It never ceases to amaze me how a lot of things can be taken out of context, and twisted used to prove points which aren't being made....

allonym:

if that is the case, then why do male-female couples feel a need to reproduce.

It is you who is not making sense.

Unless you are saying that a male and female DONT feel the need to reproduce until they become a couple.

Please where on this our dear earth have male-male partners and female-female partners been able to naturally (by this I mean carrying a pregnancy a full term) able to produce children (and not through 'unnatural' means like artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, or the likes)

You are trying to allege that the partnerships are natural, and since they are made of people who have these feelings that it should be expected that they should be able to exercise these feelings.. I'm sorry, but this doesnt follow..

When people choose a path, they should be willing to walk it.. And to me, part of the "path" of homosexual liasons and partnership is that a decision has automatically been made to accept the basic fact that reproduction isn't possible, and so should not be an issue...
To use your own words above: a male and female... are meant to reproduce, by every standard u can think of.. When this can not occur and solutions are found, it doesnt mean that these solutions should be exploited for purposes which they were not originally designed for..

Seun:

Female-female couples can have their own children. They just need sperm donors.

Male-male couples can have children too - they just need surrogate mothers.

Sperm donors and surrogate mothers are already being used by male-female couples with reproductive problems. So this is not an issue at all.

The issues of surrogacy and sperm donorship have always been undermined by problems.. Although people have often utilized these methods as solutions to very difficult situations, these methods in themselves were not meant to be exploited...
If there were no sperm donors or surrogate mothers, would homosexual partnership have the ability to reproduce otherwise..   that is my premise..

nferyn:

What is natural isn't automatically good or admirable. Agriculture is a very unnatural thing, so is modern medicine.

As to your comment that "What is natural isn't automatically good or admirable"... I agree with you.. However, agriculture and medicine are very natural things... (Modern medicine may be an exception to the rule by virtue of its intricacies to solve every-changing conditions in an ever-changing world(I know someone is very soon going to use these very words against me, but I must move on..  ))

Agriculture, as is still practiced in many parts of the world, still involves planting, waiting for these crops to reach desired maturity, and then harvesting.. Some aspects of this may have been rendered "unnatural" by a desire to augment or speed up some aspects of the process, but the entire process remains a very "natural" one... Unless there are parts of the world where crops are just obtained without planting ??

allonym:

I'm just trying to show him that the premise of his argument, that people feel a need to reproduce, expains why homosexuals would feel that need. Unless he's saying homosexuals aren't people, which I don't think he's saying. . .

Now, back to what I said above..

Human beings have an inherent capacity to reproduce (and again, to forestall unnecessary splitting of hairs, I'm refering here to people who do not have inherent problems)... Whether they choose to or not is entirely at their own discretion... In order for reproduction to occur in humans, it involves both male and female participation.. And naturally, this participation occurs through sexual intercourse, and the female carrying the pregnancy full term.. Hence, the expectation of reproduction...

When people homosexuals choose to form parterships (or marriage, to sound more 'correct'), I'm very sure the above does not apply... It does not subtract from them their inherent ability to reproduce, but it doesn highlight the fact that they as a couple have come to terms with the fact that naturally, they can not have children (get pregnant from their partners, and carry full term).. This is the decision they've made, and it is the path they've chosen to follow..

Yes, modern society has created many avenues for people who can not exercise the natural process of reproduction to seek other avenues for maintaining a family structure... and a lot of people who do exercise this ability (reproduction) do so pre-maturely, without having the capacity to look after their ofspring.. Hence we have Adoption.. and also we have Surrogacy.. but if these did not exist, would it be reasonable for homosexual partners to expect to re-produce...

This is the question I've asked..

I have not said that these people are not human beings.. I have not said that they do not have feelings.. Please do not ascribe to me things I have not said..

That is not what you asked before, maybe you have changed your mind.

You asked and let me quote you:

CimonJorr:

There is this question which I guess no one has raised yet.. curious as it is...

"Why would homosexuals want to raise children?? "

It's not like they can naturally pro-create to produce them anyway...

Couples (and here I'm referring to hetero-sexual couples, to prevent any arguments) which are unable to have children often sought remedies to their problem, and as a last resort, opted for adoption.. But usually after they had tried to produce children on their own without success...

Obviously, for homosexual "couples", this can not be the case.. so why the push for children in the first instance??.. If it's a case of companionship, I guess that has been solved already..

One can not 'eat your cake' and have it..

Now, according yo you, again, in the same quote, you say that couples for some reason "want" to have children and when they cannot do so, they choose to adopt.

Now, without twisting any words, I said that that same idea applies to homosexual couples as well. The only difference, is they know ahead of time, that they cannot reproduce.

It seems you are confused about this. . let me enlighten you - a heterosexual couple knows that both the male and female are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce children. Same situation as a homosexual couple, both sets know AHEAD OF TIME, that children from their own loins is NOT in their future.

Now, you try to make the argument that if abortion didn't exist, homosexuals could not have children. . . well, if abortion did not exist, some heterosexual couples could not have children either.

So if your point is. . if structures in society did not exist for couples without the means to produce their own children to gain children, then they would not have it, and thus homosexual couples cannot expect to have children in such a society, then YES, you are right. . .and some heterosexual couples would also not be able to expect to have children.

However, we don't live in that society, therefore homosexual couples can expect to have the same opportunity as heterosexual couple to attain progeny even in the absence of having the ability to produce them.

So, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect to adopt kids.

Oh, and so you are not confused, EVEN if adoption did not exist in our society, while a homosexual couple (or a hetero couple with some reproduction dysfunction) could not EXPECT to be able to have children, it still does not mean they would not want to have one.

According to you, you are not making any statements that homosexuals are inhuman or something, so what makes it so hard for you to believe that they would want similar things as heterosexual couples. Some people seem to think that if you're homosexual, you are wildly different from everyone else. . . (I'm making a general statement here though at this time, it would seem to include you CimonJorr)

@ Allonym...

.. I'm really doing my best not to laff out loud, so I'll just content myself with a very BIG smile.. 

Let's take it one by one.. (forgive me if I have passed over some points raised.. I'm trying to pick the outstanding ones.. )

Yes, my original question was ""Why would homosexuals want to raise children?? ""
(although that has since been overtaken by events.. )

My question here still reflects on the biological processes involved.. Hoping that answers would provide insights into the mindset of couples of this nature.. I have deliberately tried to streamline the focus, in an attempt to keep the issues straightforward..

In your attempt at enlightenment, you've obviously confused issues here..

"...a heterosexual couple knows that both the male and female are sterile, therefore, they cannot produce children. Same situation as a homosexual couple, both sets know AHEAD OF TIME, that children from their own loins is NOT in their future.
..."

I'm sure here u were refering to an exceptional case, and not the natural order of things.. (I'm also sure in your haste, u made a few typos, but that's ok.. just learn to cool down and read through what u type..  )..

The natural case, as we both know, does not involve both the male and female being sterile.. Hence the above does not hold true..

"...Now, you try to make the argument that if abortion didn't exist, homosexuals could not have children. . . well, if abortion did not exist, some heterosexual couples could not have children either...."

I'm sorry, but where did I mention the word abortion?? .. By the very nature of the word abortion, doesnt that imply a "termination".. if that was the case then how could any couple have babies through abortion?? .. I don't get your point here.. please, a bit more clarrification is required..


"... So if your point is. . if structures in society did not exist for couples without the means to produce their own children to gain children, then they would not have it, and thus homosexual couples cannot expect to have children in such a society, then YES, you are right. . .and some heterosexual couples would also not be able to expect to have children.

However, we don't live in that society, therefore homosexual couples can expect to have the same opportunity as heterosexual couple to attain progeny even in the absence of having the ability to produce them.

So, it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect to adopt kids. ..."

This has been the only point raised so far with supports  your argument.. It is a reasonable argument, however it still defeats the logic that is these extraneous facilities did not exist, that homosexual couples would be able to reproduce and have progeny (ofspring).. So, it brings me back to my original premise that the expectation of progeny by homosexual couples isnt a reasonable one.. Not from a societal or moral stand-point, but from the biological perspective.. which should have some bearing on their mindset as well (though since I'm not an expert, I don't know, hence my curiosity)..


".... According to you, you are not making any statements that homosexuals are inhuman or something, so what makes it so hard for you to believe that they would want similar things as heterosexual couples. Some people seem to think that if you're homosexual, you are wildly different from everyone else. . . ....."

In your own words, " what makes it so hard for you to believe that they would want similar things as heterosexual couples. ..  I guess the statement is kind of self-explanatory.. there are fundamental differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples.. And I guess there should also be some fundamental differences between the expectations of these different couples.. Everyone in life had different expectations.. Every couples expectations should be different as well..

And to end it all, homosexuals are different from everyone else.. to pretend otherwise would be fallacy..


ps.. you're defense of this issue is rather vigorous.. I appologise if I've touched a sore nerve here..

. . ahh. . i'm too lazy but here

I meant adoption, not abortion. . .I guess that was the typo of which you spoke.

You seem to be attempting to make the argument that because homosexual couples are biologically not able to have children, they cannot expect to want children. That does not make any sense.

Poor people cannot afford to buy good stuff, that does not stop them from wanting it. Do you understand now.

What is the fundamental difference between a poor person and a rich person, only one thing - money

What is the fundamental different between a hetero couple and a homosexual couple, only one thing - sexual orientation.

Everything else is the same. Understand now (at least my argument?)

I totally disagree with your last statement. Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals in only one regard. While you may think this is a fallacy, you have not shown this to be the case. I suppose I have not shown my side to be the case either. . .but my argument is simple, homosexuals are people. So far, unless there is some conspiracy, the only difference that I am aware of is their sexual orientation. If you can show, indicate, or in some way enlighten me to another difference, then I could see possible justification for your statement.

hell no, why gays should be allowed to raised kids. this is ridiculous. i dont know what is going on in this world

seeni4ever:

hell no, why gays should be allowed to raised kids. this is ridiculous. i don't know what is going on in this world

i worry about the world sometimes

they shouldn't be allowed to raise kids, if they want children, they should be straight and not gay.. they know the limitations of their sexual orientation but still go into it and now want kids??

ok. . .so you are saying that if a man is sterile and gets married, he should not expect to have kids.

If this is not what you are saying, then your post makes no sense.

In any case, I don't see how being straight or homosexual impacts a person's ability to raise children. The only thing that should stop someone from being able to raise children is prior crimes against children or professed tendencies towards pedophilia or somethng related. Since being homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with whether or not a person will do harm to a child, it cannot be a factor in determining who makes a fit parent.

I'm curious about something..

What would you believe a "fit" environment for the child to be brought up in should be??

Most of the arguments have been from the points of view of the parents... what of from the children's stand/view point??

allonym:

... snip...
In any case, I don't see how being straight or homosexual impacts a person's ability to raise children. The only thing that should stop someone from being able to raise children is prior crimes against children or professed tendencies towards pedophilia or somethng related. Since being homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with whether or not a person will do harm to a child, it cannot be a factor in determining who makes a fit parent.

a fit environment is one where a child is raised where they learn right from wrong. They are guided towards paths that provide the foundation for future success (ie going to school) but are allowed some reign to pursue their own interests. They are presented wit h examples of how people treat each other in normal and loving relationships.

This is a quick answer to your question. . . but i think its enough for now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from nferyn
These are indeed your sentiments.
There are no indications that homosexuality is a learned behaviour and there are several indications that it is caused by a genetical condition. Your sentiment is thus just based on your feelings, not on solid data.
As queen2 already mentioned, the children raised by a homosexual couple are no more or no less likely to become homosexuals than children raised by a heterosexual couple.


On the contrary, I say there are very little indications that homosexuality is caused by a genetical condition(I'm a biochemist). There ARE several indications that homosexuakity is a learned behaviour. MOST forms of sexuality is learned; even heterosexuality

simmy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from nferyn
These are indeed your sentiments.
There are no indications that homosexuality is a learned behaviour and there are several indications that it is caused by a genetical condition. Your sentiment is thus just based on your feelings, not on solid data.
As queen2 already mentioned, the children raised by a homosexual couple are no more or no less likely to become homosexuals than children raised by a heterosexual couple.


On the contrary, I say there are very little indications that homosexuality is caused by a genetical condition(I'm a biochemist). There ARE several indications that homosexuakity is a learned behaviour. MOST forms of sexuality is learned; even heterosexuality

Could you please inform us as to how exactly sexual orientation is learned. In the meantime I wil look up the sources supporting my statement and provide them.

To start with i find homosexuality horrifying but in all fairness let them live their lives the way they so chose with ful cognisance of the consequences though.

I will allow them to raise a child though but my fear is what kind of morals are they going to teach the child and what kind of morals is the child going to learn from them? but then that is not enough reason to stop them from raising a child, afterall heterosexual couples is not a sin qua non to impeccable parenting either.

never!

Yes.

I have friends w/ homosexual parents and they're all loving wonderful ppl. Of course, that in itself is not an appropriate argument to support such a controversial topic. So here to read my views, just re-read allonym's posts. He/She has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

nferyn:

Could you please inform us as to how exactly sexual orientation is learned. In the meantime I wil look up the sources supporting my statement and provide them.

We take a lot of things for granted. Society teaches us what we should regard as sexy or not. A simple example is exposure of breasts. Africans in the past did not consider breasts as sexually arousing hence women could display them in public. The western culture taught majority of modernday African men to view breasts as sexual objects, and so needling or touching breasts is sexual act to modern day Africans like you and I. WE grew up to like WOMEN bc our parents/society taught us to. Thats is NOT saying that genetics has nothing to do with it. It does ,,, in  its own littleway, but that is neither here nor there since practically EVERY single trait or pattern of behaviour you have can be linked to some gene or group of genes. E.g,  Scientists can isolate a group of genes which suggest that a man will be more likely to b a criminal when compared to another!I'll  give a more detailed explanation later.

I hold the belief, as supported by numerous studies on the subject, as well as my own personal experience as the child of a gay man, that children of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual than children of heterosexual parents. There are several studies that have shown systematically that children of homosexual parents in fact are more successful than children from heterosexual homes that have experienced divorce. In the US where divorce is so common, that's a startling statistic for most. The main point of difficulty for most children of homosexual parents is the social stigma that is attached by people like many of you have contributed to this discussion. You call it a disease and say that it's disgusting and wrong and that no one should be allowed to raise a child if they are homosexual. This will only serve to harm the children that you seem bent on protecting from the "evils" of homosexuality. You're not hurting the homosexual parents that already exist when you do those things, you're only hurting the children.

On another note, it is very possible for someone with homosexual feelings to have a desire to have children. My father had children with my mother because he wanted a family, even though he was gay. He was completely faithful to her. This doesn't change the fact however that there are also numerous studies that show the level of alcoholism, abuse, depression, and other difficulties are more dominant in homes where one of the parents is trying to ignore their homosexual feelings. If people were more open to the idea of homosexual couples adopting children/using surrogacy/IVF, the rate of couples who marry and then divorce on the grounds of homosexuality would dramatically decrease. A homosexual is the same as any other human being, they too have the desire to have children, whether biologically or not, they do in fact desire children I'm sure for the same basic reasons that most heterosexuals desire children.


Here's one of the articles:
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Vol. 43 Issue 4 Page 335 September 2002
Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000
Norman Anderssen, Christine Amlie, Erling André Ytterøy

Yes well shannon you are the child of a Gay man but you were raised with a mother and a father so you have grown up to know a normal family (mother and father).  Now i am not homophobic and i have no problem with ppl being gay but if they decide to have a gay relationship I think they are automatically giving up their right to have kids. My problem is simply that a child raised by gay parents is definately more likely to become gay, I am not sayin they will defintely but just simply theres a much greater chance. By gay men or women raising children the child is denied the right to grow up in a normal family and know more about what it's like to be in a straight relationship and be taught normal values. I am in Yr 11 at school and if there was a child with gay parents at school I know how much he would get payed out. It is therefore unfair to the child if he/she is raised by gay parents.

@ aannese
Shannon provided the sources for her statements, you have just said that children of gay parents are more likely to become gay without adding any sources or other supporting material for your statement.

@ simmy
Shannon did my homework
I certainly do not deny that sexual behaviour is for the most part learned. Sexual orientation though does not seem to be a learned behaviour. It is very likely that sexual orientation is coded in the genome, but that it's expression is modulated by the feedback from developmental processes prior to birth (as is the case with a lot of our traits)

yeh well im not going on research im going on how i know a child with gay parents would be treated at school. my main argument is not that the child will turn out gay my argument is that it is unfair to the child because he doesnt have the chance at a normal upbringing

@aannese

What you're talking about is the real problem at this time. The fact that children of gay parents cannot live a safe normal life, not because of their parents, but because of others who live in fear of what they cannot understand. Gay parents have children out of love, they want to offer a loving home to a child who might otherwise never have one. The persecution faced by these children is a separate issue because obviously the parents aren't persecuting them. It's the small-minded that choose to spread hate and bigotry to any group. Whether it be based on race, sex, class, or sexual orientation. Maybe the problem you should be addressing is why those children face such persecution when studies show that they have the same likelihood of being gay as those children raised by heterosexual parents. Based on your statements it would seem that students in your school face harsh treatment based on other things their parents do. In the end, we are not our parents, I would hope that in today's generation there would be more understanding and less hate.

surely with so many children going with out parents to lave and care for them , anyone willing to love and care for a child should be considered, but when i think about myself passing away and a child of mine being raised in a gay house i cannot help but worry, life can be tough for kids can you imagine how they would be treated by their peers at school if it got out that their parents were gay?

exactly what i am sayin alj! finally someone who understands what i'm saying. Im not saying the parents harass the child im saying the child would be harassed at skool if people knew he had gay parents. Also I have been to three different private schools and know that the child would be likely to get payed out harshly at all of them. Anyway i'm only doing this for an assignment at school so anyways that's just my opinion.

@ aannese
What you're saying is not a categorically fact. Some children are teased b/c their parents are fat, ugly, and most common poor. I've been to school & known that some students had gay parents. I kept my mouth shut. That's the kind of person I am. Do not generalize your human failings onto others. Meaning: Will some ppl tease or be teased? Yes, but things like that are not inevitable. It's a legitimate fear but teasing is not the end of the world. I was teased badly in school & low and behold, I survived. That's life.

aannese:

exactly what i am sayin alj! finally someone who understands what i'm saying. I'm not saying the parents harass the child im saying the child would be harassed at school if people knew he had gay parents. Also I have been to three different private schools and know that the child would be likely to get payed out harshly at all of them. Anyway i'm only doing this for an assignment at school so anyways that's just my opinion.

I went to school in the US. I and other kids were harassed because our parents (and us) were AFRICAN.

Perhaps we should ban all africans from having children or at least from leaving the continent so that their kids can have happy childhoods where they are harassed for other reasons?

children will always bully other children for various silly reasons all i am saying is why would you give a child this extra problem?

no

alj:

children will always bully other children for various silly reasons all i am saying is why would you give a child this extra problem?

Exactly my point. Why give the child teh extra problem of being born african? Or some ethnic group that kids could make fun of?

@To all

I don't have a problem with homo's raising children but i do have a problem with two gay white men rasing black children especially a black boy.

or two gay white women raisng a little black girl or boy, that is not okay.

@Allonym: I like your argumentation here in this thread!

What do you think about the "procedure which involves mixing parts of the eggs of two women together to help them have babies"? (http://www.eogn.com/archives/news9841.htm) To me it seems a bit scary but is it actually that much different from "normale" in-vitro fertilization?