Do you want to get married and have children?

[Integritas0]

It is a basic aspect of life --to reproduce, and have a child of your own.

The 'politically correct' answer might be: oh, but you can adopt! OR, oh but there are (expensive) reproductive technologies!

But let us be honest, and state the issue in plain terms: a woman and a woman cannot have children, A man and a man cannot reproduce. I am all for adoption, or for forking out thousands (if you have the dough) to doctors... but not everyone can adopt, not everyone is rich. The reality is that gay men, if they are lucky, have a relationship for a few years and break up. We have 'open' relationships. Every so often, there is a very rare case indeed of two gay men who adopt or consult the doctors, and the media put them on a pedestal (to sell newspapers) but what is the reality? No children. No babies. No families. This is part of what it means to be an ordinary gay man --not some rich celeb.

I know some members at GH have children, but it is because they had children in the normal, mainstream way: man, woman, child... divorce. And now they log onto GH!

So this thread is for ordinary gay folks, who see that men and men, or women and women, means no family and no babies. Let us concentrate on the rule (us), and not the exception (the rich celeb).

But do we want this most basic thing?

My mother was driving along in the car with me last month, and she said: 'getting married and having children... that is all there is to life, you know?' Then because I was silent, she said... 'but you can still find someone special!' I still kept my mouth shut. I don't know anymore.

So what advice is on offer? We have many members at GH, and I am sure there must be many opinions and insights...
:?

 

[Askani]

My mother was driving along in the car with me last month, and she said: 'getting married and having children... that is all there is to life, you know?' Then because I was silent, she said... 'but you can still find someone special!' I still kept my mouth shut. I don't know anymore.

OMG... That's probably one of the worst things a young gay dude can hear from his parents... I'd feel INCREDIBLY devastated just thinking that my mom's like "oh well... I'll never be a grandma" I know she kinda thinks like that and is sad cuz back when I was in highschool the house was popping with girls all the time and the phone never stopped... But even as I am I still wanna have kids... I have the dream of raising a baby with the one I love, cooking, working... trying to kill'em during the weekends cuz I wanna relax and they're jumping on the bed... I want all that, kids love me, I hate'em, but they're lovely(jk). Weirdly enough, even though I'll be the "man of the house" I picture myself as a mother/father type >_> stupid, eh? xD I have several female friends that said they would carry my baby without an issue, other lesbian friends that asked for me to donate once they get it all together(2 actually). I think it can work out if your friends are for real, not only drink/party/shoulder buddies... But... U never mentioned your opinion Integritas... do YOU wanna have kids?

 

[josh_the_hot_boy]

I want to be happy. What ever happiness turns out to be for me. That's what I want. If it involves kids that's fine. Marriage is cool to.

 

[smallsleepyrascalcat]

No, I don't want to have children.
I feel uncomfortable next to little children.
In fact, I do hate them. The problem is that little children seem to love me

 

[LuiM]

Integ you didn't tell us (in this thread) if your mom knows you're gay. So I don't know what she actually meant by saying that to you.

Maybe I deserve to be shot by majority of Gayheaven's users for what I'm going to say now, but remember this is just my humble opinion. I don't believe gays are capable of raising children because there is no such thing as longtime gay relationship or it's very rare. And a safe family environment, love, trust, permanency are the most important things for a child's normal development. That's one point.

The other point is I do honestly believe that it's a kid's basic human right to be raised by both sexes. Because there are different phases in human life when kid identifies himself with same sex and also with opposite sex.

I know there are single parents and same sex couples with kids from (mainly) previous relationships but in default the society shouldn't take away the possibility for certain kids to be raised in heterosexual relationship.

 

[LuiM]

Oh and of course I never thought about the idea to really have kids. But I'm a proud uncle

 

[ritsuka]

No, I don't want to do either of those things. I also strongly disagree that "that is all there is." There is a whole world out there to explore--I can make a "family" through close friends of like mind, and have whatever relationship suits me at the time. I've known all my life adults who haven't had children, but who found a reasonable way to be nice to the next generation or make some other good impact on the world; I know that intellectual/creative work is what I create and will leave behind. I'm happy with that.

My own mother thought she was entitled to more grandchildren from me (i.e. she already has some from my ex-siblings) to which she would express largely a fake interest in, despite being an abusive alcoholic bitch who should be kept away from children by a court order...anyway I couldn't care less about any of that myself. If I have a practical reason and it were to become legal, I might marry, but I don't see myself raising a child for a long time, and then it would likely be more along the lines of perhaps taking some older child in who has problems. If a partner of mine wanted to raise a young child, I would have to strongly question what their motives were, as I am very against many kinds of parenting, and am not going to participate in someone unconsciously repeating abusive patterns they experienced themselves onto children. I'm so glad I'm not straight and will not have an 'accident' whereby me or my partner would stumble into children without fully thinking about it first.

 

[gramison]

I would argue in opposition to a view taken by two others. Specifically:

The reality is that gay men, if they are lucky, have a relationship for a few years and break up. We have 'open' relationships. Every so often, there is a very rare case indeed of two gay men who adopt or consult the doctors, and the media put them on a pedestal (to sell newspapers) but what is the reality? No children. No babies. No families. This is part of what it means to be an ordinary gay man --not some rich celeb.
...
ordinary gay folks, who see that men and men, or women and women, means no family and no babies. Let us concentrate on the rule (us), and not the exception (the rich celeb).

I fail to see how one's status as a "rich celeb" is at all related to one's ability to have a family with babies for a gay couple. Celebrities are merely the cases you hear about (i.e. you've heard about Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopting, but they're certainly not the only ones to do so). I'm not sure I see why you're drawing the distinction.

there is no such thing as longtime gay relationship or it's very rare. And a safe family environment, love, trust, permanency are the most important things for a child's normal development. That's one point.
....
I know there are single parents and same sex couples with kids from (mainly) previous relationships but in default the society shouldn't take away the possibility for certain kids to be raised in heterosexual relationship.

I disagree in opinion about the scarcity of longtime gay relationships. I know plenty of gay couples who have done so. As you also allude to, many straight couples also divorce (50% of marriages end in divorces in the US.) This hardly offers any more of the love, trust, and permanency that you desire (although I completely agree with you about it's importance.) I will in all fairness however, admit that I do consider myself a romantic and am therefore probably more willing to believe in the ability of any people to find what they need in each other.

So my first point is that I reject the fact that heterosexual couples are any more capable of having a lasting, loving relationship than homosexual couples.


The more interesting point to consider is the second one Luim raises.

The other point is I do honestly believe that it's a kid's basic human right to be raised by both sexes. Because there are different phases in human life when kid identifies himself with same sex and also with opposite sex.

I know there are single parents and same sex couples with kids from (mainly) previous relationships but in default the society shouldn't take away the possibility for certain kids to be raised in heterosexual relationship.

I certainly agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Let me ask, however, the following hypothetical questions:

1. Can we then say that a destitute, bankrupt, or homeless heterosexual couple has a moral obligation to not have children, since every person should be guaranteed the right to a life with sufficient food to live?

2. If a couple has been genetically screened, and it has been determined that there is a high probability that their children would have serious chronic or fatal diseases, is it then morally reprehensible for them to go ahead and gamble with their child's future?

It is a basic aspect of life --to reproduce, and have a child of your own.

But do we want this most basic thing?

I think I slightly disagree with that, however I would like to ask you to define what you mean by "basic".


Luim, I would be interested to hear the following from you. Apart from the fact that you consider fathering a child morally wrong (as you are not able to afford the child equal opportunities in life), would you want children?

 

[newage]

I really wanted to have kids and i still kinda do. I vividly remember playing "daddy/husband" roles when i was like 5... My mom's biggest fear is that i won't provide here with grand kids, and the pressure is on because i am the only child. About 4 years ago when we had the argument there wasn't much of a conclusion---it was more of a postponement of the issue. She still thinks I'll definitely marry and have kids..or at least that what she constantly remind me. And after the my upbringing--family & procreation being central to my culture ----i feel almost compelled to do so. But honestly i don't know. All i know is that i won't forcefully get in a relationship and have kids just for her/tradition....i'd have to really want it too.

 

[LuiM]

Hi gramison! I agree with your views in general. Life goes it's own way and there are no 100% guaranties that str8 couples would really offer their kids what they need. I was just talking about legislation. Legislation sets or protects basic standards in society. In my opinion the legislation should not look up to negative examples (like problematic str8 relationships) and justify gay adoptions with them. It should be the opposite. That's one point which bothers me.

But the most important point are child's human rights. Gay couples rights should not be the focus here, child's rights should. We have to think what is in the best interest of the child, not the couple. A human being cannot be anyone else's right. He has his own rights which are on the first place.

I always try to think as simple as I can. I know no gay came to this world from gay parents. If I deserved to have mom and dad, I believe every kid on earth deserves that. I'm not saying gay couples should not raise kids if their life situation gave them kids. I'm just saying that we as a society have no right to robb someone in advance from the possibility to have mom and dad.

I don't consider (single)fathering a child morally wrong if this situation is something which just happened in someone's life. In that sense I don't think even same sex parenting is wrong. I'm just talking about setting the basic standards of society which should leave all options open for a kid.

And yes I would probably have children if I was str8. And I would even adopt one (as gay) if the number of str8 couples would run out (such situations could happen after natural disasters for example or war). It would be better for a kid to be raised with a single gay parent as to live in some children home where he would have nobody. But I don't expect from society to equalize my situation with str8 couples, because as I said kid deserves both parents - in default.

 

[LuiM]

But I'm sorry I'm getting away from the topic. The question was Do you want to get married and have children? If you're asking if I as a gay man would like to enter str8 marriage and have kids, then my both answers are NO. I don't want to get married with a woman and I don't want to have kids with her.

If I could get married with a man (which I can't in my country), I would if I found the right one. But I'm pleased with my single situation at the moment. So yes I probably would marry. But I wouldn't adopt kids. It would seem unfair to them, because as I said I don't support the idea that a kid would not have both: mom and dad.

 

[gramison]

I agree with everything you say in your first post. The fact that many heterosexual couples don't last does not justify the chance of failure with homosexual couples.

The one thing I will point out though is that there certainly is not a shortage of orphans. I don't think it's a question of "if the number of str8 couples would run out." If there are children who grow up in an orphanage (and there are across the world), then there are not enough straight couples willing to adopt. So based on that, I don't think I would be morally opposed to adopting a child from an orphanage.


As far as your second post, I'm not sure what Integritas meant in his original one.

Is he thinking about marriage and conception with a woman, or only marriage with a man and then adopting/surrogate?

I also have the same opinion on that. For me, no marriage to a woman. I'm just waiting for the right guy. OTL
And even though it's not legal in this state yet, there are many states closeby where it is.

I certainly wouldn't go to a surrogate to father a child, but I might consider adopting one who has already lost a family.

 

[gramison]

I stated that reproduction is a 'basic aspect of life', and a basic desire. I am not sure what kind of clarification you are seeking? We can play around with words if you like, for example by calling desire 'drive' --but I do not wish to dilute the socio-political argument by giving lessons in human biology! We know what (sexual) reproduction means and that it is a basic aspect of life --there is a rather obvious consensus on these matters! Surely you agree?

I'm afraid I must disagree. I feel no innate urge to procreate or father a child, no biological imperative that tells me that I must pass on my genes. Certainly, I have quite a sex-drive and have many urges related to it, but I pursue those desires for pleasure and companionship, not because I desire a child.

But why do you pursue a discussion in relation to very basic distinctions and facts? Might you now set out your own position (in clear terms!)? And your own feelings (optional).

Hopefully, the above makes it clear why I pursued that direction of conversation. We must certainly be aware of our base set of assumptions if we want to be able to meaningfully progress in this conversation.

My personal feelings are laid out in the post above (in reply to Luim.)

In relation to the distinction between the ideals of parenthood versus the realities, I stand by my argument. Let us just say that the media/politicians on the 'right' promote an ideal of family and parenthood that LuiM seems to subscribe to, while the media/politicians on the 'left' promote a wider, more inclusive ideal of family --including for example, same-sex adoption, abortion, and the use of reproductive technologies in the context of a dramatic fall in the fertility rate (especially in the Western male). This is of course an overview, and merely indicates some of the mainstream issues (there are plenty of grey areas). The overall distinction is very real, per published political manifestos and available scientific data. My argument is simply to point out that much of the debate (and much of your argument/criticism) is falsely premised on a failure to recognise a much more fundamental distinction --ideal versus real! What LuiM argues for no longer exists, for the most part. What the 'left' promote is becoming somewhat prevalent, e.g. abortion and reproductive technologies (expensive and/or selective with respect to social class)

As far as I can determine, you are claiming the decline of what may be termed "traditional marriage" and you seem accepting of that (or certainly not upset). Yet you later seem to argue that adoption may not be optimal for same-sex couples because they are not the so-called standard form of relationship.

but in relation to the specific leftist ideal of 'happy gay couples' (I'm quoting from an episode of 'Absolutely Fabulous' --Ab Fab fans will understand!) who adopt children, and lead integrated family lives... sorry but this is not prevalent (beyond the 'celeb' gay couple or family) --not at all. Gay monogamy is statistically insignificant, specifically in terms of sexual fidelity.
Cases of gays adopting children are rare, and there are many reasons for this

The scarcity of the act should hardly speak to the morality of the act (or by the same argument, gay marriage would never have been legalized in many places.) Although I would disagree that gay monogamy is statistically insignificant, why shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt? This is not me speaking from the "leftist ideal." This is me saying: "I'm gay. If I find a long-term partner, I may want to adopt children."

Also, you mention again something about celebrities, but I still don't understand how the issue is any different for them as for "ordinary gay folks."

 

[json11]

It is not important for me to get married only to maybe find someone special that I want to spend my life with . I have never had a desire to have children ever. It is enough to spend time with my friends children.I have never thought otherwise.

 

[gramison]

 

[ritsuka]

gramison,

I have stated the facts (based on available scientific.statistical data) in relation to gay monogamy, 'specifically in terms of sexual fidelity'. You have not responded to my specific point.

And where exactly is this factually, scientifically, statistically proven? You haven't supplied any link. Probably a sampling of 20-100 or so people, in one small part of the world, that is used to project onto the entire community as a sweeping moral condemnation, and with the bias of the straight scientists intact. As indeed, the cause of any alleged lack of monogamy isn't examined past "those loose people..." It doesn't provide any justification for opposing gay adoption, and nor should random disinterested people be allowed to micromanage adoption just based on the sexuality or gender of the person(s) doing so. Just because someone is not "middle class" doesn't make their homophobia justified, and at least where I live, it doesn't take much of any money at all to adopt a foster kid.

 

[gramison]

Funny, but an opinion article about this just turned up on CNN.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/24/chrisler.gay.parents/index.html

I don't get CBC here ^_^

Does anybody here have personal experience with same-sex couples that have children (either their own, or close friends with someone)?

 

[Tjerk12]

Dear IntegrasO. Expectations do have a great effect on human behaviour. They can create deep feelings of happiness or disappointment. The problem you raise handles in my opinion mainly about expectations. On the one hand the expectations about your future life and on the other hand your mother being confronted with the fact that things develop different from what she had expected.
I have a friend who is from a very rich family. His father had a big factory with more than 500 workers. Being the eldest son, his father expected him to be his successor. But he did not want to be a director of a factory. He had other things in mind for his future. That family was mainly based on rules and standing. Love seemed to be not important. By not fulfilling the expectation it all ended in a big quarrel and in fact the family fell apart.
The way you talk about your problem gives me the impression that you love your mother and she loves you. Love can cure nearly all problems. I can understand that she would like to see a nice tiny little Integrassie of the next generation. The wish for a duplicate is in fact a declaration of love for you. I suppose that she will find it more important to see you happy than having a grandchild. When you talk to her about it, she will understand, I hope.
Now the other part, kids. When you raise kids you create a very deep bond. So deep, that it doesn’t really matter if you are the biological father or not. In fact I cannot be for 100% sure that I am the biologic father of my kids. I never did a test. Why should I? I love them and they love me. That is all that counts. In The Netherlands there is a television program about children who are seeking their biological parents. They are happy to find them, but afterwards they still call their adoption parents father and mother. So adoption is in fact a good possibility to have kids when you can’t get them the natural way. But kids are a big responsibility. The human species seems to be a very week one. Kids need your support and attention for many, many years. So your relation should be steady enough to offer that. But I know several examples of Gay couples who do that successfully. And in a way kids can make the bond between partners stronger. The social structure of your environment is important for the freedom of movement of the kid. In The Netherlands it is really accepted to be gay (not in a way that everyone thinks that it is normal). Some month ago an American general said in an interview, that the murders in Srebrenica were mainly caused by the fact that there were so many homosexuals in the Dutch army. All political parties (also the very religious right wing) demanded public excuses. Our minister of foreign affairs telephoned to Obama. The general made excuses. I live in a very religious neighbourhood (mainly farmers). Last year a Gay couple bought a house. They are fully accepted and get invitations for every neighbourhood party. So things can change.
Reproduction is in my opinion absolutely not the meaning of life (the “act” seems far more important). It is to let the species survive. I think that is momentarily not a real problem on our planet.

 

[Irishman25]

Integri u can always marry me

As for personally, i have a romantic view on my future of finding that someone and settling down to cuddles and growing old together and perhaps to get married if not for a good party

As for kids, how can i answer that since 'he' of course would be a part of any decision like that. I have no desire one way or the other, my concern would be for the child in reguards could we afford it, raise it in a loving and caring nature, not have us rushing off to carreers etc.. and the big concern of course would be the state of my relationship with my man, sickingly in love
If we met all the conditions and alikes and he wanted a child, who would i be do deny the man i love....

 

[Otage]

The meaning of life for me is life itself. For some it is the life and maintaining it and reproducing. I think its only a matter of personal view. I myself think that children are annoying (don't hate them and understand that they are people too who are still learning) and let other people do the reproducing and parenting And would I even care if human species would disappear from the earth because no one would not be reproducing? No I wouldn't.