leicesterstreet

Oh my god normal decent gay guys on this forum left right and centre! I'm clearly living in the wrong country

*Thinks* I am really wanting to tell you something positive, or give you something positive to go with. I will say that you are definitely not the only one who experiences everything you say. For all the gay guys who don't want to be a cliche, they are feeling the things you are a feeling. I personally am dealing with the same issues and emotions that you are going through right now. I'm perhaps more open and more aggressive than you, but nonetheless I have an awful lot of trouble finding a partner. Naturally you start to question yourself as well. ie is it me that I luck out with all these guys and it never goes anywhere? The thing is I can't be %100 cynical about it all, because I know gay couples that have been together and stayed together for many years, so I guess this stops me from assuming it is completely impossible. Your also right that "gay dating" as you described it is... on many levels rather forced. Nobody knows - unless you are a complete screaming fag that you are gay so you have to make a point of advertising it on some level in order to have any relations with other men. Obviously this has lead the rise of gaybars *as trashy as they can be* I'm not sure if this is at all helpful

My question was not really literal but more metaphorical. I'm saying that......somewhere along the line the right to procreate has been made fundamental, which makes no sense to me. This decision was probably derived from the Church no doubt. Which in the US is ironic, considering laws and things of that nature are meant to be separate from any Religious leanings. I will reiterate, just because we have the capabillity to do something, doesn't mean we should - this includes having a baby. I do not believe that this should be a fundamental right. If someone can give me a good reason why it should, then please explain.

See now this was a well thought out, rational piece of commentary that I actually do agree might be true.

I live in Australia FYI. So basically what your saying is because it's in America it must be right because Americans are right about everything? Come on that's not even a rational argument.

Going to be honest here. In terms of being gay coming out is not really the hardest thing you'll have to face. What you will probably have issues with is finding and maintaining relationships if you want one. I personally feel that I made a big mistake coming out for this very reason, and at times wish I didn't.

I'm sorry but the conception of one great person (Churchill) does not justify the misery of thousands, possibly millions of others - that argument just doesn't wash with me. It's not so much a disregard of human rights..... I have considered the rights to bear children, and I believe that to ensure healthy, happy children superceding these rights is appropriate in this case. Just because you can have a baby doesn't mean you should. And anyway, who says it's a right to have children? Who made that rule? Humans are capable of many things but doesn't mean we have the "right" to do them by default.

I think we should all pause for a minute and consider something. Humans are basically just intelligent animals. Which means the rules of attraction are intellectualised to an extent, but those basic physiological factors are still there. This means that a man who is attractive 99% of the time is going to achieve success in terms of attracting members of the opposite sex. A woman's physiology says "if I'm going to have a baby, then I want the baby to have the best chances in life". So of course they will seek partners who are attractive (this means the baby will more likely be attractive too, thereforeeee more successful in life). Because of the way human society is constructed, factors such as power and money can also come into play. The woman on a subconscious level says "This man because of his wealth/and or power will be best for my yet to be born baby". I really don't know how much personality comes into play here. Obviously you have to get along with them. I guess people are prepared to bend and compromise a lot for people who have looks/power/money. It's funny though, I'm not sure how physiology works when it comes to gay people such as myself. I think I'm kind of screwed a bit there - as a large proportion of gay men in particular don't want relationships. At least if your straight you have more chances, from a sheer numbers perspective, so be thankful for that.

A privilege granted by who? Who sets the standards to determine who is a fit parent? Politicians? Social workers? People like me? People like you? Who examines the examiners? What you are suggesting is something that would have been dreamed up on some sort of totalitarian state, where human beings are considered to be the property of the State and have no individual rights at all. The way things are may be imperfect - but it is infinitely superior to anything remotely similar to that which you are proposing. Well that would be the hardest thing to figure out - the criteria on which licenses are given out. I mean there's a few basic things you could look at ie age, drug dependancy's, history of violent crime, as far as the rest goes I suppose that could be decided by civil committee's in conjunction with the government of the day. Infinitely superior? based on what evidence? Your focus is on the rights of the parents - what about the rights of the child to a happy and successful life? I couldn't give a toss about the parents to be honest, I'm concerned about the child and taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the child.

Your right I'm not joking I'm deadly serious. Something has to be done, and sometimes it has to be drastic in order to make any real/effective change. What alternative do we have? Let individuals have babies willy-nilly, then have generations upon generations of people perpuating misery? Having a child is a privelege not a right - for anybody.

So, by your argument, it is ok if gays have their own children but not adopt other children as they are a 'high risk' group? Why should their own children not enjoy the same protection from them that you would extend to adoptees? Oh, right! I forgot - licenses!! You think gays are a high risk group? What about the other sub-groups that are also deemed to be, or soon will be, high risk. Stop them too? What constitutes low-risk? What percentage of 'at-risk' members of a sub-group determines whether the entire sub-group should be allowed to adopt or not adopt? What to do about gays who can demonstrate a history of a loving stable relationship, AIDS free? Are we to deny them because statistics show that they might split up and get AIDS. Well, so might you from your partner. Perhaps we should not allow you to adopt either. I think I should make a distinction here between my personal concerns and what should be legislated. From a personal point of view I am concerned about high risk groups having children, such high risk groups may include gay couples, those people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and so forth. This is not to say rule out those people from having kids entirely, but there would be more potential for harm to come towards the child, in my opinion. In regards to gay couples, my main concern is the stability of the relationship of the parents. From a legislative point of view, each couple would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, regardless of which group they belong to, whether it be gay,straight, black, white or otherwise. FYI I am actually gay myself.

This is also another difficult question as well. Possible sterilization or vaccines at birth to prevent pregnancy?... once a license is granted, an antidote or reversal procedure can be given - allowing the woman to become pregnant. A bit of science fiction at the moment, which is why a lot more work would need to be done in this area before the whole system can be put in place.

No my argument is that I personally would have reservations about allowing gay men in particular to adopt and have relationships due to their poor success rate in relationships - of which the AIDS statistics support this hypothesis - among other evidence. As I've already pointed out three or four times I am not proposing ruling out gay couples from having children all together - am I saying that they are what I would call a "high risk" group in terms of having the ability to raise a child properly. I think it is appropriate to have some discrimination, especially when raising children. If you just let anybody do whatever they please, the world would be chaos - which it is now in some ways! In terms of what conditions child licenses are given, that is a very good question, and it would not be appropriate to give you a flippant answer. Although it would be a good idea to stop drug addicts and fourteen yr olds having kids.

At no time anywhere did I say I was against gay marriage. My main reservations were allowing gay couples to have children, based on the fact that through my own personal observations and through some of the evidence I've presented to you that gay relationships do not have the same stability, or chances of success as straight relationships. I will also stress that these same reservations extend to straight couples as well. My parents are a perfect example of this - totally screwed up. I wouldn't allow them to have babies - now or in the past. Hence my argument for "Child Licenses"

link removed That article points out that AIDS exist in other parts of the world and that women also get AIDS, I didn't deny either of these facts. However it doesnot negate my point that in the United States AIDS contracted through male to male contact (which we could safely say is mainly by gay men) is disproportionately high than amongst the rest of the population.