Suicide bomb gang guilty of plotting 'worst ever terror attack in Britain'

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fair enough. I suppose a same sex adoption would affect different children differently. Some would grow up fine with it, others probably would not. I think everything else being equal a heterosexual couple adopting will have less problems than a homosexual couple adopting. Again, this will probably differ child to child and area to area. A child being adopted by a nice upper middle class gay couple in London will probably find it easier than one brought up by a gay couple in a working class area of Barnsley. In Barnsley it really would be a social experiment.

Personally Jason, I found your argument a touch contradictory in that you were talking about the inherent nature of parenthood as dictated by sexual orientation, but then suggested there was nothing inherent in sexual orientation.

Closed on one side of the coin; open on the other.

I would argue that both sides are open, which is why I could see your point on choice with regard to the latter.

[jason_c]

Ah I see. So how far does that policy extend? Should people who believe in open marriages not be allowed to have kids? How about S&M? Light bondage? Spankers? Porn watchers? Anyone who doesn't believe in missionary position, lights out, with your eyes closed? If Hubby wants to have 3 way with his wife and her best friend? No kids for them? Should the NHS make them fill out a questionaire as to their preferred styles and positions and toys?

Since what one chooses to behind closed doors should never be on display before the kids in any overt fashion, what precise difference does the gender of the participants involved make? Who are you to decide which sexual proclivities rules one out for parenting? Who's to say we wouldn't look at your sex life and feel you are not suitable for raising kids?

Im heterosexual, your feelings towards my suitability of raising kids is no business of yours in the slightest. If I were to adopt via state adoption agencies then your feelings have marginal importance.

[Ally]

Im heterosexual, your feelings towards my suitability of raising kids is no business of yours in the slightest. If I were to adopt via state adoption agencies then your feelings have marginal importance.

LOL... ah I see, so only heterosexuals are immune from judgment, because goodness knows no heterosexuals ever screw up kids. Heterosexuals are never child abusers, they never kill their kids. Heteros are immune from judgment!

But you didn't answer my question. Again. Should any of the above category of people be allowed to adopt kids?

[jason_c]

Personally Jason, I found your argument a touch contradictory in that you were talking about the inherent nature of parenthood as dictated by sexual orientation, but then suggested there was nothing inherent in sexual orientation.

Closed on one side of the coin; open on the other.

I would argue that both sides are open, which is why I could see your point on choice with regard to the latter.

To be honest I don't think enough is known about the subject. It probably differs from person to person. I am convinced that its hidden behind a whole host of PC nonsense. Many of the same psychologists who tell us that homosexuality is genetic but that fetishism is nurture. Well if fetishism is upbringing related I suspect cases of homosexuality can be too. Though this is not my reason for arguing against gay adoption or infertility treatment.

[jason_c]

LOL... ah I see, so only heterosexuals are immune from judgment, because goodness knows no heterosexuals ever screw up kids. Heterosexuals are never child abusers, they never kill their kids. Heteros are immune from judgment!

But you didn't answer my question. Again. Should any of the above category of people be allowed to adopt kids?

Yes, yes they should. Unless you missed my point earlier I said one of the reasons for not allowing gays to adopt is due to a child needing male and female influences. It had nothing to do with peoples sexual proclivities behind bedroom doors.

edit: its nothing to do with heterosexuals being immune from judgement, its due to heterosexuals ability to procreate. An ability that homosexuals do not have. Homosexuals have to rely on the state. This gives the community as a whole the right to have an opinion on the matter.

[Ally]

Yes, yes they should. Unless you missed my point earlier I said one of the reasons for not allowing gays to adopt is due to a child needing male and female influences. It had nothing to do with peoples sexual proclivities behind bedroom doors.

And your point is entirely negated by the rise of single mothers.

edit: its nothing to do with heterosexuals being immune from judgement, its due to heterosexuals ability to procreate. An ability that homosexuals do not have. Homosexuals have to rely on the state. This gives the community as a whole the right to have an opinion on the matter.

Actually you are wrong. Homosexuals can procreate just fine. They just can't procreate with their same-sex partners. Just like infertile couples can't procreate with their chosen partners.

Which makes your entire argument void. An infertile heterosexual couple is no more capable of having a child without "state" intervention than a gay couple.
Period. They are just as "biologically flawed" when it comes to having kids. So either everyone who is not capable of procreating without state intervention is immune to judgment or opinion or no one is.

[jason_c]

And your point is entirely negated by the rise of single mothers.



Actually you are wrong. Homosexuals can procreate just fine. They just can't procreate with their same-sex partners. Just like infertile couples can't procreate with their chosen partners.

Which makes your entire argument void. An infertile heterosexual couple is no more capable of having a child without "state" intervention than a gay couple.
Period. They are just as "biologically flawed" when it comes to having kids. So either everyone who is not capable of procreating without state intervention is immune to judgment or opinion or no one is.

A generation of single mothers have proved problematic. As someone raised by a single mother I know she did her best. I do think I lacked a male role model though. Come back after two or three generations of single motherhood and then you can perhaps gloat, or not.

Again, I said nothing about where a homosexual man sticks his penis. If he can arrange fatherhood in such a way I have no problem with it. It is none of my business how he brings up his own flesh and blood(apart from any obvious harm of course - which is not a gay or heterosexual issue).

The point about infertility treatment is about rationing finite health resources. One way of rationing is to not give such costly treatment to lesbians. It is not a medical necessity. When procedures such as these are not necessary its not unreasonable that they be rationed more strictly. This is especially the case when such resources are being channeled away from necessary treatments.

[Errata]

To be honest I don't think enough is known about the subject. It probably differs from person to person. I am convinced that its hidden behind a whole host of PC nonsense. Many of the same psychologists who tell us that homosexuality is genetic but that fetishism is nurture. Well if fetishism is upbringing related I suspect cases of homosexuality can be too. Though this is not my reason for arguing against gay adoption or infertility treatment.

Fetishism is almost never upbringing related. It isn't just nature and nurture. Those are the two most consistent forces in our upbringing, but not the only ones, and often not the most important ones. Some of the most potent forces in our lives are total accidents. Maybe a woman's family is a little prone to anxiety, and maybe she has an exaggerated startle response, but the real reason she freaks out so badly when she hears a bang is because she was in a terrible car accident as a child. She was not trained to freak out by her primary caregivers and community, and there is no gene expressed that requires to to jump and shriek. She had a bad experience. Profound enough to alter her behavior for the rest of her life. And one of the most profound experiences in a person's life is the first time they become aroused. And the surrounding details accompanying that first time, or some other significant time, get fetishized. Sometimes it isn't even the act that is the fetish, as much as the emotion the act engenders. Coprophiliacs didn't get aroused when someone pooped on them. They are aroused by intense embarrassment, feeling dirty physically and emotionally, they are incredibly submissive. The act that they fetishize provides all of those emotions, but if another act would work better, they would switch.

But even in the fetish community, sex matters. A submissive heterosexual man is not going to be okay with a male dominant, unless his female dominant is engaged in the play. Exhibitionists would get more attention from committing a homosexual act in public, but if they aren't homosexual, they don't do it. Sex is a learned behavior, sexuality is not. Otherwise as Ally said, straight parents would raise straight kids.

But just because something is not a choice does not make it genetic. We are complicated creatures. Every infant straight out of the womb is either Engaged or Shy. A personality trait that develops within days of birth. Introvert or extrovert. And those never change. It isn't a choice, but it isn't genetic. If you were an Engaged baby, your instinct will always lead towards being an extrovert. You can choose not to act on those inclinations, but you are acting against your nature, and it will never become second nature to act as an introvert. Acting like an introvert does not make you one, and it doesn't make you feel like one. Homosexuality is essentially the same. There are just parts of our nature that cannot be changed. Social requirements, credulity, humor, sexuality, mindfulness, etc. People think the Stooges are funny, or they don't. They think Monty Python is funny, or they don't. You can explain to them why other people think it's funny, but nothing anyone can do will make them think it's funny. No matter how much they laugh to cover up that they don't like the Stooges. And that's not genetic, nor is it learned. My parents are all about Burns and Allen. My sister is a huge fan of Carlin and Dennis Miller, I like them too but I'm about Python and Eddie Izzard. If humor were a learned trait, I would like the Stooges. I would like Burns and Allen, the Marx Brothers, and Bob Hope. Or their modern equivalents.

Personality is so little understood. But sexual attraction is in the mind, not in the bits. So it isn't a gene, a chemical imbalance, a malformation in a cortex. I suppose it might be a gene, but it would be like the Bipolar gene that has no bearing on whether or not you are Bipolar. It is a defining characteristic. Who we love, what we laugh at, how we want to engage the world, even whether or not you "get" music (which despite being a singer, I don't). They show up early, they don't alter, and trying to change it a: doesn't work and b: is PROFOUNDLY harmful. It is in fact the worst psychological wound that can be inflicted on a person. Any rejection of a core trait can actually inhibit brain development. So it's not a choice. The behavior is a choice, the inclination is not. And the inclination evidently cannot be avoided, anymore than you can make yourself think the Stooges are funny.

[jason_c]

Errata, I did not explain myself adequately when I said fetishism was nurture related. I meant its probably more to do with something that happens in our upbringing, rather than through our genes. Apologies for any confusion.

I agree with you about personality being so little understood. Its why I have not come to any final conclusion on the whole matter. The matter is not yet settled within the scientific community. Even if some of scientists and social theorists claim it is.

[Cogidubnus]

LOL... interesting. So despite research that has basically proven that being gay is not a choice, you disregard all those studies but are holding out because there are no studies that determine what effect being brought up by "two gay men" would do to a child. I find your cherry picking of studies indicative of the fact that you are in fact a homophobe.

So interesting where your concept of "natural selection" comes into your ideology. How about this one - if a straight couple can't get pregnant by nature discriminating against them, maybe that's a clue that they shouldn't be producing offspring! And by the way, there's no sociological experiment. Straight couples are just as capable of screwing up their offspring as gay couples. Take a look back at the last 3000 years of history for your "study".

But anyway, the question is answered. Yes you are a homophobe.

Friggin' hell Ally, now I'm deeply and seriously concerned...a post on which we're totally agreed...Oh bugger...I think I'll go away and lay down !

Every good wish

Dave

[Errata]

I will say that I'm a little reticent about any public monies going to any kind of fertility treatment or surrogacy program. Not because they don't have the right to have kids, but it doesn't make sense to pay for an overabundance of foster children AND pay for childless couples to be able to bear their own children. I'm told it's different once you have your own, and I'm just going to take people's word on that. But your kid is your kid. Genetic compatibility with your child should not matter so much as to pay tens of thousands of dollars for it. If you insist, fine. But that's a luxury on par with buying a boat, or a Ferrari, or the third largest diamond in the world. If you want a child so that it will look like you and could possibly give you a kidney, you don't need to be having kids. Sure everyone WANTS their own kid. But clearly not everyone who wants their own kid continues to want their own kid, which should be a clue as to how easy it is to screw that one up. Maybe when people stop abandoning their children I will change my mind, but in the end... there are kids who need homes. When they are all placed, then let the state pay for fertility treatments.

[Ally]

The point about infertility treatment is about rationing finite health resources. One way of rationing is to not give such costly treatment to lesbians. It is not a medical necessity. When procedures such as these are not necessary its not unreasonable that they be rationed more strictly. This is especially the case when such resources are being channeled away from necessary treatments.

Oh I see rationing finite health resources. Well if that's your aim, that's even more of a reason to prevent HETEROSEXUAL couples from procreating, considering study after study is now proving that couples who use these methods produce offspring that have more birth defects than couples who procreate the old fashioned way. And who would be surprised by that, since nature itself was against these couples procreating, so it's not particularly surprising that a forced pairing will result in more defects. So if it's resources that you are concerned about then we might as well do away with fertility treatments altogether as it is doing nothing but increasing those who will suck even more resources from the people down the line.

In fact, if it's a cost saving analysis, then ONLY homosexuals should be allowed to procreate because they are of course far fewer in number than heterosexual couples, and they at least have not been blocked from procreating by their own defective genes, just differences in plumbing. Win-win. I mean if it's just about resource management.

[Limehouse]

Bullying, and the fact that children ideally need both a male and female influences on there lives are the two main reasons im against gay adoption. Also, the fact that gay relationships are far more likely to break-up than heterosexual ones.

True conversation, overheard by a member of staff working in a primary school class in the UK. Two children talking about their heterosexual parents' relationships:

Child one: "Is Glen your new dad now?"

Child two: "Yea"

Child one: "We've had him. He's rubbish"

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=jason_c;255467]A generation of single mothers have proved problematic. As someone raised by a single mother I know she did her best. I do think I lacked a male role model though. Come back after two or three generations of single motherhood and then you can perhaps gloat, or not.
QUOTE]


What about all those single mothers who raised their children after WW1 and WW2 when so many fathers did not come home? That was more than two generations ago. Did they do such a bad job?

And if recent single mothers have proved 'problematic' what can be said of the men who father children here, there and everywhere and do nothing to help raise them or support them financially? What a fine example of heterosexual parenthood they are!

You want children raised to have a male and female role model - how about those nice heterosexual couples Hindley and Brady - or Rose and Fred West?

And why do male/female role models have to be provided by parents? Why can't they be provided by others around the growing child such as godparents, uncles, aunts, neighbours, family friends, church members and so on?

Being heterosexual does not make you a saint and it does not make you a good parent. The same can be said of gays or transexuals or anyone else.

The truth is, children need a consistent, loving and nurturing upbringing that takes care of their physical, emotional, social, spiritual and intellectual development. This can be provided by a range of people, male or female, gay or straight and all sorts of shades in between.

[Limehouse]

Fair enough. I suppose a same sex adoption would affect different children differently. Some would grow up fine with it, others probably would not. I think everything else being equal a heterosexual couple adopting will have less problems than a homosexual couple adopting. Again, this will probably differ child to child and area to area. A child being adopted by a nice upper middle class gay couple in London will probably find it easier than one brought up by a gay couple in a working class area of Barnsley. In Barnsley it really would be a social experiment.

I actually fell off my chair laughing when I read that. Was I meant to?