Homosexual Families
HAMMER22
Join Date: 2003-06-18 Member: 17476Members
Join Date: 2003-06-18 Member: 17476Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Little bit further...</div>So I just browsed the homosexual marriage thread (admittedly not all the way through so somewhere in the 110 posts this may already have come up), and decided I wanted to pose this expansion in to ###### rights.
Do you agree with the prospect of homosexual couples, men or women, being allowed custody of a child raise as their own? The child of course could be adopted, conceived via IVF, conceived via a surrogate mother, or some other as yet not possible method. I wanted to ask this because recently I've question friends and relatives over the matter and was quite shocked to find that many oppose the notion of homosexual couples having children for various reasons.
Some of the reasons they cited were:
-Goes against family "values"
-Unfair on the child having same sex parents
-Or just unnatural
Personally, I think all these reasons are moot points and can't justify denying someone the joys of bringing up a child just because of their sexual preference. Essentially, if there is a way for homosexual couples to have children (they could be just considered infertile couples in a way) I think they have right to have them.
What does the wise meta-mind of unknownworlds think?
Do you agree with the prospect of homosexual couples, men or women, being allowed custody of a child raise as their own? The child of course could be adopted, conceived via IVF, conceived via a surrogate mother, or some other as yet not possible method. I wanted to ask this because recently I've question friends and relatives over the matter and was quite shocked to find that many oppose the notion of homosexual couples having children for various reasons.
Some of the reasons they cited were:
-Goes against family "values"
-Unfair on the child having same sex parents
-Or just unnatural
Personally, I think all these reasons are moot points and can't justify denying someone the joys of bringing up a child just because of their sexual preference. Essentially, if there is a way for homosexual couples to have children (they could be just considered infertile couples in a way) I think they have right to have them.
What does the wise meta-mind of unknownworlds think?
Comments
If it could be proved that same sex couples mess up a kid somehow, sure, there'd be an argument. But all the evidence I know if points in the opposite direction, so there's no reason to argue against same sex couples raising a kid.
I can't be bothered going to get sources at the moment. Maybe later, although probably not even then.
Thousands of people dying each day from starvation and preventable disease, quarter of the world living on less than dollar a day, governments waging wars no one besides big corporations want, scientists failing to receive funding on every issue that actually matters, economy collapsing like an epileptic playing Geometry Wars, banks being allowed to print their own money at the expense of working class, evil cults allowed to brainwash population into hating their whole lives, Earth's natural resources being wasted and pulled into landfills for penny on a dollar, millions being forced into nothing short of paid slavery... Forget all that. Let's all concern ourselves with what a black - sorry - gаy couple can or can't do with their lives.
I think it's all a cruel joke.
Counter argument to that has always been "Because of course, straight parents only ever raise straight kids" and you have to say it in a sarcastic voice.
You may have stumbled on a back way for bigots to support homosexual marriage. According to their logic only closet homosexuals raise homosexuals so if you let them marry each other there won't be any more homosexual children.
Nothing about it is true, but it would be a fun way to mess with their heads.
Btw, there are homosexual members working on NS2, in case you're not sure how you feel.
Shouldn't matter unless there is a board restriction on discussion topics, although good to hear :) A person who is able to post their opposition to homosexual marriage here shouldn't have their mind changed simply because of a preference of someone who works on a mod they enjoy.
-------------------------
I believe that anyone who has a view that someone else doesn't deserve equal rights should be fully capable of telling that person directly (to their face in regular life, under their primary sign in online) without any shame:
<ul><li>People who think minorities & foreigners should be scrutinized more than the average person should feel free to admit it. </li><li>People who think subgroups like a particular sex, sexual preference, race, disability, etc should be treated differently than anyone else should be able to tell that person directly. </li><li>People who think laws should only apply to certain groups of people, or only be written with certain groups of people in mind should be able to openly admit that.</li></ul>
...and of course be able to discuss it in a civil manner.
Hell considering the stick homosexuals get about having families anybody determined enough to have one in the face of such objection would probably be pretty good at it. It's not as if you can accidentally have kids if you're homosexual.
<!--quoteo(post=1749037:date=Jan 25 2010, 04:52 AM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BadMouth @ Jan 25 2010, 04:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There has been nothing to suggest that homosexual families are more likely to raise homosexual children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if there was evidence to suggest that, the idea that that's a bad thing is kind of only true in a self fulfilling sense.
Why are homosexual families bad? Because they produce more homosexuals. Why are homosexuals bad? Because they can't have a family. Why can't they have a family? Because homosexual families are bad.
Awesome, my argument supports itself, now nobody can disprove it!
What I find interesting is that, any time the marriage issue comes up, we get conservatives crying wolf and claiming that this is the thin end of the wedge. The fear is that homosexual marriage will lead to children being raised in a homosexual relationship. In reality, the sexual orientation of the couple being considered as parents in an adoption is not really a factor the adoption services worry about. Homosexual couples can already adopt, as long as they meet the usual requirements.
Which is, how it should be.
<!--quoteo(post=1749014:date=Jan 24 2010, 06:17 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 24 2010, 06:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749014"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing about it is true, but it would be a fun way to mess with their heads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To reiterate, I do not hold any of these beliefs nor do I claim that anyone here does. I was just pointing out how even the faulty logic used to claim that homosexual marriage is destroying families can be twisted in on itself.
not really adding to the discussion, but I thought of you guys as I read the article
Swingers have the right idea, and it's really the most natural way of doing it. It promotes more social and sexual bonds with more mates leading to a larger support structure. For social creatures, we sure have some downright idiotic ways of expressing that.
Swingers have the right idea, and it's really the most natural way of doing it. It promotes more social and sexual bonds with more mates leading to a larger support structure. For social creatures, we sure have some downright idiotic ways of expressing that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different species have different mating methods and some even thrive with monogamous relationships (such as some species of penguin and other birds). Some of those species, such as some species of penguin, still have a strong community and family bond that does achieve multiple adult caretakers beyond the parents.
Swingers aren't out to reproduce or raise offspring, they are get togethers for sexual enjoyment, so aren't a good comparison to nature when referring to raising children. Monogamous relationships with extended family support usually work out better in human societies for raising offspring due to the common theme of sexism that is tied to most forms of polygamy.
People who think minorities & foreigners should be scrutinized more than the average person should feel free to admit it.Â
<ul><li>People who think subgroups like a particular sex, sexual preference, race, disability, etc should be treated differently than anyone else should be able to tell that person directly.</li><li>People who think laws should only apply to certain groups of people, or only be written with certain groups of people in mind should be able to openly admit that.</li></ul>...and of course be able to discuss it in a civil manner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always find it funny when someone tries to defend their 'right' to say other people don't deserve rights.
Much less funny is people who won't openly admit that they believe other people don't deserve rights, then vote remove those people's rights.
I know you are in Britain, but here in the US the right to say stupid and offensive things is a basic right. Here, the KKK has every right to promote their views and I have every right to point out the illogical, ignorant and discriminatory basis for their views as a counterpoint. At least they are open about those views now so I can be aware that they are ignorant, racist bigots, and I'll defend their right to <b>say</b> other people don't deserve the same rights.
For ###### marriage many people will say they support ###### rights but then vote to define marriage as between a man and woman which opposes those rights. I would prefer they were open about their views to start with so they can be informed that saying they support something, then voting against it, is <i>not supporting it.</i>
It's very ironic, but they are right on that. If they pretend they have a right to remove other's rights, that's another thing.
So people exercising their right to free speech? Oh no! They can say what they want and then do the opposite! Aaaaaa the homosexual agenda strikes again!
<!--quoteo(post=1749569:date=Jan 28 2010, 04:40 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 28 2010, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know you are in Britain, but here in the US the right to say stupid and offensive things is a basic right. Here, the KKK has every right to promote their views and I have every right to point out the illogical, ignorant and discriminatory basis for their views as a counterpoint. At least they are open about those views now so I can be aware that they are ignorant, racist bigots, and I'll defend their right to <b>say</b> other people don't deserve the same rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry Captain America that's a right in any democratic nation. That "socialist hell" called the United Kingdom included.
To draco: yeah but people who vehemently argue that "them geys dunt hav rites" are very much those kind of people.
Didn't you just scold them for doing that in your original post?..
<!--quoteo(post=1749623:date=Jan 29 2010, 03:47 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 29 2010, 03:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yeah but people who vehemently argue that "them geys dunt hav rites" are very much those kind of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but it doesn't remove their right to be stupid about it.
What?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry Captain America that's a right in any democratic nation. That "socialist hell" called the United Kingdom included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are all your words. I clarified the country because the original post was about the situation in the US, and as the internet is international not every country has the same laws/outlook/rights as the US.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To draco: yeah but people who vehemently argue that "them geys dunt hav rites" are very much those kind of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you understand the difference between allowing someone to <i>say other people don't have rights</i> and that same person <i>being able to deny that other person their rights</i>.
So you don't see the inherent silliness to people saying "I fully defend your right to say other people don't deserve rights"? You apparently do, but can't really explain why these people are allowed to hate on homosexual people but would quickly be silenced if they said the same things about black people.
I appreciate how it's useful for a society to defend such a right but if you think it only yields positive results I feel inclined to say you're mistaken. I am aware that taking away the free speech of saying how homosexuals should die leads to a "slippery slope" argument of potentially entering some kind of system like they have in China, but then look where absolute free speech against homosexuality got the Ugandan people. I can't see how the pastors who managed to set off that chain of events can be defended, even if the laws they're causing somehow don't come to pass.
Apologies in advance for the double-post, but yes we ban hate speech in the UK. Calling for murder or persecution of minorities or individuals is a crime, which makes The Daily Mail's job harder, at least, so it's an all-positive change IMO, and it's a very subtle difference from free speech such that no-one really notices the difference. The idea of "free speech" is a bit of a misnomer anyway as even America has libel law.
I'll also defend their right to talk whatever about black people, if that's what you mean. Not because I support them being bigoted twats, but because I care about my, and everyone else's, freedom to speak up.
They can say these things because freedom of speech doesn't mean "freedom of only my speech": the reason this freedom exists is not simple vanity, it guarantees freedom of information about important subjects, whatever they may be. When you start censoring ideas, regardless of what they may be, you void the concept as a whole: freedom cannot be selective. To this end, hate speech laws are disrespectful subversions.
As a UK citizen, this should actually send a chill down your spine. Unless you've honestly never heard of Shariah courts and reason for their continued existence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't see the inherent silliness to people saying "I fully defend your right to say other people don't deserve rights"? You apparently do, but can't really explain why these people are allowed to hate on homosexual people but would quickly be silenced if they said the same things about black people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, people are free to hate whoever they like so there is no difference between hating on homosexuals and hating on blacks. In both cases the person saying "I don't think this person deserves X right", interracial marriage went through the same religious and bigoted defiance in the US before being generally accepted. I don't have it handy but there was a great quote by an appellate judge that talked about how a particular marriage was against the best interests of society and most people think it is about ###### marriage, but turns out to be about interracial marriage.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I appreciate how it's useful for a society to defend such a right but if you think it only yields positive results I feel inclined to say you're mistaken. I am aware that taking away the free speech of saying how homosexuals should die leads to a "slippery slope" argument of potentially entering some kind of system like they have in China, but then look where absolute free speech against homosexuality got the Ugandan people. I can't see how the pastors who managed to set off that chain of events can be defended, even if the laws they're causing somehow don't come to pass.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Free speech in the US doesn't cover instigating violence against someone.
Saying X person is inferior is acceptable.
Saying X person is not equal to another human and doesn't deserve to get married is acceptable.
Saying X person should die, in a way that insinuates someone should make that happen, is not acceptable.
In Britain the first two are not acceptable by free speech laws:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the US some kind of action other than words has to happen. I am saying <i>it is ok to say that one minority group is inferior, not that it is ok to say that someone should take action against a particular group</i>. That isn't contradictory or silly.
Hear about them all the time, also:
<!--quoteo(post=1749722:date=Jan 29 2010, 09:21 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 29 2010, 09:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749722"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the US some kind of action other than words has to happen. I am saying <i>it is ok to say that one minority group is inferior, not that it is ok to say that someone should take action against a particular group</i>. That isn't contradictory or silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what about the American pastors who preached intolerance of homosexuality that led to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws? Is the right to free speech the excuse for the blood of millions that might have been spilt if the bill had gone through in its original version (as it very nearly did)?
I think this is where my problem with free speech laws comes in, what once used to prevent people fearing to speak out against corrupt governments is now used by intolerant bigots to attempt to subvert the very government free speech supposedly allowed in the first place. Currently Proposition 28 dominates California and several other states have similar laws in place. Currently media outlets including Fox News are allowed to <a href="http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/28/court-ruling-fox-news-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-lie/" target="_blank">tell outright lies</a> that prevent people knowing the truth. How is this "good"? I find it really difficult except for when people say "well without it we'd all be under Sharia Law" or something to the effect, which assumes we live under a fundamentally malevolent government who are held back only by people waving signs saying "burn the ######gots." It confuses me somewhat that this is the ideal way for America to remain. Why must absolutely all forms of free speech remain? How can books like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika" target="_blank">this</a> be justifiable outcomes of free speech?
So how can you advocate laws that restrict freedom to offend even more? You should know full well that the only reason government or the people aren't allowed to call out these demented fundamentalists out for what they are is for the sake of not going against hate speech laws.
<!--quoteo(post=1749778:date=Jan 30 2010, 05:25 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 30 2010, 05:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what about the American pastors who preached intolerance of homosexuality that led to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws? Is the right to free speech the excuse for the blood of millions that might have been spilt if the bill had gone through in its original version (as it very nearly did)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not really freedom of speech, is it? That's religious sanctimony.
I believe I noted this before, but freedom of speech doesn't work if it's freedom of only your speech. Religious hatred happens to be somehow an exception to that in many ways, and is allowed to preach whatever it likes under guise of "respect for other's beliefs", similarly Fox are allowed to preach whatever they like because it's "their air time". If people were allowed to call out preachers publicly for their words, I dare say you'd see a lot less of this stuff.
<!--quoteo(post=1749778:date=Jan 30 2010, 05:25 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 30 2010, 05:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Currently media outlets including Fox News are allowed to <a href="http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/28/court-ruling-fox-news-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-lie/" target="_blank">tell outright lies</a> that prevent people knowing the truth. How is this "good"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't. I personally do not see a difference between government- or corporation-sponsored censorship or fraud, and that the latter is somehow accepted as lawful in our society is nothing short of a cruel joke.
What's I'm trying to say it, you're defending the very thing you're trying to argue against. In society with true freedom of speech, you would not have to cope with anyone's lies as they would be instantly dismantled by anyone who happens to give a damn - like you or me - without fear of "offending" or "inciting hatred" or whatever else. Right now there's one party that is allowed to say whatever they like and there's another one that has to shut up so as to not offend them. This is a subversion of freedom, and advocating a similar system does nothing to fix but only worsen the issue.