|
Post by Rook on Jul 15, 2011 8:52:43 GMT -5
The government of Uantir exists primarily to uphold and enforce the basic social behaviors that allow a group of individuals to co-exist in a civil manner without encroaching upon the rights of other individuals. Beyond that the government is loathe to put its nose in places it doesn’t need to be. Uantir trusts its citizens to be adults capable of making their own decisions. We do not exist to regulate society, only to moderate it. When it comes to marriage, the government of Uantir universally recognizes any marriage ceremony from any faith between two consenting adults and also offers a non-secular Marriage / Civil Union arrangement for the same. Why do many countries ban polygamy or same sex marriage? Unfortunately the real answer is ‘because they don’t like it.’ No one needs the approval of the government to decide who, what and how many of the above they marry.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Jul 16, 2011 8:28:36 GMT -5
Okay, so in regards to the government having no control over what you marry: In the case of animals and consumating the marriage - What about animal cruelty? Also, STI's that are interspecies transmissable? Would laws be introduced to change this?
I suppose polygamy would work in a system where all are equal and all agree on it. Personally, I can't stand it, but that's just me.
I'm not opposed to same sex marriage, but I don't believe that they should have the same access to IVF, to adopting young children/babies, surrogacy, etc, as "natural" couples (ones that can naturally reproduce)
Sure, people can marry objects - they've practically been doing it for thousands of years, namely people in monasteries/convents essentially marrying their god and not seeking relationships in the physical world.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 17, 2011 10:10:39 GMT -5
People are sexual with animals far more than you think, considering it's both illegal so no one talks about it and there's no way for the animals to communicate that it's happened.
Your health is your responsibility. Why is it the government's job to put laws in place to save you from STIs? It is our job to educate and ensure that people understand and are exposed to the truth about the risks, but not to tell them they are not adult enough to make that final decision for themselves.
Now, as to it being animal cruelty, that very well may be. The rules would have to be amended to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
I am curious why you don't believe that same sex marriages should have access to the above? IVF, adoption and surrogacy were all invented not for same sex couples to benefit for their biological in-capabilities, but they were designed for sterile couples who still wanted to reproduce. If you strip away the stigma of the gender ratio a homosexual couple and a sterile couple are both a couple who cannot naturally reproduce. Are you saying same sex couples are less capable of raising children?
There are orphanages full of kids that can't get adopted because too many of us 'natural reproducers' are too busy naturally reproducing (and then filling up the orphanage even more.) What is your justification of closing off an entire demographic of people who's only recourse to have children (without the aid of genetic science) is to reduce the burden on these institutions and give wayward children a loving home? Statistically those who go through the effort to adopt or get IVF are better parents because they really want kids and have planned for it. Any to kids f**king in the back seat can produce a child they may or may not want and may or may not be capable of taking care of well.
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rachel on Jul 17, 2011 10:43:12 GMT -5
First, to His Majesty: I agree that it's not the government's place to define marriage. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is only a contract between consenting adults, by nature. This really prevents people from marrying animals, because a goat is not capable of expressing its consent, or signing a contract.
To Mira: Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed access to IVF, surrogacy, etc.? If it's a matter of nature, and who is capable of reproducing "Naturally", then IVF should not be allowed at all, because if a heterosexual couple was naturally fertile, they would never need the help of fertility drugs or IVF, so that strikes me as backwards thinking. If the goal is simply to prevent homosexual couples from having children, should we also deny them custody of children from previous relationships? What about private surrogacy arrangements? Should those be prosecuted? What about a lesbian couple who finds a male outside of the relationship to impregnate one or both of them? Should that be illegal?
If the goal is only to give the children involved a "natural" or ideal upbringing, then single parents should not be allowed to keep their children, nor should heterosexual couples where the female works outside the home, since ideally, children should have 24 hour access to a parent, ideally a mother. Surrogacy and adoption are not "natural" arrangements at all. Perhaps we should just outlaw them altogether, by that reasoning.
I have not seen any convincing evidence that a same-sex couple is any less capable of raising and caring for well-rounded, healthy children. Indeed, by the nature of their relationship (being unable to have "accidental" children) their children will be at the very least wanted, if not loved, which is not a guarantee given to the children of heterosexual couples, since they can be accidentally produced, and thus, occasionally, undervalued by their parents.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 18, 2011 7:55:42 GMT -5
'Marriage is between consenting adults' is an inarguable and valid point. Animals are off the list. Does anyone care enough about the well being of objects to prohibit them as well?
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Jul 18, 2011 10:44:58 GMT -5
I didn't think of it that way (the whole people being responsible for STI's) Education is an option but you can't stop people from being stupid and selfish.
I will try to answer all the questions posed, but point any out that i've missed. And I don't want to seem insensitive to same sex couples or any wish they may have to reproduce. Now, on to the answers:
I believe that kids need both male and female role models. Out of all the people I know, the most stable, sucessful ones are the ones who had mum and dad consistantly till they in their mid 20's.
Re: "kids in orphanages waiting to be adopted" I have no problems with kids 11 years old and older being adopted by same sex couples. Why that specific age? It's once kids are past 10 that it's hard to adopt them out. They're the ones who'll not just be needing a home, but needing a home where they're wanted.
Why should IVF be out for same sex couples? It creates 'easily obtainable method of reproduction' (or, if you'd prefer, their own "designer baby") and as you said, King Ari, there are plenty of unwanted children in the world.
I have read cases (so far, none in Australia, but elsewhere) of children being removed from their long term homes with relatives, to be placed, adoptively, with gay couples, against the will of the Grandparents/Aunts/Uncles, etc. I believe in the event of parents dying or being incapable of looking after their child/ren, they go first to a relative/s
I don't believe in surrogacy - EVER. It's too much of an emotional strain on the mother.
I believe that heterosexual couples should only go for IVF when all natural courses have failed, neither is sterile, and they have no, or one child. (it takes 2.11 as the rate of reproduction to keep a specific cultural peoples going)
I don't think anyone should be denied access to their own children from previous relationships (except in the case of an unsuitable home environment, in which case I believe the parent should visit the child in it's foster home)
I can understand lesbians getting a friend to help them conceive a child, but I am against women being surrogates due to the emotional attachment of nuturing a little human inside themselves for nine months. You can't just ignore that.
I don't know wher you got the idea that I was saying a constrictive (my word) traditional upbringing (mum stays at home, dad works) I've seen the traditional family unit at work, and it is an amazing thing. I spent most of my summers as a teenager with my friend, her three siblings and her parents: the place was a mad house, but there was love, understanding, and ablility to work things out no matter what and kindness, despite the fact that their mum worked full time and a lot of overtime (she's a nurse) and their dad was in telecommunications and did a lot of work at home. It was a family that worked, where all of the kids are mentally and emotionally balanced.
Yes, I believe that kids should have 24 access to at least a parent. Personally, I wouldn't mind it we went a on time rewind and 9-5 jobs were the norm, everything was shut by 6 pm, everything was shut on sundays, and people knew most of the people in their neighbourhood. But I highly doubt many are going to give up the 'modern lifestyle', nor would the companies like it if people did (no money to be made then)
Children raised by a same sex couple are four times more likely to engage/experiment with homosexual behaviours then their heterosexually raised counterparts.
Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 18, 2011 14:09:40 GMT -5
You can’t stop people from being stupid and selfish, but you can criminalize it. I don’t feel that’s any better than accepting that people are, well, people.
I am going to address the points that I made, and leave what Her Majesty brought up for her to comment on.
I cannot say for certain, because I don’t know what the ‘standard’ homosexual couple is, but from what I can tell they naturally polarize into ‘male’ and ‘female’ roles. The roles may not be as strong, but a solid same sex household will provide infinitely more stability and the shades of male and female rolls than a broken heterosexual household with an absentee/deceased/deadbeat mother or father.
Limiting the age threshold that same sex couples can adopt just reinforces the idea that kids over 10 are undesirable and will create an even greater stigma against them, and create resentment towards same-sex adopters from the adoptees.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information about designer babies from, but IVF is simply the process of externally fertilizing an egg, or creating a fertilized egg out of two strands of DNA. From what I can tell no genetic modification or ‘designing’ is within the realm of affordable science. If you’re going to prohibit IVF from homosexuals because there are already too many people, it needs to be banned unilaterally…which is what I think you want, though not the crux of this discussion. Question though, you say IVF should only be for fertile heterosexual couples who could not conceive…if one or the other wasn’t sterile…then why would they need IVF?
I would never support children being adopted out of the homes of relatives, to homo or heterosexual couples unless the relatives did not or could not accept the burden of the child. That’s a problem with the system though, not the fault of homosexuality.
I understand your point on surrogacy, but it’s outside the purview of this discussion, so if you’d like to bring that up somewhere else I’d be happy to continue with it there. These posts are already getting large enough.
I’m not going to deny your statistic about experimentation and households, but I have two things to point out: one…who cares? More concrete though, obviously homosexual households are going to generate more experimentation than heterosexual couples, because it’s what they are used to. Also, take into account, how many more children from heterosexual couples would experiment if their households didn’t teach them to be prejudiced against it, fearful and ashamed of it. The statistic would be more like twice as many if homosexuality wasn’t treated like a terrible disease you could catch. Also your statistic does not correlate that homosexual households create homosexuals, they may be four times more likely to try out a homosexual relationship…but it doesn’t say it’s increasing the rate of homosexuality. There is no proof that they are more likely to stick with it.
As a side note the Leave it To Beaver, 9 - 5 house hold, close the world at 6 mentality is a fallacy. In no way did the world ever actually work like that. Before 1950's suburbia and the industrial revolution only the world's elite of the working class, such as bankers, got that kind of lifestyle. The true elite, IE nobles, didn't work at all. The average family was a homestead or serf, working sun up to sun down every day, weekends and holidays. Imagine the lines at the supermarket and the bank if everything shut down at six and everyone got off work at five. Even then, the world still needs sailors and soldiers, construction workers, security guards and policemen, overnight delivery and parcel service, airline pilots, bars and restaurants. There are more jobs that don't work 9 - 5 than there are jobs that do, and that balance has never - ever - tipped in the 9 - 5's favor, even today.
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rachel on Jul 18, 2011 14:55:21 GMT -5
"I believe that kids need both male and female role models. Out of all the people I know, the most stable, sucessful ones are the ones who had mum and dad consistantly till they in their mid 20's."
Then single people should not be allowed to adopt or have access to fertility services either?
"Why should IVF be out for same sex couples? It creates 'easily obtainable method of reproduction' (or, if you'd prefer, their own "designer baby") and as you said, King Ari, there are plenty of unwanted children in the world. "
Homosexual couples who go through with IVF or surrogacy to have a child are certainly not creating an unwanted child. If we ARE worried about the unwanted children, it makes sense to allow homosexuals to adopt, no matter the child's age. You can't really have it both ways. If we're worried about an "Easily obtainable method of reproduction" creating "unwanted children" it makes far more sense to require that all heterosexual couples be using an unavoidable medical birth control (Such as the depo shot or an IUD, something they can't just "forget" to take, like the birth control pill) until they get a license to reproduce. If we're going to restrict homosexuals' access to an "easily obtainable method of reproduction", it's only fair to restrict heterosexuals' access to the same, and sex is very easily obtainable! Unwanted children are created accidentally (or negligently) every day, and I guarantee most of them have a rougher upbringing by their heterosexual parents than they would if they were WANTED by homosexual parents. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the reproductive rights of hetero couples SHOULD be restricted, I'm only pointing out that it's not reasonable to restrict homosexuals' ability to produce under the assumption that by nature of sexual orientation, heterosexuals will somehow make better parents.
"I have read cases (so far, none in Australia, but elsewhere) of children being removed from their long term homes with relatives, to be placed, adoptively, with gay couples, against the will of the Grandparents/Aunts/Uncles, etc. I believe in the event of parents dying or being incapable of looking after their child/ren, they go first to a relative/s"
As pointed out by His Majesty, this is a flaw in the system, and really has nothing to do with homosexuals.
"I don't believe in surrogacy - EVER. It's too much of an emotional strain on the mother."
I can respect that, but it's your choice not to offer yourself as a surrogate. Over the course of my pregnancy, I interacted with many surrogates that found the whole process very fulfilling. Most had already completed their own families, but were still reproductively healthy, and chose to share that joy with others. That's their choice. You don't have to agree with it, but it's theirs to make. No one is forced to carry a child against their will. Yes, sometimes women are financially coerced into surrogacy situations, but although not ideal, that is still their choice.
"I don't know wher you got the idea that I was saying a constrictive (my word) traditional upbringing (mum stays at home, dad works) I've seen the traditional family unit at work, and it is an amazing thing. I spent most of my summers as a teenager with my friend, her three siblings and her parents: the place was a mad house, but there was love, understanding, and ablility to work things out no matter what and kindness, despite the fact that their mum worked full time and a lot of overtime (she's a nurse) and their dad was in telecommunications and did a lot of work at home. It was a family that worked, where all of the kids are mentally and emotionally balanced.
Yes, I believe that kids should have 24 access to at least a parent. Personally, I wouldn't mind it we went a on time rewind and 9-5 jobs were the norm, everything was shut by 6 pm, everything was shut on sundays, and people knew most of the people in their neighbourhood. But I highly doubt many are going to give up the 'modern lifestyle', nor would the companies like it if people did (no money to be made then)"
I agree that this is an ideal family model, however, it is one that most families can no longer achieve. In today's economy, most families cannot survive on one income. Children are put into daycare, and cannot have 24 hour instant access to their parents. That doesn't make the parents unfit. It's impossible to impose such idealistic expectations on all of society, and frankly, the way things are today, many homosexual couples may have the means to have a stay-at-home parent where a heterosexual couple does not.
"Children raised by a same sex couple are four times more likely to engage/experiment with homosexual behaviours then their heterosexually raised counterparts."
This may be true, but thinking about it, I'm forced to ask "So what?" Is there anything wrong with homosexuality? Are these kids going to be scarred somehow by experimenting? I think not. If they're inclined to do so, let them. I'd rather not see young children experimenting sexually with other people at all, but let's face it, they're going to do it anyway. I think it's a good thing that these children are given the opportunity to discover for themselves exactly who they are, and that shouldn't be stifled.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 27, 2011 7:17:22 GMT -5
The acceptance of bestiality has been removed and a 'consenting adult' reference has been added. The end of the Primer reads like so now:
|
|