Same-sex couples having kids

[Ashikaga]

So, it has taken hundreds of years for people to accept inter-racial and inter-belief couples and their offsprings (to a certain degree), and it is very true that many people suffered during those years. Now, do you think they should have avoided all that pain by just accepting the society as it was and not having children together and they were being selfish when they did have children knowing that they would have a tough time because of their parents being different?

You suggest that we should educate people who might be prejudiced against these children before letting gay couples have kids. While I agree that education IS a big factor in this issue but I doubt that would be enough.

In order for any minority groups to be accepted in any society, they need to be visible. They need to be working with you. They need to be walking along beside you on your city streets. They need to be studying side by side with your children in schools. Only then, they will be PEOPLE, not "those whom they taught us about in school / talked about in books".

Gay people would certainly know how hard it could be being different in this world. They should teach their kids how to be proud of who they are, be respectful of others, how to survive and ultimately, be happy. And those are exactly what straight parents should be teaching their kids, too.

As I said before in my previous post, you are absolutely correct about how tough it could be for these children. That is why those who have in mind the best interests of the children should show support and do what they can to make their lives safe and happy instead of saying, "We know it's wrong but that is just the way it is".

Anything other than the "bullying" issue really comes down to the person's beliefs (religious and otherwise) regarding by whom and how a child should be brought into this world, so there should be several conflictiong opinions about them, and we have seen them on this thread.

So, what more can we say? I think I have said all I wanted so I am moving on.

I really hope it won't take hundreds of years for this to become a non-issue.

 

[Mars Man]

I enjoyed the responses there folks. I do hope, ASHIKAGA san, that you will join in the debate later--since, if we all try hard, it could become a good model too (for debating style, that is).

Tokis chan has said, and I quote:

The purpose of this thread when it comes to my perspective, its not for me to convert others to my opinion, no, the purpose of this thread from my perspective is for me to broaden my understanding on this controversial issue and to see if my opinion can be changed in any sense . . . through debate.​

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing too. If one were to carefully catch my presentation so far, it would be noticed that I have not taken a side--that is formed an opinion yet--but am debating the points so far raised and challenged. That is good debate, and hope we can pull it off here in this thread. (and we could give thanks to Revenant for helping that momentum get going)

Yes, that is partially what I had been pointing to (Tokis_Phoenix's above post, par. 1), although my intention had been to apply it in the broadest possible scope, covering all social groups--and not just related to the theme alone here. (In that sense, we could say that there was some embedding there.)

And it is very true that it is a reality out there in the real world. That is the point (and that is what ASHIKAGA has again highlighted above) and it is due to that point, that reality's being there, and being recognized as a 'social ill,' that makes it something that we need to start working on over coming. If no one takes the first step in working towards making an effort to cure that 'social ill,' it will never be cured.

So as for point a., and may I suggest that we are still here only...at point a,... it is clear that it is no objection against the question of homosexual pair-bonds raising children from birth. Again, unless we can surgically remove 'bullying due to parents' sexual orientation and civil union format' and distincly show that it is different from any and all other surgically removed kinds of bullying at all--in the substance of bullying--we will not have discovered anything other than the circular statement that bullying is bullying, whatever the reason be.

For that reason, it is no objection. I say let's go on to point b., unless someone can show that the quality substance of the bullying that may be recieved by a person of one social group, is measureably different from that of the bullying that may be recieved by a person of another social group. I honestly don't think it can be done... so I suggest we clear this hurdle and move on to number b.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So, it has taken hundreds of years for people to accept inter-racial and inter-belief couples and their offsprings (to a certain degree), and it is very true that many people suffered during those years. Now, do you think they should have avoided all that pain by just accepting the society as it was and not having children together and they were being selfish when they did have children knowing that they would have a tough time because of their parents being different?

I'm not saying at all that we should accept things the way they are because they are the way they are, i'm simply saying i don't think it would be a wise idea to give gay couple's the right to have kids before we have even made any effort to educate people on these matters- people need to warm to to this idea for there to be any acceptance of it in reality, otherwise are the first generation of same-sex couple raised kids are undoubtedly going to have a very hard time through not being accepted by society as a whole etc.

You suggest that we should educate people who might be prejudiced against these children before letting gay couples have kids. While I agree that education IS a big factor in this issue but I doubt that would be enough.
In order for any minority groups to be accepted in any society, they need to be visible. They need to be working with you. They need to be walking along beside you on your city streets. They need to be studying side by side with your children in schools. Only then, they will be PEOPLE, not "those whom they taught us about in school / talked about in books".

I personally think that education needs to become before action- otherwise you will only be sacrificing the childhoods of children raised by such parents for the sake of their parents rights. These kids will not have anything to benefit for the sake of their parents rights if we just put them into the firing line to be hurt until people eventually begin to accept them (which even then will probably not happen during their childhoods).

 

[Revenant]

As far as the bullying goes, I think that most gays move to places that are more accepting of gays, so there probably would be some bullying or gossip, but a lot of people would also support gays and their children.

Still feel that straight parents should be given priority for children, and that should be via adoption (plenty of kids still in foster homes). Mostly cause children learn a lot from having both sexes as parents, and that since for most children, they'll grow up straight regardless of whether or not their parents are gay or not, so it seems that most would be better off learning from their parents about straight relationships and how all that works.

I take it for granted that there will be both good and bad parents of any sexual orientation, and that's something that the adoption organizations are aware of, and probably attempt to screen out unfit would-be-parents.

 

[Mars Man]

I would think that we'd need enough examples then, of social-changes of major reversal reached through non-active education, that clearly outweigh those of the other kind--changes of major reversal due to action--before we could reach the conclusion that you seem to be settling for, though, Tokis chan.

For example, how long, really would it have taken for women in the USA to have recieved voting rights, if it would have been left to nothing more than an education program. How long would it have taken African Americans to have been able to attend non-segregated universities in especially the southern states of the USA, if it had had to wait for an education's being applied firstly? And who's going to be doing the educating, if not the state? which laws say that it's illegal? That would never happen.

Again, we come to some questions. What, exactly, is education, if not learning through observation of trial and error? How, exactly, could a state implement an education drive which directly works against the very laws of the state? (assuming a scenario where it has become law, that a certain sub-social group will not have a certain right as those of another sub-social group)

Again, folks, let's be careful about our debating format. The entire argument cannot rest only on point a. alone, and so we cannot yet reach any conclusion. That said, it is most obvious that point a. is a non-contestant, and therefore should be struck from the list of objections towards a positive conclusion.① To educate the public at large in a social situation, only what is legally possible, can be taught so as to have the public accept it.

For the third time, now I suggest that we move on to point b., which I will do in my next post (unless it can actually be shown that the state's having made something illegal's being taught to be accepted through public education, in order to legalize it, is a realistic and plausible scenario.



① Not to misconstrue here. The objections listed in the OP were objections against a positive conclusion, which thus led to a negative conclusion. Therefore, any effort to reach a positive conclusion will be found only in the rejection of the objections. At the moment, we have no conclusion at all, for we have only looked at one point.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

For example, how long, really would it have taken for women in the USA to have recieved voting rights, if it would have been left to nothing more than an education program. How long would it have taken African Americans to have been able to attend non-segregated universities in especially the southern states of the USA, if it had had to wait for an education's being applied firstly? And who's going to be doing the educating, if not the state? which laws say that it's illegal? That would never happen.

Even with womans rights and African Americans in universities it was a long process of education- men had to be educated that woman weren't simply irresponsible narrow-minded people of lower IQ, that they were more than just mothers and housewives, and could be equal to men. Similar debate and education had to go on too for people to accept the equality and rights of African Americans too.
Things didn't just change because such people forced other people to make room for the changes they wanted- there was an awful lot of debate and education that went on, and which is still going on today.
A lot of people still have a hard time getting their heads around the concept of gay marriage;

BBC NEWS | UK | Anger at Anglican gay 'wedding'

Now imagine how difficult it will be for people to get positively contemplate gay parents when there is still such controversy over gay marriage? For real positive long term change to happen, you can't simply force people to unwillingly accept the idea in the brutal and straight forward manner of "We've decided this is our right so we're going to do it regardless of what you think or believe"- you need to debate with and educate people on the matter first if you are to go about things in a civilized and peaceful manner etc.

Again, we come to some questions. What, exactly, is education, if not learning through observation of trial and error? How, exactly, could a state implement an education drive which directly works against the very laws of the state? (assuming a scenario where it has become law, that a certain sub-social group will not have a certain right as those of another sub-social group)

Education is the practice of learning by instructing, the profession of teaching, it is short for formal education, is the organized teaching and training of students, an organized activity by those in good position to impart information etc.

Trial and error is merely experimenting until a solution is found- you don't seriously suggest this?

 

[nice gaijin]

The modern LBGT fight for social acceptance has been going on for decades already, and progress has been uneven to say the least. Thirty years from now there might be an earthquake in California, and no doubt some blowhard will say it's god's vengeance for letting gays marry. That doesn't negate all the progress that has been made, or mean that we should put off social progression for the day that everyone is ready for it.

The focus of this thread seems to have shifted to whether same sex couples should go ahead and have kids, or whether something must be done first to make it socially acceptable.One thing I'd like to address here regarding that point:

people need to warm to to this idea for there to be any acceptance of it in reality, otherwise are the first generation of same-sex couple raised kids are undoubtedly going to have a very hard time through not being accepted by society as a whole etc.

And? As I said, there are already gay couples raising children. This isn't a matter of legality, as I don't even think there is a law that dictates what form a family takes. So what do we mean when we say "should gays be 'allowed' to have kids"?

"Education" isn't going to break down the barriers in the hearts of people. Actually meeting gay people or the children of same sex couples and realizing that our similarities far outweigh our differences is what accomplishes this. Yes it might be hard; there will be people that would make things hard for these kids, but there will be people that will fight for them and protect them. Being shown through social acclimation that there's nothing wrong with such-and-such a lifestyle is a given, but you don't ensure acceptance through education.

I still don't understand the need to define "having kids" solely as reproductive rights, nor do I think it should necessarily be a matter of public concern of how someone came to be. Is life harder for children that were adopted? Or how about the result of in-vitro fertilization? Or the product of rape? Do these children need to broadcast to the world their story of conception? Do they have to crusade for a right to exist? Do their parents?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The modern LBGT fight for social acceptance has been going on for decades already, and progress has been uneven to say the least. Thirty years from now there might be an earthquake in California, and no doubt some blowhard will say it's god's vengeance for letting gays marry. That doesn't negate all the progress that has been made, or mean that we should put off social progression for the day that everyone is ready for it.

Where have i ever said in this thread that we should put off this "social progression" as you call it until everyone is ready for it?
The point i was making was basically if children raised by gay couple's are to have an easier time in society, then people need to be educated better on these things before more action is encouraged. I am saying this because i believe better education would help etc- do you disagree with this?

The focus of this thread seems to have shifted to whether same sex couples should go ahead and have kids, or whether something must be done first to make it socially acceptable.One thing I'd like to address here regarding that point:
And? As I said, there are already gay couples raising children. This isn't a matter of legality, as I don't even think there is a law that dictates what form a family takes. So what do we mean when we say "should gays be 'allowed' to have kids"?

You forget that gay parents adopting is not legal in every state, or country for that matter- as far as i am aware, gay parents are not allowed to adopt children in Florida (correct me if i'm wrong), so what you say is not entirely true. Also the OP of the thread is not as narrow a question as "should gays be 'allowed' to have kids?" (because the issue is more complex than just that), this is the opening question "Are you pro or anti same-sex couple's having children, and what are your thoughts and feelings on this controversial issue either way?".

"Education" isn't going to break down the barriers in the hearts of people. Actually meeting gay people or the children of same sex couples and realizing that our similarities far outweigh our differences is what accomplishes this. Yes it might be hard; there will be people that would make things hard for these kids, but there will be people that will fight for them and protect them. Being shown through social acclimation that there's nothing wrong with such-and-such a lifestyle is a given, but you don't ensure acceptance through education.

IMHO Thats ridiculous to say that education will not help "break down the barriers in the hearts of people". A lot of people have known no more than one or two gay people in their lives so far, however not everybody creates their entire impression of the gay population on the only one or two gay people that they've actually met in their entire lifetime etc.
I was fully aware of what being gay was when i was 10years old, however i did not actually meet anyone openly gay until i was 14- so my opinions of gay people up until that point was entirely based on what i had learnt (BTW i had no negative views of gay people, only a lot of questions- which is still pretty much the case 'cept less questions). I myself am bisexual.

You talk of gay education like i'm saying i'm against action full-stop. This is completely incorrect- all i am merely saying is that i think there needs to be better education for there to be better acceptance of gay parents, at the end of the day gay people (and especially right now, gay parent couples) are a small minority of the population- not everyone is going to have a life-changing personal encounter with a gay person that they will base their whole view of what gay people are like on (you said "meeting gay people or the children of same sex couples and realizing that our similarities far outweigh our differences is what accomplishes this").
To say that education won't help people's understanding and opinions of this minority group is ridiculous. Most people who are against gay couple's having children have never met such a couple in their lives, so they base their anti opinion on what they've learnt- my point is, is that if you educate people better then it will help overall acceptance etc.

I still don't understand the need to define "having kids" solely as reproductive rights, nor do I think it should necessarily be a matter of public concern of how someone came to be. Is life harder for children that were adopted? Or how about the result of in-vitro fertilization? Or the product of rape? Do these children need to broadcast to the world their story of conception? Do they have to crusade for a right to exist? Do their parents?

Of course its important of how kids are brought into the world, as caring human beings we care for all children, regardless of whether they are our own or not. Because of this, we care about their upbringing too and vigorously examine every part of it to make sure we are doing the right thing (which is one of my main concerns in this thread).
Do you not care how children are brought into the world and raised or something? What point are you trying to make otherwise in this statement?
We're not debating about children's right to exist (which is ironic anyway, since a child that doesn't exist doesn't have rights because they don't exist etc).

 

[Mars Man]

I am yet of the understanding, if I may, nice gaijin san, that we are simply (or at least should be) embedding here. I would'nt think the thread has shifted in any way, really. Also, you have raised one point which may drastically affect the layout of the thread's debate (if not actually destroy it altogether). Let me get back to that after this.

With the quality of debating held in mind, and my desire for furthering careful thought, and all (and of course without any inkling of an attempt to belittle or disparage) I would encourage you, Tokis Chan, to take a more time-taking, and careful look at this point a.. (since you are still essentially arguing that it is a valid point against a positive conclusion)

If we were to take the definition of 'education' as you have provided, and I will quote this here:

Education is the practice of learning by instructing, the profession of teaching, it is short for formal education, is the organized teaching and training of students, an organized activity by those in good position to impart information etc.​

we will find that historically, this did not happen in the two cases I had provided for example. Also, perhaps of even more concern and of heavier weight here, we will find that the proposition that it is impossible for state-run education systems to teach what is illegal as being something which should be legal, is very unlikely (in a way so as to ascertain a result in the students minds).

Here, however, I reason that we'll have to touch on the point raised by nice gaijin. Here is that point:

This isn't a matter of legality, as I don't even think there is a law that dictates what form a family takes.​

So, is it illegal in any countries in the world? What degree of bearing would this have on this debate? If (and I'm just presenting a possible scenario here) it's fundamentally legal in the UK, the USA, and Japan, then I guess we have no (or little) debate left. The reason for that is because then the 'should they have' aspect is actually gone; they do have.

I had been under the impression that our debate would be on the grounds that the laws of the social groups of which we belong or operate in, made it illegal for homosexual pair-bonds (legally married or in civil union notwithstanding) to raise children from birth. If that is not the case, then at least there would be a shift in our playing field.

I'll try to make a check on the legal aspects of this here in Japan. I do know that one professional medical group has made some decision in regards to surrogate mothering, but that there's no law against it. Let's get this cleared up first. And you see (refer back to my first post (#23)), all this simply for point a., which is clearly non-contestant, and should be struck from the objection list.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

With the quality of debating held in mind, and my desire for furthering careful thought, and all (and of course without any inkling of an attempt to belittle or disparage) I would encourage you, Tokis Chan, to take a more time-taking, and careful look at this point a.. (since you are still essentially arguing that it is a valid point against a positive conclusion)

If mean a that point a. is a valid point against positive conclusion, as in a point put up for argument against something, it was not. The points were simply my feelings at the time i first started the thread, i hoped i had cleared this up early on;

None of these reasons on their own are intended to be reason enough, but these reasons altogether are what add more weight to my side of the debate.

The point was to encourage others to express their opinions on the debate so i could decide on a stronger standpoint myself (i used the words "probably" and "generally" in my opinions at that point etc). I can accept you not viewing point a. as a decent/proper point.

If we were to take the definition of 'education' as you have provided, and I will quote this here:

Education is the practice of learning by instructing, the profession of teaching, it is short for formal education, is the organized teaching and training of students, an organized activity by those in good position to impart information etc.​

we will find that historically, this did not happen in the two cases I had provided for example. Also, perhaps of even more concern and of heavier weight here, we will find that the proposition that it is impossible for state-run education systems to teach what is illegal as being something which should be legal, is very unlikely (in a way so as to ascertain a result in the students minds).

I'm not saying that state-run education systems to teach what is illegal as being something which should be legal- Education systems can still teach better acceptance and tolerance of such people and stay well within whatever laws they have.
But this is all assuming that the education system is teaching in an area with gay parents are illegal etc- my point on education is not confined to this, i think that on the whole that education on such topics needs to be improved, since even in places where such things are legal, they are rarely spoken about and as far as i am aware there is very little talk in schools about such subjects. Actual acceptance of gay parents can be pretty poor in area's even where it has been legal for a long time.

Here, however, I reason that we'll have to touch on the point raised by nice gaijin. Here is that point:

This isn't a matter of legality, as I don't even think there is a law that dictates what form a family takes.​

So, is it illegal in any countries in the world? What degree of bearing would this have on this debate? If (and I'm just presenting a possible scenario here) it's fundamentally legal in the UK, the USA, and Japan, then I guess we have no (or little) debate left. The reason for that is because then the 'should they have' aspect is actually gone; they do have.

Yes it is illegal in quite a few places in the world, although mostly area's not likely to be very personally familiar to the average westerner, like in Israel and its surrounding countries. I think it is also illegal in certain parts of N.America too.
The law is quite complex concerning the matter of adoption though, and is often not very clear;

LGBT adoption - Wikipedia

I had been under the impression that our debate would be on the grounds that the laws of the social groups of which we belong or operate in, made it illegal for homosexual pair-bonds (legally married or in civil union notwithstanding) to raise children from birth. If that is not the case, then at least there would be a shift in our playing field.
I'll try to make a check on the legal aspects of this here in Japan. I do know that one professional medical group has made some decision in regards to surrogate mothering, but that there's no law against it. Let's get this cleared up first.

Well basically the main OP question is on your thoughts/opinions/feelings concerning gay couple's having kids and why you stand where you do on such matters etc- if you believe the law should or shouldn't be changed then that is a completely valid opinion, however not necessarily the main vein on the thread. I want to debate/discuss things since i am not certain of my own opinions on this subject.

And you see (refer back to my first post (#23)), all this simply for point a., which is clearly non-contestant, and should be struck from the objection list.

Do you suggest i edit it out from the OP for the sake of the clarity of the thread etc? I'm willing to do this if you think it helps .

 

[nice gaijin]

Where have i ever said in this thread that we should put off this "social progression" as you call it until everyone is ready for it?
The point i was making was basically if children raised by gay couple's are to have an easier time in society, then people need to be educated better on these things before more action is encouraged. I am saying this because i believe better education would help etc- do you disagree with this?

If all you are saying is that children should be educated to be more accepting of others that are different (or have been raised differently), then I don't disagree. But that raises a whole lot of other questions, like "how do you educate them to be more accepting?" and "can you teach the theory of social tolerance and expect students to apply it?" How do you incorporate this sort of lesson into schools? Also, what do you mean by "encourage action?"

You forget that gay parents adopting is not legal in every state, or country for that matter- as far as i am aware, gay parents are not allowed to adopt children in Florida (correct me if i'm wrong), so what you say is not entirely true. Also the OP of the thread is not as narrow a question as "should gays be 'allowed' to have kids?" (because the issue is more complex than just that), this is the opening question "Are you pro or anti same-sex couple's having children, and what are your thoughts and feelings on this controversial issue either way?".

Yes, there are a few states that prohibit such adoptions, if the question is in fact the legality of the issue and not the social reaction (I am not sure which we are trying to focus on here). My mother's friend was a de facto parent to her partner's children, although she never formally adopted them. In such a situation, I am not aware of any law that would forcibly remove the children or penalize the parents, although my friend did not have legal guardianship over her kids. I live in a state that does not have any such prohibitions on adoption (ie, same sex-parents preceded same-sex marriage)

IMHO Thats ridiculous to say that education will not help "break down the barriers in the hearts of people". A lot of people have known no more than one or two gay people in their lives so far, however not everybody creates their entire impression of the gay population on the only one or two gay people that they've actually met in their entire lifetime etc.
I was fully aware of what being gay was when i was 10years old, however i did not actually meet anyone openly gay until i was 14- so my opinions of gay people up until that point was entirely based on what i had learnt (BTW i had no negative views of gay people, only a lot of questions- which is still pretty much the case 'cept less questions). I myself am bisexual.

You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that education wouldn't "help," I said that it wasn't going to break down those barriers. As in, we can't expect a "cultural sensitivity class" to ensure that everyone gets along. It certainly can help, but it seems like you've been saying that it's necessary before, as you say, any more action is encouraged... when there is little way to measure such progress. That sounds to me like putting off social progression, which is, in my opinion, a result of people learning to accept/cope with the social realities of the world they live in--that's what the slogan "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" was all about.

You talk of gay education like i'm saying i'm against action full-stop. This is completely incorrect- all i am merely saying is that i think there needs to be better education for there to be better acceptance of gay parents,

Likewise, I'm not against "better education," but what does that MEAN? Similarly, what ACTION are we talking about?

at the end of the day gay people (and especially right now, gay parent couples) are a small minority of the population- not everyone is going to have a life-changing personal encounter with a gay person that they will base their whole view of what gay people are like on (you said "meeting gay people or the children of same sex couples and realizing that our similarities far outweigh our differences is what accomplishes this").

My point was that personal experience has more impact on our opinions than being taught abstractions. If by "education" you mean having LGBT volunteers come speak to the class, we are essentially advocating the same thing.

To say that education won't help people's understanding and opinions of this minority group is ridiculous. Most people who are against gay couple's having children have never met such a couple in their lives, so they base their anti opinion on what they've learnt- my point is, is that if you educate people better then it will help overall acceptance etc.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Without some real examples, words like "education" are just empty abstractions. "Education" takes place everywhere, not just in school, what other kind of social programs can be used to promote tolerance?

Of course its important of how kids are brought into the world, as caring human beings we care for all children, regardless of whether they are our own or not. Because of this, we care about their upbringing too and vigorously examine every part of it to make sure we are doing the right thing (which is one of my main concerns in this thread).
Do you not care how children are brought into the world and raised or something? What point are you trying to make otherwise in this statement?
We're not debating about children's right to exist (which is ironic anyway, since a child that doesn't exist doesn't have rights because they don't exist etc).

I think you really misunderstood what I meant by "brought into the world." I was only referring to the manner in which they were conceived. The upbringing of these children is central to the issue at hand. The manner in which they were conceived is irrelevant.

 

[Mars Man]

Permission Asked For One Off-topic Post Here:

Tokis, Tokis, Tokis chan. . .ne, ne. . .it seems (at least) that you may have read me wrong in some areas--but such is the danger of such communication formats, rather than reading a book, or talking face to face in real time.

Let's see, I came in here for the purpose of debate--and there is a certain format for such activity (even though we are far from formal debate here). I came in with a neutral stance, and thus the debate is on the points raised in the presentation (the OP) as to whether they can be followed by the conclusion (a negative conclusion) reached in that same presentation.

Now of course, in formal debate you have a winning and a loosing team--although that does not always equal a correct and true platform. (the quality of debating skill is what determines the winning team) Here, however, we wouldn't have a winner or a loser. This is just as you have signified before in your pointing out that we would not be here to necessarily convince another; although we would wish to encourage realistic, rational, honest and fair thought and performance.

So, here is my concern (and this is as applies to the Serious Discussions area as much as reasonably possible, within bounds, as well):

If we open a thread which is simply to provide a place to present our opinions on a matter, it would not be debate at all, in the strictest sense and most narrow scenario--because all people would have to do at a minimum is simply state their opinion, and move on (no one questioning or making comment on any other's opinions).

We could point out what we saw as weaknesses in another's position or presentation, defend or attack positions, and it would be arguing--similar to, yet not quite debate. (and this is the most common style here in Serious Discussions so far, nothing really wrong with that)

However, if we were really serious in our intentions to encourage learning, I would think that we would lean towards the debate format more often--even if that is simply following a long presentation (as I am actually doing on the thread We are the brain, we are the neurons...,)​

Although I could have misread him, I sensed that Revenant had been flustrated at such a situation, and had hoped for a more real debate format, and so I came in with that.

What I have argued so far is that, having taken a few terms and fixed them (this is for consistency which is a necessary for debate or even very informal argumentation situations) that within the parimeters of those terms, we have to substantiate claims made for or against any conclusion--and conclusions will be either postitive, neutral, or negative. (neutral means a firm conclusion is not deemed reachable due to any number of factors)

These claims will be the ones laid out by the first presentation (since this is not formal debate where both parties lay out their presentations before debate begins). In this case, it was your OP, Tokis chan. Post two basically did just that--take up each point that was presented and provide challenges to them. I decided to do it in further depth, in a more debate-like mode, hoping others would pick up on it, and engauge in that mode.

So depending on what happens here, we have, or do not have a debate, really. I would again argue, that this debate is foundationally attached to the assumption that it is illegal in our respective areas. If it is more so not illegal, then they have the right to do so--and then it's more of a 'let's do the educating now' type thing.

I will rest on this for a while, because if we do agree that there is no real debate, it would probably be the lesser productive thing for me at the moment--since my time is very tight. I'd hope to hear from Revenant too. I had planned on touching on his points, but as they are tied in with another point (and I have been working on point a. only so far)① they were to have come later on.

This post is largely off-topic, and I apologize for that, but please do allow me just this one time to point out the mode and format that distingishes simple arguing, from even an informal debating style. Thanks !! MM



① Tokis chan, please do note my understanding shown in the following statement in my #30: The entire argument cannot rest only on point a. alone, and so we cannot yet reach any conclusion. Each point stands or falls on its own merit, then we deduce from those which stand and those which fall, and conclude.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

To nice gaijin: The area's where i think education could be improved on with understand towards gay couple's is in pretty much every area. When i was at school, we were taught what being gay was, and we were told that it wasn't right to discriminate against gay people, but there was anything beyond that and on the whole what we were taught was not very in-depth.
Specifically, i think kids should have better more in-depth education on this sort of subject by schools encouraging children to debate in class on these issues (teachers should be given guidelines on topic material and how to handle the debate) and for the children's opinions to be examined and corrected- otherwise, children could form the wrong opinions or assumptions and because they do not debate them or necessarily change them, they carry the same old ignorant opinions through childhood into teenage years and then into adulthood etc.


My current opinion that i have arrived too on the subject of gay couple's having kids is this;
a. I believe that concerning adoption, a straight couple is most ideal, a gay couple is next ideal, and a single person is the least ideal.
b. I have decided that i'm against surrogate mothers producing babies for money etc on the whole, whether they are catering to straight or gay couples.
c. I do think that gay couple's can be fit parents, but it still does concern me the identity or social problems a child may develop because of their same-sex parents. However on the whole i think this problem could be helped to a large extent if there was better more in-depth education at school on being gay and accepting gays etc.


To Mars Man: I understand that this is not the best debate layout ever, i started the thread while in an inspired mood, and i admit that i should have spent more time considering the clear layout/direction of the OP, and i apologize for not doing this that well (i hope its not a failing that i make too often).
But its still a serious discussion at the very least, so i hope it passes for this section .

 

[bakaKanadajin]

I don't support gays having kids. They can intermingle, marry, etc., they can do that because nothings preventing them from doing it. But having kids is clearly outside of their physical capacity. That's not my problem.

There are bigger issues in the world right now than gay rights and I'm rather tired of being beaten over the head with gay rights issues. (That's not directed at the OP I'm talking media-wise). They're just not important at this juncture. How about stopping a few civil wars, feeding a few hundred million starving people and averting a global ecological disaster first?

Arguments about 'all issues are intimately linked' are BS, the UN does not need to consider gay issues at all in order to draw up resolutions aimed at decreasing nuclear proliferation.

 

[nice gaijin]

Is the UN spending a lot of time on gay issues? I wasn't aware of that...

I'm not downplaying the importance of the other global problems you've mentioned, but are you saying that gay people should "wait their turn" for equal rights? If such were the case, we'd never get around to the issue! Just because it's not the most urgent issue at hand doesn't mean it has no merit in discussion until all other issues are resolved. If you have an actual opinion on the subject I think it would be a valuable addition to this discussion, but mentioning unrelated issues adds nothing to the thread.

 

[Haruspex]

The fact that there are people who have the time and nerve to complain that they can't have kids clearly means that some people have too much free time on their hand, and as bakaKanadajin stated it, they should worry about other issues before b!tching about same sex marriage. Im not a moralist, but same sex marriage is nowhere near as relevant as the issue of starvation, murder, etc. is.

 

[nice gaijin]

The fact that there are people who have the time and nerve to complain that they can't have kids clearly means that some people have too much free time on their hand, and as bakaKanadajin stated it, they should worry about other issues before b!tching about same sex marriage. Im not a moralist, but same sex marriage is nowhere near as relevant as the issue of starvation, murder, etc. is.

Relevant to what, exactly? Relevant means it pertains to something.

and again, this is a discussion about same sex couples having children. " this isn't as important as war and starvation" is not... RELEVANT to the discussion. If your intention is to guilt-trip people about trying to discuss something because it's not the most urgent issue of the time... what the hell are you doing on an internet discussion board?

I'm hereby revoking your rights to breed. If you want them back, you must first go forth and feed the hungry, end all war and cure AIDS and Cancer. But you are not to complain until you've done these things.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Is the UN spending a lot of time on gay issues? I wasn't aware of that...

I'm not downplaying the importance of the other global problems you've mentioned, but are you saying that gay people should "wait their turn" for equal rights?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Some people don't even have homes or food. Some people live in a constant state of despair. Public sympathy, political will, tax dollars, these are all finite in amount and need to be spread around equally.

The way I see it gays/lesbians/transgendered have made tremendous progress over the last little while and the trickle-down is occurring world-wide. I'm happy for them but my sympathy is spent. They can get jobs, they can marry, they have a wealth of services available specific to their unique community, and awareness and acceptance is at an all-time high, especially among today's youth. There are other issues, domestic and international, that require a lot of groundwork and help, public money, etc., a bulk of which has already been established for the gay community.

 

[nice gaijin]

You're still diminishing the subject at hand. The beauty of a discussion board is that you can excuse yourself from a thread if you feel it's not worth participating in. I value your opinion to the extent that you have a low opinion of the thread topic. Is that all you have to say?

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Are you pro or anti same-sex couple's having children, and what are your thoughts and feelings on this controversial issue either way?

I think my post was well on-topic as far as the original question (see above) was posed.

Rather than re-hash and regurgitate what other non-supporters have said I kept it simple, as I agree with most of the usual reasons which were already given and that is why in principle I'm not a fan. As far as why I'm not a fan practically speaking, this is what I chose to post about originally. If you see that as diminishing the topic you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think we're just looking at it from different levels.

 

[nice gaijin]

I don't support gays having kids. They can intermingle, marry, etc., they can do that because nothings preventing them from doing it. But having kids is clearly outside of their physical capacity. That's not my problem.

I'm afraid this was the only part of your post that I would consider on topic, since the rest of it was about the importance of the subject compared to other unrelated issues. I would have much rather you expand upon your original statement, because it actually had something to do with the discussion at hand.

Modern technology (and even natural courses of events, such as the ones I've mentioned early on) have led to same sex couples raising children. In this thread, I'm interested in hearing about your thoughts on that.

 

[Elizabeth]

The fact that there are people who have the time and nerve to complain that they can't have kids clearly means that some people have too much free time on their hand, and as bakaKanadajin stated it, they should worry about other issues before b!tching about same sex marriage. Im not a moralist, but same sex marriage is nowhere near as relevant as the issue of starvation, murder, etc. is.

I'm fairly certain you are the one that brought "same sex marriage" into this discussion. What is a matter of concern regarding this thread is whether gay/lesbian couples can prove themselves as effective, caring and competent parents as straight couples. If so, under what conditions does it become appropriate for them to bring children into a home ?


And there have actually been tons of studies on this which have all shown that being raised by lesbian and gay parents does not interfere in any way with the adjustment, social/emotional development, and psychological well-being of children. Homosexual couples are as likely as heterosexual parents, if not more so, to provide healthy, tolorant, accepting and supportive environments for their kids. I believe I've read somewhere LGP are also more commited to adopt or foster "special needs" children (older, disabled, HIV+ etc) that are often overlooked by culturally condoned "ideal" parents.

In short, there are millions of children in this country and around the world languishing in inadequate institutional care systems in need of stable, loving homes. There are thousands of gay couples looking to adopt. If you can't save the world, don't worry about a single child ? Is that the theme of your post ?

 

[Mars Man]

If I may here, so as to prevent any emotional flare-up which at the moment I do not see. . . (this is just to prevent such).

What we can see here, actually, is that BakaKanadajin san has given two opinions on the general subject arena of same-sex couples having kids (and I am going to demand here, that this be as per the definitions which I have provided simply because no one else had attempted to provide any, and no one has challenged those which I provided up to this moment--therefore those fixed terms are those by which we are to understand the OP...PLEASE BEAR THIS IN MIND !!!)

For that reason, I do not see any charges against him related to his posting on that matter--other than maybe self-contradiction? It is true that some non-bearing matters of Homo sapien social ills were touched on, which while important indeed, do not carry any weight in this immediate debate, yet (and therefore again) we need not worry about them so as to downgrade the debate.

While I had not planned on coming back here yet (and I do have articles that present the likes of what Elizabeth has presented on studies of the social development of children raised by same-sex parents--if I can only relocate them) I have done so now simply to avoid the development of problems.

It appears that in some areas on the earth, there is no real debate--because homosexual couples can legally raise children from birth--although the public at large is obviously behind (as it is in so many other areas as well) and something of a debate is good as a tool to help awareness of this legal right. It would be adverse, of course, to charge that in such areas of legally recognized civil union that the couples ought not have a right that they are presently entitled too, however--namely that of raising children from birth, therefore I would suggest careful thought in that area.

This thread is, of course, not discussing homosexual civil union, and, actually, is assuming that as a precedent. I always urge careful reading, and especially back reading.

I do intend to come back here to debate the other points raised by the OP, when time and priorities allow, yet as has been shown up to now, point a. has shown to be a false credential towards any negative conclusion.