...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...
...But do we want this most basic thing?...
(Cut for citation)
If you will allow me to be presumptuous, then I am assuming, as you live in Ireland, that you have had a predominate Catholic upbringing either through your family or immediate culture which could adversely affect your opinion of gay relationships due to the effective conditioning which that culture propagates. This is in-addition to the 'gay community' stereotype that a gay man is promiscuous as there are many promiscuous men at the forefront, public image, therefore instilling an idea that gay relationships are fragile and prone to disbanding, but then you must also look to the straight male stereotype where is a good thing to be promiscuous and have multiple partners and is effectively promoted in the media, but straight men have stable relationships do they not? I think categorising all gay relationships as 'open' and likely to fail within a few years is pessimistic and foolish as well as declaring that all gay men want short-term relationships is presumptuous and further exacerbating a negative stereotype. Maybe you should investigate other reasons why gay men do not adopt or investigate reproductive technologies such as social stigma, social taboos and other socio-economic reasons.
Having a child, or more is a not a 'basic thing'. It is a costly affair, not just in materialistic terms, while the urge maybe 'basic', evolutionarily, selective removal from reproduction is foolish regardless of gender. But as we have such a large population, gay people not choosing to have children is mitigated by others having many; it's comparable with fertile career-driven women not having children.
LuiM said:
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.
But this is perpetuating the idea of assigned gender-roles which deviation from is an inherent danger to society. It also assumes that a family is a close-nuclear unit. If there is a gay couple, like most families there is a wider network of people supporting the children other relatives or close family friends, could they not act as an identifier for the child. In my upbringing I never identified with the 'father' figure in my life, but looked elsewhere, mainly an uncle. Also, what allowed humans to reach the point which they do now was looking after children as a group, which may mean that the child had parents, but they may not have been the ones looking after the child all of the time.
(Following from other points)
Would you then say it is better for a child to be brought up by the state with effective neglect than having it's 'basic human right' ignored and brought up by a loving parent(s)? We should ask children in care what they would rather have.
I want to get married, in the non-traditional meaning of the word, i.e., a gay marriage as I think that a superficial 'short-term' relationship is worthless. I also believe that creating a relationship with a woman who I know I cannot be fully emotionally, physically and intellectually attracted to is a horrible thing to do for her as I could never be fully committed to the relationship as I doubt I would be fully content with it.
Currently, I am ambivalent towards having children. If my partner had a strong desire to have children, then I would fully support him (I plan on being a genetic dead-end) in either reproductive technologies or adoption. Although, after living with my younger cousins for a few days recently, having children does not appeal a great deal at the moment. But, I would never consider having children if the relationship was stable, nor if I could not say with absolute certainty that the other person was committed.
lol
