Debate Mansion

   

Should homosexual parents be allowed to adopt? (Page 10)

Post Reply New Post

Page 10 of 14

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13879

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 6:39pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

 
Souro, if this was true, contraceptive industry would not be a multi-billion dollar industry, folks wouldn't go for clandestine affairs, there wouldn't be any extramarital affairs or affairs that are based purely on physical attraction and/or lust.
The contraceptive industry exists not because the primary objective of mating has ceased to be producing offspring but rather because humans have found a secondary usage of sex as a fun activity. And when people involve in something just for fun they don't really want to end up with some responsibility for their lifetime.
But Gauri why does people involve in affairs based purely on physical attraction or lust. Attraction comes from wanting to mate with the best possible gametes. And that want comes from the natural tendency of humans to have a healthy progeny. So, every affair at it's heart has the same objective. Now if someone uses contraceptive to avoid responsibility or added financial burden or maybe to avoid some disease, it doesn't really mean that the whole dynamics of sex and mating has changed.


So not true.  Human emotions are exactly same.  Homosexuals have the exact same feelings as heterosexuals....they just love someone of their own gender.  That does not make their love unnatural.  Lets not forget that homosexulas are homosapiens first.  It is human tendency to nurture.  Parenting is one such form humans nurture fellow humans.  Homosexuals have as much right to having a child as any other sterile heterosexual couple out there.

It cerainly doesn't make their love unnatural but it certainly leaves their love and their mating without any further purpose as far as making babies is concerned. Given the fact that sex has only two uses, one propagation and the other recreational, we can logically conclude that given the impossibility of the first the whole of Homosexual sex becomes an extended session of recreational activity.
So, if their sex is only recreational, where does the want to have children and thus responsibility come from?? Do they want a child for recreation as well, like a play thing?? If it is, then they can as well buy one of those feeding, peeing, wiggling dolls from Toys R Us.

 
Going by your rationale, sterile couples are against nature too.  Their marriages should be annualed then.  We have been down this path many times before.  If sole aim of heterosexual relationships is to reproduce then all the contraceptives should be banned along with sex for fun.  If a couple wants only two kids, they should be allowed to have sex only those many times that result in two kids - how boring, hai naLOL
There is a difference between sole aim and primary objective or main purpose. The main purpose of mating is to reproduce which doesn't change. That doesn't mean people can't indulge in the secondary usages as well. Whereas for homosexuals it is all secondary because the primary is totally absent.
Now coming to sterile couple. They have some deficit in their reproductive system. They try to have babies but the deficit stops them from having one. Whereas homosexuals have no deficit in their reproductive system, but they are using their reproductive system on/ with the wrong gender.
For example if we have to provide a loan and there are two farmer. First farmer who inherited an infertile piece of land but still trying to raise crops. Second farmer who has a fertile land but instead of sowing seeds he spends his time mixing fertile soil with fertile soil. Who would you say deserves the loan and who doesn't??


Aaye hai - ab jaa ker bol rahey hoAngry  ittaa sara likhwaney key baad!!!  LOL I am with you on this one.
But still lets debate. It's always a pleasure to argue with you. LOL

Thanks.  Work's crazy these days.  Hope it slows down some after January 2010.
Jan 2010 Shocked And how are your trips going?? I wish my job involved travelling all over the world with my company paying all the expenses. Big smile Btw, I did go for a vacation for about 16 days in August. Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and scuba diving at Sipadan (Sabah, Malaysia). And for me dive shops are the best place on earth. If you meet ten people, chances are those 10 people will be from 10 different countries.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Should homosexual parents be allowed to adopt? (Page 10)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20272

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 8:36pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by qwertyesque



thats great ... i didnt know you were expecting homosexuals to be extinct soon......you are my queen of sarcasm - my staple diet...LOL


God Willing.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20272

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 9:32pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by souro

How about allowing homosexuals to adopt a child as long as the child was born to homosexual couple?? Tongue


So would Angelica count as Bette and Tina's daughter?

Do Zojan, Caje, Thatcher and Nash count as Cat and Jennifer's sons?


I don't know who they are and why you gave that long list of names.


Cat and Jennifer Cora are a real life lesbian couple. They surrogated each others eggs and have four boys. Tina and Better are a fictional lesbian couple from the L-Word who have a child through a sperm donor.

I cited those names merely to question, what in your definition is a child born to a homosexual couple.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20272

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 10:23pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro


Where do we go from there... well why not keep it simple and differentiate on a broader basis; Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Just because humans doesn't adopt babies of orangutans doesn't mean we went down the whole path of differentiating as you suggested.
A heterosexual couple becomes a couple with the ultimate objective of propagation. So, if a heterosexual couple wants to adopt a child for whatever reason, then it can be said that the want is natural.
A homosexual coupling can never produce a progeny, which the homosexuals are fully aware of. Homosexuality is natural, I agree. But homosexuals wanting to have a child of their own is definitely not natural. If it was natural then nature would have provided some way for same sex coupling to produce an offspring, which I don't see happening.

But to be honest I don't really care. As long as the parents love the baby as their own, for me it doesn't really matter who adopts whom.


And welcome back. Nice to see you in DM after such a long gap.


You raise some interesting points.

One assumption is that the primary function of mating is propagation of the species. The importance of mating in the propagation of most mammalian species does make it seem that it is the primary function. However, vestigial sex as well as vestigial sex organs exist. Why do species that reproduce asexually still have sexual organs, and engage in vestigial sex. Also why do asexual species still have their sexual organs.

Secondly, a relationship is not necessary for propagation. In fact one can be committed to one and propagate with another. Propagation purely depends on the ability and desire of an individual to propagate. A homosexual person may prefer sexual relationships with a person of the same sex. However, preference with a certain sexual behavior does not equate to inability of a certain sexual behavior. A homosexual person is capable of choosing an opposite sex partner in order to propagate. It may not be as desirable and enjoyable, but it is possible. Some do choose to do so. Propagation is a matter of choice and chance and has nothing to do with sexual orientation or sexuality altogether in some species.

A heterosexual couple where one is infertile can choose to have the fertile partner copulate with someone else. However, since human relationships are often more than copulation many will choose methods like invitro, surrogation, adoption or just leave it be. Similarly gay people can too choose to sleep with someone and have a child, many do so, but those in committed relationships would like to have the other options too.

Finally, I think irrespective of ability to reproduce - there is a nurturing aspect in nature. Some creatures simply have the desire to nurture and raise another being. Homosexual couples are common amidst penguins and they will often adopt abandoned eggs or sometimes even steal eggs. Wolves and other pack animals often have nurturing instincts where they will often adopt a young one of their own prey, and nursing feeble young ones of a different species. Irrespective of the ability or desire to physically propagate people display nurturing tendencies. Thats perhaps why so many people continue to be foster parents or adoptive parents through their old age. The desire for children depends largely on the nurturing nature rather than ability and opportunity to reproduce. Some people even with ability and opportunity do not wish to propagate.

Human beings are also psychologically raised with the concept of family. Before reaching sexual maturity where a person starts thinking of propagation, children always make believe around the concept of family.  Irrespective of what their sexual orientation turns out to be, those who psychologically believed in the concept will still desire that family.


The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20272

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 10:30pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

[
For example if we have to provide a loan and there are two farmer. First farmer who inherited an infertile piece of land but still trying to raise crops. Second farmer who has a fertile land but instead of sowing seeds he spends his time mixing fertile soil with fertile soil. Who would you say deserves the loan and who doesn't??


This is an excellent analogy. It had me stumped for quite a while. I agree to a certain extent.

I agree that if one has to give financial assistance, I'd rather have the infertile couple have funding for fertility research rather than have funding for gay people on how to asexually reproduce.

Although the miracle of producing crop by mixing soil with soil is pretty tempting. Tongue

However, lets say you are a seed seller - that is donated sperm, donated eggs, invitro surgery. Why would you differentiate which farmer you sell it too. If one farmer is willing to sow seeds and raise a crop while he mixes soil with soil on the side, so be it.

Finally lets say one farm owner died and there is an abandoned farm. The infertile farmer is more concerned with raising a crop on their poor land. The other farmers have their own farm to tend. If the crazy farmer who mixes soil with soil wants to tend to that field on the side and has the resources and ability to do so even if he is crazy and mixes soil with soil - why not. Rather have someone nurture the farm and tend to the crops than let them wither and die and go to waste.



The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

angelic_devil

IF-Rockerz

Requested selfban

Joined: 26 October 2004

Posts: 5676

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 10:36pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

angelic_devil

IF-Rockerz

Requested selfban

Joined: 26 October 2004

Posts: 5676

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 10:40pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13879

Posted: 04 September 2009 at 11:31pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by souro

How about allowing homosexuals to adopt a child as long as the child was born to homosexual couple?? Tongue


So would Angelica count as Bette and Tina's daughter?

Do Zojan, Caje, Thatcher and Nash count as Cat and Jennifer's sons?


I don't know who they are and why you gave that long list of names.


Cat and Jennifer Cora are a real life lesbian couple. They surrogated each others eggs and have four boys. Tina and Better are a fictional lesbian couple from the L-Word who have a child through a sperm donor.

I cited those names merely to question, what in your definition is a child born to a homosexual couple.


But that'll be entering a different domain altogether. Because here it is not adoption anymore, the only thing that can be questioned is "should sperm be donated to lesbian couples?". I guess that can only be decided by the sperm donor or the sperm bank.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Divorce through sms allowed?

2 3 4 5 6

Summer3 42 2188 27 July 2009 at 1:12am
By Fair-n-luvly
When should kids be allowed out alone?

2

shabd_lover 15 911 05 October 2007 at 11:46am
By raj5000
Pakistanis are not allowed in Mumbai hote

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ThE_kHan07 67 4628 02 September 2007 at 10:13am
By Bhaskar.T
women allowed in combat? Athena90 9 545 31 January 2006 at 10:48am
By euro_pakigal
Would you adopt a child?

2

ashley1 14 908 09 November 2005 at 7:48pm
By Aparna_BD

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.