Adoption of children by gay couples

[sprintcyclist]

But Sprint IVF couples cannot have a child naturally. You could also argue that's natures way, but you're ok with medical science "fixing" that.

You can't say gays can't raise kids because it's natures way because they can't naturally have children, but hetro's who can't have kids because it's natures way they can't have children can have a medical intervention so they can.

Your logic isn't matching up.

So ?

[Nicole]

Your argument is that gay couples shouldn't be able to raise children because they can't have children naturally.

IVF couples can't have children naturally but you're ok with that.

If your issue is gay couples can't produce children naturally, why is it ok to have IVF?

[sprintcyclist]

Because I said so.

[Nicole]

Because I said so.

Are you kidding me? That's your answer?

I'm not a toddler. This is a debate board; you need a rationale rather than just "Mummy said so".

[sprintcyclist]

I see,

How dull.

[Nicole]

Ok, thanks Sprint. I'll leave it alone, and let our respective posts speak for themselves.

[sprintcyclist]

.............. let our respective posts speak for themselves..........

yes, you are argumentative and adversarial. Won't accept any ideas that differ from yours.

[Nicole]

.............. let our respective posts speak for themselves..........

yes, you are argumentative and adversarial. Won't accept any ideas that differ from yours.

Respectfully sprint I disagree. The problem with a lot on the left is that their logic is flawed. So for example; they’ll support gay marriage but at the same time are champions for Islam. So they turn a blind eye to islams treatment of gays.

With no intention of being argumentative, I believe that’s what your doing here. You are relying on an “it’s natures way” argument, but turn a blind eye to that rationale when it comes to IVF couples. If you will turn a blind eye to IVF couples, why not for gays. What’s different?

[Black Orchid]

I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

[Black Orchid]

As the Andrews government considers using the law to abolish the idea that a mother and father matter to a child, voices of people raised by same-sex-attracted people are starting to be heard.

Heather Barwick, a former gay-marriage advocate turned children's rights activist, was raised by two women.
While she loved both and grew up in a stable environment, she now believes that children need to grow up within traditional families.
The void that having two carers of the same sex was unable to fill led her to believe that,"the best and most successful family structure is one in which kids are being raised by both their mother and father.

"My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mum's partner, but another mum could never have replaced the father I lost."

Barwick laments that children of same-sex parents have not been given the same voice as children of divorced parents, who are allowed and encouraged to express their hurt and pain.

The current Adoption Act permits adoption to be in favour of a man and woman who are either married or in a de facto relationship.

Gay adoption focuses on the rights of same-sex couples and neglects the rights of the children up for adoption; those who so far, have not had their voices heard.

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/children ... mn8ue.html