective I support the equal rights for all irrespective of their sexual orientation, including the rights of gay couples to be considered as eligible to adopt. I'm curious as to whether you object to gay couples as parents or whether it depends on the situation.

Liam Byrne

dreamer_ire wrote: »

if one person is the biological parent of the child would you oppose their parent adopting that child?

If the person is gay, then this shouldn't arise.

I'm straight, so could never contemplate sex with a male (even typing it feels weird).....a gay person would have to have unprotected sex with the opposite sex in order to become a biological parent, and therefore can't "really" be gay.

dreamer_ire wrote: »

The second question is that if a gay teenager is to be adopted would you have the same objections to a gay couple being the adopters?

Now that is a good question. I would still propose that two different-sex viewpoints be required, because you then run the risk of segregating re 2 mothers for a lesbian child and 2 fathers for a gay child, because otherwise there's less life experience re growing up and - for example - puberty and first period, etc.

On a related note, I'd be curious whether those who "prefer" co-ed schools to single-sex schools would carry that preference across to parenting, where the claim that the mixed-sex experience was "better" and produced a better person seems to apply ?

Do those in favour of gay parents think that co-ed schools are better ?

And if so, is there an inherent contradiction in that standpoint ?

Annasopra

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm straight, so could never contemplate sex with a male (even typing it feels weird).....a gay person would have to have unprotected sex with the opposite sex in order to become a biological parent, and therefore can't "really" be gay.

Have you never heard of artificial insemination? - also lots of people have realised they were gay subsequent to having a child

Liam Byrne

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Have you never heard of artificial insemination?

Of course :rolleyes:, but this in itself shouldn't be offered to individuals or unsuitable couples, which means its essentially the same discussion.

The rest of your post debunks the whole "born gay" argument.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no nor ever was a law saying homosexual people cannot marry

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I was being pedantic.

No - that wasn't pedantic - that is ignorant

The Civil Registration Act 2004 states

For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—
(e) both parties are of the same sex.

Annasopra

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The rest of your post debunks the whole "born gay" argument.

No - it doesn't

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No - that wasn't pedantic - that is ignorant

The Civil Registration Act 2004 states

It was pedantic. Homosexual people have the same right to marry someone of the opposing sex as a hetrosexual person.

See ? Pedantic.

Apogee

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But I am not discriminating, and no-one's "full rights" are being affected, just as mine aren't by me not being allowed to adopt.

Single people are allowed to adopt in Ireland.

During the period 1991-2004 there were a total of 66 adoptions by single applicants.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/unmarried-couples/adoption_and_unmarried_couples

Liam Byrne

Apogee wrote: »

Single people are allowed to adopt in Ireland.

News to me, and I wouldn't have voted in favour of this. But thanks for the clarification.

I will, however, repeat the following question in case it gets missed, because I think it's a genuine and related question:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do those in favour of gay parents think that co-ed schools are better ?

And if so, is there an inherent contradiction in that standpoint ?

dreamer_ire

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No - it doesn't

Agree completely with Johnny, I know many gay parents who became parents in heterosexual relationships who for a variety of reasons did not "come out" until later. Some of these parents are now single, some are in long term relationships. Liam, in the cases where a parent's gay partner wants to adopt a child and the other biological partner has no objections would you be opposed to this?

On your own question I favour choice in schooling, and I would choose what is considered to be the best school for the particular child. I'm not sure whether it's co-ed or not would be high on my list of criteria. As a resident of Northern Ireland I would, for example, choose a good performing grammar school for an acedemic child. Similarly I would select a good performing secondary school for a child whose talents lie outside acedemia. However in saying that I'm not a parent, and perhaps not being a parent I don't see the analogy as a good one. Same sex couples are not about "emersing" a child in a single gender environment.

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Of course :rolleyes:, but this in itself shouldn't be offered to individuals or unsuitable couples, which means its essentially the same discussion.

You cannot stop lesbians (or indeed gay men with a surrogate) having children.

A lesbian doesn't even need the services of professionals, nor to have sex with a man, in order to inseminate herself. Ditto for the surrogate of a male gay couple. I shan't get into details, but use your imagination.

There are already children here in Ireland being raised by two men or two women where only one parent has legal rights or responsibilities towards the child. It's been the case for a long time too, it's not something new, and there are such kids raised to maturity campaigning for these adoption rights alongside their parents now. Would you really tell those children that their other parent who has raised them should not be allowed to adopt them?

Liam Byrne

dreamer_ire wrote: »

Liam, in the cases where a parent's gay partner wants to adopt a child and the other biological partner has no objections would you be opposed to this?

So would I support someone who was living a lie for years adopting ? Not really, no.

Also, the exception doesn't prove the rule; my whole point was that the phrase "full rights" is subjective.

dreamer_ire wrote: »

Same sex couples are not about "emersing" a child in a single gender environment.

My point was that if someone favoured a same-sex school and was also gay, the child would have feck-all exposure to the opposite sex, and also the fact that the same-sex vs co-ed school preference is along the same lines in that there's no "proof" as such that it makes a better person.....which is the argument that people put forward for gay adoption - there's no proof that the child is worse off, but the argument is still put forward that co-ed means a more rounded result.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

You cannot stop lesbians (or indeed gay men with a surrogate) having children.

You can't stop 16 or even 13-year-olds either, but it doesn't make it right.

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can't stop 16 or even 13-year-olds either, but it doesn't make it right.

Strawman arguments aside, you're ignoring the questions I've put to you. There's a reality out there you are closing your eyes to.

You would tell such a child that there parents were not 'right' to have them and thus, no, they cannot be adopted by the second parent? Really?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

On a related note, I'd be curious whether those who "prefer" co-ed schools to single-sex schools would carry that preference across to parenting, where the claim that the mixed-sex experience was "better" and produced a better person seems to apply ?

Do those in favour of gay parents think that co-ed schools are better ?

And if so, is there an inherent contradiction in that standpoint ?

Slightly odd question - I personally think a single-sex school is better, but wouldn't see the two as related. Parenting isn't really anything like schooling - the primary relationship for a child in school is with their peers, and parents are not peers, however much we might like to think we are from time to time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Slightly odd question - I personally think a single-sex school is better, but wouldn't see the two as related.

So where, in that scenario, would a girl adopted by a lesbian couple who was at an all-girl school get a male influence in her life ?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So where, in that scenario, would a girl adopted by a lesbian couple who was at an all-girl school get a male influence in her life ?

Why does she need one?

(She does have the option of two grandfathers, though, as usual. Lesbians still have fathers.)

interested,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

Strawman arguments aside

I used the exact same phrasing that you did.

LookingFor wrote: »

, you're ignoring the questions I've put to you. There's a reality out there you are closing your eyes to.

No, I'm not ignoring them.

People who have children have responsibilities, and whether they are straight or gay they should, where possible, stay in the relationship in which they had the child.

Life doesn't give us the ideal, but when we have the choice we should aim for it.

I've already said that I would not allow a single person to adopt because it - equally - is not the ideal.

LookingFor wrote: »

You would tell such a child that there parents were not 'right' to have them and thus, no, they cannot be adopted by the second parent? Really?

Show me where I said that ? You might be doing a bit of extrapolating there.

Sorry, but I cannot understand the implied fluidity in sexuality (particularly as we are regularly told that people are born with it), and while no amount of reverse pressure would ever make me have a relationship with, sleep with, have sex with and go on to have a child with (that's 4 serious levels of "it'll never happen") someone of the same sex. I would easily stay single - end of story.

Those who were pressured into it have to accept that it's not the ideal. But it was their choice.

Personally, I would preferably allow the non-gay parent to adopt the child within their new relationship, but it would need to be looked at carefully.

Likewise, if the only option was a single parent adoption vs a different adoption, it would need to be looked at carefully.

You are equating an existing scenario trying to imply that it's the norm or the ideal; what I am saying is that this is not related to someone's "rights", and that someone cannot look at the attempts to handle a messy undesirable situation and superimpose it on to unrelated scenarios as a "right".

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So where, in that scenario, would a girl adopted by a lesbian couple who was at an all-girl school get a male influence in her life ?

Uncles, cousins, friends, teachers, neighbours etc. etc. etc.

If you think of all the people a child interacts with, the parents and peers at school are but a subset. It's practically impossible to create the massive gender imbalance in a child's circle of contact that you're suggesting.

And again, this isn't theory anyway. This has been reality for a long time and has been well studied at this stage - and the consensus is that the children of these families are as well adjusted and socially competent as those whose parents are male and female. You're arguing and presenting concerns against it as if this is some untested theoretical model of the family.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

If you think of all the people a child interacts with, the parents and peers at school are but a subset.

"But a subset" ??? They are the two primary and most influential subsets.

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I used the exact same phrasing that you did.

I said nothing about 13 or 16 year old children. That was your strawman.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

People who have children have responsibilities, and whether they are straight or gay they should, where possible, stay in the relationship in which they had the child.

There typically is no relationship.

It's not like -> Lesbian inseminates herself with sperm from man, hence Lesbian should abandon her partner and shack up with said man?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Show me where I said that ? You might be doing a bit of extrapolating there.

It was the only answer you gave to my post, which asked you about children raised by gay couples and their concerns to be adopted by the non biological parent.

So again: what are you saying those children should think or do? Do you think you know better than those adult children who wish to have a fully recognised legal relationship with both the parents who raised them?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sorry, but I cannot understand the implied fluidity in sexuality (particularly as we are regularly told that people are born with it), and while no amount of reverse pressure would ever make me have a relationship with, sleep with, have sex with and go on to have a child with (that's 4 serious levels of "it'll never happen") someone of the same sex. I would easily stay single - end of story.

I'm not sure what you're referencing. There is no implication of anyone having sex with anyone here, even.

PS: you can have sex with someone of the opposite gender and still be gay. Arousal is not required for conception, in the case of a woman anyway, and viagra and closed eyes can do wonders for a man. If a gay person did choose to have such a direct hand in the mechanics of heterosexual sex in conceiving a child...but this, again, isn't even required.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Personally, I would preferably allow the non-gay parent to adopt the child within their new relationship, but it would need to be looked at carefully.

So the person who the child doesn't even necessarily know nor care for should get priority over the parent who has raised them from birth? How many of these kids do you think want that?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You are equating an existing scenario trying to imply that it's the norm or the ideal; what I am saying is that this is not related to someone's "rights", and that someone cannot look at the attempts to handle a messy undesirable situation and superimpose it on to unrelated scenarios as a "right".

What scenarios? I've presented one scenario to you, it's the only scenario I'm asking about. I've not made any reference to single person adoption, btw, so I'm not sure where that's coming into it either. I'm asking about the one scenario I've presented you with, the one which happens to be the key, and IMO more pressing driver in the call for LGB adoption rights.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I used the exact same phrasing that you did.




No, I'm not ignoring them.

People who have children have responsibilities, and whether they are straight or gay they should, where possible, stay in the relationship in which they had the child.

Life doesn't give us the ideal, but when we have the choice we should aim for it.

I've already said that I would not allow a single person to adopt because it - equally - is not the ideal.



Show me where I said that ? You might be doing a bit of extrapolating there.

Sorry, but I cannot understand the implied fluidity in sexuality (particularly as we are regularly told that people are born with it), and while no amount of reverse pressure would ever make me have a relationship with, sleep with, have sex with and go on to have a child with (that's 4 serious levels of "it'll never happen") someone of the same sex. I would easily stay single - end of story.

Those who were pressured into it have to accept that it's not the ideal. But it was their choice.

Personally, I would preferably allow the non-gay parent to adopt the child within their new relationship, but it would need to be looked at carefully.

Likewise, if the only option was a single parent adoption vs a different adoption, it would need to be looked at carefully.

You are equating an existing scenario trying to imply that it's the norm or the ideal; what I am saying is that this is not related to someone's "rights", and that someone cannot look at the attempts to handle a messy undesirable situation and superimpose it on to unrelated scenarios as a "right".

Again, you're assuming as an ideal a heterosexual nuclear family, without having shown that that is the ideal. It may well be your ideal, but you need to go a way beyond that before such an ideal has any claim to normative status, because you haven't gone anywhere near showing that it's better for the child - and as is being repeatedly pointed out to you, this is an area where research has been done, and it doesn't support your position.

Why should society adopt your ideal as opposed to that of anyone else? Why is your ideal better for the child than mine?

cordially,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"But a subset" ??? They are the two primary and most influential subsets.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Parents are #1, but school peers? I felt closer to my neighbourly friends than school mates, to my uncles and aunts and cousins than school friends.

But that's my experience. I guess it differs depending on overlaps that might exist between school peers and your neighbours for example, and other factors.

My point is that beyond the parents, there's ample room for mixed gender influences in a child's life, same-sex school or no. Even within a same sex school you'll find plenty of male or female influences from a fairly powerful source (i.e. the teacher).

However, again I'd ask what exactly is the fear based on wrt to the parental subset being same-gender? Again, the balance of research shows no adverse impact with regard to this. So why are you raising these cautions in the first place when they're unsupported by most of the evidence? Your gut feelings or prejudices are all well and good, but forgive me if I suggest we not defer to them when it comes to policy making.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

There typically is no relationship.

It's not like -> Lesbian inseminates herself with sperm from man, hence Lesbian should abandon her partner and shack up with said man?

Strawmanning. This act is wrong whether or not its a lesbian. So quit pretending that I said anything along the lines of the question.

LookingFor wrote: »

So again: what are you saying those children should think or do? Do you think you know better than those adult children who wish to have a fully recognised legal relationship with both the parents who raised them?

Oh - we're talking adult children now ? Since when ?

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referencing. There is no implication of anyone having sex with anyone here, even.

In which case there should be no children.

LookingFor wrote: »

So the person who the child doesn't even necessarily know nor care for should get priority over the parent who has raised them from birth?

Again, complete misrepresentation. The OTHER parent ALSO knows them and has raised them from birth.

I do not agree that ANYONE should inseminate themselves in the manner you suggest, whether single or gay.....it's wrong.

LookingFor wrote: »

What scenarios? I've presented one scenario to you, it's the only scenario I'm asking about.

Incorrect.

SCENARIO 1:

LookingFor wrote: »

Moreover, the typical 'use case' for this kind of law among gay people is wrt a couple where one parent is a biological parent of the child and the other is not.

SCENARIO 2:

LookingFor wrote: »

There typically is no relationship.

So in one there was a relationship and the other there wasn't ?

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm asking about the one scenario I've presented you with, the one which happens to be the key, and IMO more pressing driver in the call for LGB adoption rights.

Which key scenario ? An existing parent, or a lesbian in a relationship that made herself pregnant via no sex or sex with a third party because it's her "right" ?

It is by no means "the key", because adoption "rights" also include (for want of a better phrase) "third-party adoption".....I've already acknowledged that we evaluate the "was straight now am gay" scenarios that resulted in children (even though I can't understand this concept at all) as best possible, but also acknowledge that it's not the ideal - just as a single parent is not the ideal, although many single parents do their best and deserve credit for battling against the odds.

Dr. Baltar

May I request a poll for this topic. Namely:

A) Pro Gay Marriage & Gay Adoption
Pro Gay Marriage anti Gay Adoption
C) Anti Gay Marriage & Anti Gay Adoption
D) Anti Gay Marriage, Pro Gay Adoption
E) Anti Recognition of Homosexual Couples Altogether

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why should society adopt your ideal as opposed to that of anyone else? Why is your ideal better for the child than mine?

Conversely, why is the suggested replacement "ideal" better than the existing one, and why is it lumped in with "rights" rather than wants ?

Any time change is requested, it's those proposing it that need to convince society that the new way is better.

I'm not convinced.

Simple as that.

Liam Byrne

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

May I request a poll for this topic. Namely:

A) Pro Gay Marriage & Gay Adoption
Pro Gay Marriage anti Gay Adoption
C) Anti Gay Marriage & Anti Gay Adoption
D) Anti Gay Marriage, Pro Gay Adoption
E) Anti Recognition of Homosexual Couples Altogether

I would also add "open to a case-by-case evaluation of the best interests of the children from formerly non-gay relationships" (with a slight bias towards the non-gay parent)

Dr. Baltar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would also add "open to a case-by-case evaluation of the best interests of the children from formerly non-gay relationships" (with a slight bias towards the non-gay parent)

a) All adoptions are done on a case by case basis.
b) One does not need to be straight to have children

Liam Byrne

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

b) One does not need to be straight to have children

Sorry, this is an "assertion" that I cannot agree with.

Dr. Baltar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sorry, this is an "assertion" that I cannot agree with.

I'm bisexual, go figure.