Gay marriage thread

[Julien Sorel]

Well, a heterosexual couple are a 'natural' and clearly the most apt substitute ... like a knife and a fork are a natural substitute for a knife and a fork rather than a knife and a knife or a fork and a fork, or for that matter a single knife or single fork?

Don't you agree?

No I don't. What have knives and forks got to do with it? I also don't understand why you keep putting words in single inverted commas. Do you mean that it's natural to be heterosexual and unnatural to be gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered or anything other than heterosexual and that's why children should only be adopted by heterosexual couples? (Do they need to be married couples?) If that is what you mean why don't you say so?

As a heterosexual I'm bewildered by what you write. Why can't a same sex couple bring up a child as well as a different sex couple? What is lacking? Are you suggesting it's somehow morally wrong or corrupting for a child to be brought up by a same sex couple in a sexual relationship? That just seems weird to me. Sorry.

[Julien Sorel]

Never a truer word said. In my life, I've found left-field people are anti-democratic and extremely intolerant. Such bullies too.

What is "left-field" about finding the idea that only heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children odd?

[Beef Oven]

What is "left-field" about finding the idea that only heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children odd?

You know what I mean.

Edit: Actually, you probably don't. Re-read my post and you'll see it's got nothing to do with same-sex parents.

[scottycelt]

Hello Scotty Do you mean to give only two possibilities - God Creation/God Evolution - even though both have their adherents? It seems a shame to ignore the one that is actually supported by evidence - evolution by natural selection.

Okay, Pab, duly noted ... God Evolution by Natural Selection if you insist on a third ... so now we have our very own forum Holy Trinity!

[Pabmusic]

Okay, Pab, duly noted ... God Evolution by Natural Selection if you insist on a third ... so now we have our very own forum Holy Trinity!

Nope. Evolution by natural selection. There are those who believe that a god or gods created the universe, the earth and all in it more or less as the Bible (or whatever holy book) says; they are usually called creationists, although they come in many colours. There are those (mainly Christians) who accept evolution by natural selection but believe God set it up that way and intervenes now and then (for instance, to inject the Soul into humans). As far as I can tell, this is the Catholic Church's position. Then there are those, like me, who accept the scientific view, that life evolved by natural (and sexual) selection, aided in a small way by artificial selection by man. That view has the dual merits of being supported by evidence whilst being open to change as our knowledge develops. So there are three options, with the supernatural appearing in two of them (those two are called 'theist' positions).

[Edit} On reflection, I've been a little hard on myself. The third option does not actually deny gods; it just says that we can explain life by natural processes without resorting to supernatural explanations. And indeed, there's a fourth option still - often called 'deist' - that accepts a creator in the beginning, but who then plays no further part in anything, and might not even exist any more.

Perhaps there's a fifth - a sort of pantheism that believes in the 'spirituality' of nature. Endless, perhaps?

[Julien Sorel]

You know what I mean.

Edit: Actually, you probably don't. Re-read my post and you'll see it's got nothing to do with same-sex parents.

So you could as well have posted it anywhere at all on this message board - on a thread about Beethoven piano sonatas?

[scottycelt]

I must say, scottycelt, I admire the fact that you are prepared to stand up for your beliefs on this forum, despite the vicious invective that is spewed your way. It seems to me that many who complain about prejudice and intolerance would do well to look in the mirror once in a while.

Thank you for your kind words, Mr Pee. Whilst we may disagree on many other things, I wholly agree with you (and Beefy) about those who complain about prejudice and intolerance. As far as this forum is concerned, I think you probably know more than anyone (with one possible exception) about vicious invective being spewed one's way.

Still, on an anonymous forum such as this, speaking one's mind might be considered by those with a genuine regard for free expression to be 'a good thing' rather than 'admirable' though then one must be prepared for the long haul in trying to justify to others why one has even dared to speak one's mind if one's thinking happens to conflict with modern society's somewhat Orwellian idea of EQUALITY !

I can well understand those like-minded members who might consider all of this simply not worth the effort and a complete waste of time, but I do confess to occasionally revelling in the seemingly endless challenge ...

[Julien Sorel]

the seemingly endless challenge ...

I think my post #121 is concise, polite and to the point - might you perhaps answer it? Because I'm not sure I understand what your objections to a same sex couple bringing up an adopted child are (or a child if one of them is the child's biological parent?) Is it simply because you think it will confuse the child about reproductive biology? (surely that's unlikely to be the case?) Or is it because you think there is something inherently wrong about same sex relationships and that a child is at risk if adopted by same sex parents in a sexual relationship?

Do you think God doesn't approve of same sex couples adopting children? I genuinely don't think I understand what your objection is or your objections are and I'd like to. 'It's not natural' is extremely vague (as well as hinging on a very arguable notion of natural).

[scottycelt]

I think my post #121 is concise, polite and to the point - might you perhaps answer it? Because I'm not sure I understand what your objections to a same sex couple bringing up an adopted child are (or a child if one of them is the child's biological parent?) Is it simply because you think it will confuse the child about reproductive biology? (surely that's unlikely to be the case?) Or is it because you think there is something inherently wrong about same sex relationships and that a child is at risk if adopted by same sex parents in a sexual relationship?

Do you think God doesn't approve of same sex couples adopting children? I genuinely don't think I understand what your objection is or your objections are and I'd like to. 'It's not natural' is extremely vague (as well as hinging on a very arguable notion of natural).

To me, your post #121 appears to be as much about your distaste of my mentioning knives and forks in illustrating an appropriate 'pairing' and my use of inverted commas rather than being particularly 'concise, polite and to the point'.

My position is quite simple. Children are brought into this world through heterosexual not homosexual relationships. That is the 'natural' (according to Nature) order of things. It is certainly not Scottycelt's Order it is simply the 'natural' one.

I believe a child's best interests are served by having both a male and female parent present. In my own wider family there exists a single-parent case and another where a husband's sister helped raise the children due to the premature death of his wife, the natural mother. So I'm well aware that the 'ideal' is not always possible, and of course kids can be abandoned at birth by their natural parents, hence adoption into another family is both necessary and thoroughly desirable.

It's just that I believe that having a mother and father is the undeniable 'natural' way of things for any child and therefore any adoption arrangement should reflect that simple reality. This is not just a religious issue, as I know quite a few atheists who might put well share my views on the matter.

I trust that answers your query?

[Julien Sorel]

This is not just a religious issue, as I know quite a few atheists who might put well share my views on the matter.

I trust that answers your query?

I'm sure plenty of atheists share your views, but what I wondered was whether there was a specific religious component to your views on same sex couples adopting children. Since you say it's "not just a religious issue" I presume there is a religious component? Do you think same sex relationships are sinful, and do you think children adopted by same sex couples are at risk? (of following the example of their adoptive parents, for instance?)

If you mean natural why do you write 'natural'? It looks like you mean natural in one sense or some senses but not in others. Plenty of things happen "according to Nature". Animals abandon weak young to concentrate on the stronger; male animals will eat the offspring of rivals etc. If you mean human nature, then that begs all sorts of questions (and implies you think same sex relationships are unnatural).

I don't see why reproductive biology should dictate who can successfully adopt a child (a child whose biological parents for whatever reason can't care for). Applying your mirroring theory, if a child's biological parents are kleptomaniac opium addicts who like to collect Princess Diana memorabilia should their adoptive parents also be kleptomaniac opium addicts who like to collect Princess Diana memorabilia?

I didn't have any "distaste of [you] mentioning knives and forks": I simply couldn't see what on earth they had to do with same sex couples adopting children. And I still don't.

[MrGongGong]

It's more than a little but amusing to have people who's belief system depends entirely on a denial of basic biology and the laws of physics to use the idea of something being "natural" as an argument.

If you mean human nature, then that begs all sorts of questions (and implies you think same sex relationships are unnatural).

I think that IS what the Catholic church believes as is obvious from the Scottish cardinal , which is why it's a good thing that these views are becoming more marginalised. If I ask my own children about these things they are remarkably honest and refreshing about it
they have gay friends , straight friends and some who aren't sure what their sexuality is no problem at all......

[scottycelt]

I'm sure plenty of atheists share your views, but what I wondered was whether there was a specific religious component to your views on same sex couples adopting children. Since you say it's "not just a religious issue" I presume there is a religious component? Do you think same sex relationships are sinful, and do you think children adopted by same sex couples are at risk? (of following the example of their adoptive parents, for instance?)

If you mean natural why do you write 'natural'? It looks like you mean natural in one sense or some senses but not in others. Plenty of things happen "according to Nature". Animals abandon weak young to concentrate on the stronger; male animals will eat the offspring of rivals etc. If you mean human nature, then that begs all sorts of questions (and implies you think same sex relationships are unnatural).

I don't see why reproductive biology should dictate who can successfully adopt a child (a child whose biological parents for whatever reason can't care for). Applying your mirroring theory, if a child's biological parents are kleptomaniac opium addicts who like to collect Princess Diana memorabilia should their adoptive parents also be kleptomaniac opium addicts who like to collect Princess Diana memorabilia?

I didn't have any "distaste of [you] mentioning knives and forks": I simply couldn't see what on earth they had to do with same sex couples adopting children. And I still don't.

Well, there is little point in referring to anything as being 'sinful' if some don't even accept the notion of 'sin', so to refer to that here would be unhelpful to say the least. I'm therefore trying to keep religion and any talk of 'sin' out of this and of course, as always, I never introduced these into the discussion in the first place ...

I write 'natural' in the sense of a mother and father being involved in the natural procreation of a child, and that is precisely why I used the inverted commas. I am not quite as naive as to believe that, if I hadn't done, there wouldn't be those members who would have quite deliberately construed their own meaning of the word and accused me of all sorts of nasty and 'intolerant' things (not that this doesn't occasionally happen anyway!). You also appear to want me to say that children are automatically 'at risk' from homosexual couples. I never suggested such a thing, and never would, though by the simple law of averages some well might be at risk. Children can be at risk from their natural/adoptive heterosexual parents as well, so there is a risk factor in any of these situations. However, that is not the same as claiming it makes no difference to the children whether they have a mother and father or two mums or two dads!

Similarly, my reference to a knife and fork was meant to convey a situation where if one finds oneself without one's original pair of utensils one would generally substitute a similar pair and not go looking instead for two knives or two forks. Of course, one could use either of the last two pairings so just because one could presumably therefore you would find all the pairings of equal value?

That, rightly or wrongly, is a point of view which I simply don't share, and a similar logic I tend to apply same-sex adoption?

[amateur51]

Are you 'guessing' that I've never met any gay or lesbian people, amsey... ?

Hmmm, if your 'guess' is right it's back to that damned drawing-board again ...

No scotty, I guess you may have met some lesbians & gay men with a clenched sphincter and a rictus smile

[amateur51]

Well, a heterosexual couple are a 'natural' and clearly the most apt substitute ... like a knife and a fork are a natural substitute for a knife and a fork rather than a knife and a knife or a fork and a fork, or for that matter a single knife or single fork?

Don't you agree?

A same-sex couple is just as natural scotty

Every day I hear politicians bleating that marriage was established and nurtured and promoted and given privileges as a way of bringing up children. This is of course a very partial explanation; it was established and nurtured to protect both property and the father's DNA

[amateur51]

Well, a heterosexual couple are a 'natural' and clearly the most apt substitute ... like a knife and a fork are a natural substitute for a knife and a fork rather than a knife and a knife or a fork and a fork, or for that matter a single knife or single fork?

Don't you agree?

I'm happy with a fork and spoon

And where does your stricture leave the culinary cultures of China & Japan et al