The Gay Marriage Question

[Alexikokopops]

Bottom line is I believe a child should be given every possible chance to have a mother and father and I believe that right comes ahead of a gay couple's 'right' to have a child.

Can I just ask why this is so important to you? Not trying to start an argument, or convince you otherwise, or anything like that. I'm just intrigued. Is it because you worry that the child will suffer abuse (verbal, etc) because he/she has two mums/dads, or is it because you believe a male/female couple can offer something that a same sex couple can't (i.e. a masculine/feminine balance in the home etc.?), or something else? Again, I'm not trying to kick up a kerfuffle, just interested.

[Rincewind]

If a child grows up with a loving same sex couple I would imagine that they would have less chance of being prejudiced against gay couples and be more open minded..

[The Year Of The Fox]

They can do what they want, providing they keep away from me. Unless its two women (who don't have tattoos and short hair who play rugby)

[Guest MattP]

Can I just ask why this is so important to you? Not trying to start an argument, or convince you otherwise, or anything like that. I'm just intrigued. Is it because you worry that the child will suffer abuse (verbal, etc) because he/she has two mums/dads, or is it because you believe a male/female couple can offer something that a same sex couple can't (i.e. a masculine/feminine balance in the home etc.?), or something else? Again, I'm not trying to kick up a kerfuffle, just interested.

It's a bit more personal to me than most on here for reasons I don't want to go into.

Balance is key, something good, when a girl has her first period she should be able to go to her mother and talk about it. I don;t think too many girls would be wanting to share that experience with a male when it happens first time round.

But above all I think the first basic right of any human being is to have a mother and father, that's how we are created, obviously it can't always happen and I think it's tragic when it doesn't, so I really can't understand now why some people want to actually go out of the way to enforce that on some children even in cases when it's possible for them to have it.

Like I say though, I'm out now from this conversation. It's too distressing for me.

[Guest MattP]

If a child grows up with a loving same sex couple I would imagine that they would have less chance of being prejudiced against gay couples and be more open minded..

Why stop there then, lets rope in two black one legged gays then to take care of them. They won't have the feeling of a loving mother but hey, at least they might not hate some people.

Incredible.

How can people actually do this to kids?

[Haydos]

Ideal situation/Not allowed - big difference.

Bottom line is I believe a child should be given every possible chance to have a mother and father and I believe that right comes ahead of a gay couples 'right' to have somebody elses child.

In a perfect world I might be inclined to agree and while it isn't 'natural' there are plenty of male-female couples that shouldn't be allowed to raise children yet are free to reproduce as they please.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Can I just ask why this is so important to you? Not trying to start an argument, or convince you otherwise, or anything like that. I'm just intrigued. Is it because you worry that the child will suffer abuse (verbal, etc) because he/she has two mums/dads, or is it because you believe a male/female couple can offer something that a same sex couple can't (i.e. a masculine/feminine balance in the home etc.?), or something else? Again, I'm not trying to kick up a kerfuffle, just interested.

Both for me (i realise the question wasn't aimed at me)

Whether you like it or not, kids WILL get bullied for this at achool. Its not the kids fault, its the selfishness of the couple for not thinking about this. Come on, who wouldn't laugh as a kid when a kid gets dropped off by two Dale Wintons holding hands?

Also, children need both mother and father figures in their lives. Its obvious in most circumstances with people I know whether they were brought up by a mum and dad (even if they lived separetly) or just (as the most frequent case) just by their mothers with no sign of their dad. As you say, its all about striking a balance

[Guest MattP]

In a perfect world I might be inclined to agree and while it isn't 'natural' there are plenty of male-female couples that shouldn't be allowed to raise children yet are free to reproduce as they please.

You are right, but unfortunately we live in a society that seems to actively encourage that sort of thing now.

[Rincewind]

So it's right to hate black one legged gays?

[Charl91]

How can people actually do this to kids?

Because it's better than not being adopted at all.

[Carl the Llama]

So it's right to hate black one legged gays?

You know that's not what he meant.

[Guest MattP]

Because it's better than not being adopted at all.

Read what I have put, I'd said it should only be as a last resort. I could fully understand doing it if that was the case.

What I'm saying is in a situation where a suitable male/female couple they should get priority over a gay one.

But like I said, that won't happen now as we view a gay couples right to have a child over the right of a child to have a mother and father.

[Rincewind]

Sorry. I was just saying if the child was brought up by a loving couple their views may be different.

[Guest MattP]

Sorry. I was just saying if the child was brought up by a loving couple their views may be different.

Maybe we could start vetting all potential parents to make sure their political views agree with the state before they start to bring them up?

[Rincewind]

Just checking that they can give the child the right upbringing would be enough.

[Captain...]

The adoption issue is an interesting one.

Gay couples should not be denied the ability to adopt a child, but in all circumstances the most suitable couple for the child should be chosen. This will most likely mean that straight couples will always get preferential treatment over gay couples.

Then so be it...

...but what if the baby is shown to be genetically gay? Would it not be better to be with gay parents?

I appreciate that this currently doesn't exist as a test, but most people believe that homosexuality is not a choice it how you are born, so if you had a gay baby would it be better with a gay couple?

[Xen]

Just my views. Not looking to start an argument or anything, this is just how I see it.

On marriage:

It's a word. Rights won't change as a result of it, just a word. The word is not 'sacred', and it is not governed by religion. Some people may question why it's needed and the answer is it's not, but that isn't a reason to deny it from someone. No-one is looking to force churches/mosques/etc. to perform gay marriages, anyway.

Oh, and the whole 'it'll open the floodgates to polygamous marriages and perhaps even worse things, like bestiality' argument is complete horse-sh*t.

On Gay adoption:

Gay couples would make good parents just as frequently as straight couples (The process for gay adoption/surrogacy is much more thorough than for straight adoption or straight couples having their own child, so there's the possibility that gay parents will in fact be more prepared for raising a child than many straight couples would be).

'Father' and 'Mother' are just social constructs, not objective requirements. It is not necessary for one person to have a penis and another to have a vagina in order for them to be able to raise a child.

Gay people are not looking to indoctrinate children and 'make them gay'. The only ideology like this that they will likely try to instil in the child is a sense of self-pride.

Bullying will occur, yes, but not nearly as often as it's made out. Young children tend not to care about 'trivial' matters such as who other people's parents are. As a kid, aside from friends whose houses you might visit, chances are you won't even know they have 2 dads/mums unless they specifically say so. It'll be no different from kids in care being bullied, except perhaps these kids in gay-parent families might be more financially well-off and face less vitriol as a result.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Maybe we could start vetting all potential parents to make sure their political views agree with the state before they start to bring them up?

If you live in an area with a Labour council that already happens

I appreciate that this currently doesn't exist as a test, but most people believe that homosexuality is not a choice it how you are born, so if you had a gay baby would it be better with a gay couple?

I see no reason why it would be. Unless you think gay people born into conventional families are suffering for it. To my knowledge gay people love their mothers too.

[Daggers]

• Gays adopt kids.
  
• Gays will be allowed to marry.
  

It doesn't matter what retarded, back-water views the meaningless ones of you hold...you lost, the world won. Fvck you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[FoxyPV]

A lot of Tories have stood up in the Commons during the debate and spoke in favour of the BIll.

The DUP are, again, embarrassing themselves.

David Simpson, the DUP MP, said this bill was about David Cameron trying to detoxify the Conservative party. But it was flawed, he said. Marriage was not a matter for government; it was a matter for God, he said.

This is not the jurisdiction of this government, of any European government or any government in the world. This is an ordained constitution of God. In the Garden of Eden it was Adam and Steve. It was Adam and Eve.it wasn’t Adam and Steve.

[FoxyPV]

7.15pm GMT

MPs have voted for the bill by 400 to 175 - a majority of 225.

[The Year Of The Fox]

• Gays adopt kids.
  
• Gays will be allowed to marry.
  

It doesn't matter what retarded, back-water views the meaningless ones of you hold...you lost, the world won. Fvck you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

When are your dates then？

[Alexikokopops]

Both for me (i realise the question wasn't aimed at me)

Whether you like it or not, kids WILL get bullied for this at achool. Its not the kids fault, its the selfishness of the couple for not thinking about this. Come on, who wouldn't laugh as a kid when a kid gets dropped off by two Dale Wintons holding hands?

Also, children need both mother and father figures in their lives. Its obvious in most circumstances with people I know whether they were brought up by a mum and dad (even if they lived separetly) or just (as the most frequent case) just by their mothers with no sign of their dad. As you say, its all about striking a balance

Before I go on, these are just my musings on the subject - I'm not trying to preach to anyone, it's quite an emotive thing and people all have their own views on the matter which I doubt I'm magically going to change my typing on a message board. If I come across as a twat let me know.

To the first point my argument would be - how do you expect us to change this kind of mentality if the very system perpetuates the myth that a same sex couple is something that is, ultimately, to be mocked? The fact that you mentioned "two Dale Wintons holding hands" (whether you were over-exaggerating for comic effect or not) is a prime example that there can be a stereotypical view of a gay couple (a fact that, you could argue, isn't helped by a lot of the gay personalities we see on our TVs day in day out a largely camp as a row of tents, Stephen Fry excepted, but that's a whole different argument for another day). I'm not naive enough to think that kind of attitude is going to change over night but I also question how we are going to change it if we continue to exclude same sex couples from things.

As for the second part - whether you believe that or not is there not the argument that with low adoption rates there currently are (this is purely anecdotal, I have no hard stats, but these are purely musings) that adoption by a same sex couple is going to be worst than the child than no adoption at all?

Again, these are musings. I'm a salad munching, sandal wearing, Guardian reading leftist London ponce so it's no surprise where I sit on the matter!

[Charl91]

Read what I have put, I'd said it should only be as a last resort. I could fully understand doing it if that was the case.

What I'm saying is in a situation where a suitable male/female couple they should get priority over a gay one.

But like I said, that won't happen now as we view a gay couples right to have a child over the right of a child to have a mother and father.

I agree that heterosexual couples should get priority over gay couples. But I have no problem with gay couples adoping if there are not enough suitable/willing to adopt.

[MooseBreath]

Before I go on, these are just my musings on the subject - I'm not trying to preach to anyone, it's quite an emotive thing and people all have their own views on the matter which I doubt I'm magically going to change my typing on a message board. If I come across as a twat let me know.

To the first point my argument would be - how do you expect us to change this kind of mentality if the very system perpetuates the myth that a same sex couple is something that is, ultimately, to be mocked? The fact that you mentioned "two Dale Wintons holding hands" (whether you were over-exaggerating for comic effect or not) is a prime example that there can be a stereotypical view of a gay couple (a fact that, you could argue, isn't helped by a lot of the gay personalities we see on our TVs day in day out a largely camp as a row of tents, Stephen Fry excepted, but that's a whole different argument for another day). I'm not naive enough to think that kind of attitude is going to change over night but I also question how we are going to change it if we continue to exclude same sex couples from things.

As for the second part - whether you believe that or not is there not the argument that with low adoption rates there currently are (this is purely anecdotal, I have no hard stats, but these are purely musings) that adoption by a same sex couple is going to be worst than the child than no adoption at all?

Again, these are musings. I'm a salad munching, sandal wearing, Guardian reading leftist London ponce so it's no surprise where I sit on the matter!

No surprise to see a lefty missing the real target. You're basically in favour of using children as a tool with which to help eradicate a relatively unimportant stereotype. You want to strategically place children where their existence can reduce adult social stigma. You're forcing the child to be a martyr for a fanciful cause before it can even speak. And yet you call yourself a liberal, no doubt.