Originally posted by The Omega
No, I think that’s part of my point, Capt. Or maybe a part of what’s troubling me…
Having children is just not like buying a new toy or designer item.On the ONE hand I think, that since the Danish State pays for the treatment of straight childless couples, it should also pay for childless gay couples (If one assumes that whatever causes the childlessness is irrelevant). But then why does the new law only benefit WOMEN?
If a single MAN wants a child the Danish state will not help him, nor will it help male gay couples.
But then I have this OTHER hand, which solely deals with the childs need to know who its father is…
I am completely unable to make up my mind on what I think here…
As was it part of my point. And many children in this world don't know who their father is. Which is not cool, but not a hinderence to their lives.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They can become food though.....which you can get with food stamps....Anyways, for the three points:
"1) Is it a RIGHT to have children? Why must the state PAY for single women and lesbian couples to have the insemination? "
No it isn't. They should be allowed to, but the tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
"2) What about the right of the children to know who their father is?"
I think a child doesn't have that right.
"3) Should the Danish state also pay for surrogate mothers for gay couples and single men? If the law is passed to ensure all who WANTS kids CAN have them, then equality of gender suggests that gay couples and single men should have the same opportunities."
Would be fair, wouldn't it, well I don't believe tax payers should be forced to pay for the luxury items (children) of anyone...so, no, but if, then yes....
"On the OTHER hand… Free treatment of childlessness has been given to straight couples for years in DK."
Still, why?
My question would be, "when did not having children" become a government issue. And, more over, a government issue that had to be addressed with tax payers money? I agree that procreation should NEVER be a matter of the state government. In a world with too many people, government sanctioned reproduction should never be sponsored. Be it straight, gay or transgendered. However, if the people of that state or nation agree, then it isn't up for debate.
Originally posted by Biatch
Hurray for giving people equal rights!!It's about damn time!! Women have finally found a way to be completely independent. It's only fair that lesbian couples get the same rights as heterosexual one's. I'm bi myself, and if I ever choose to be with a woman exclusively for the rest of my life, I definitely want to have the option to conceive or adopt, even though I'm too self absorbed to ever really choose the option anyway.
As was mentioned in previous posts, having a child is a privilege, not a right. My main concern is: male or female, married or single, homo or hetero--if you are unable to provide for that child emotionally and financially, No Kid For You, until you Can properly provide for that child.
I'm also tired of hearing "oh, how wonderful it is," when some woman in her fifties is artificially inseminated. Just because the technology is there for a well-into-middle-aged woman (or man) to have a child, doesn't mean they should. That means dealing with an adolescent when you are in your late 60s, early 70s, and the child not having his/her parent around for as long as someone who was born to younger parents.
And keeping the father out of the picture? There have been several studies now which prove that the presence of a responsible and caring Father in the picture is Just As Important as having the mother around--which does bring up the lesbian angle. If they have a male friend, or "uncle" to provide that male role model, fine. If not--well, let's just say that as much as I am for equal rights for gay couples, I still have some reservations about children being raised soley by one-sex couples.
I don't hold to the above as hard and fast rules, but more general guidelines.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
My question would be, "when did not having children" become a government issue. And, more over, a government issue that had to be addressed with tax payers money? I agree that procreation should NEVER be a matter of the state government. In a world with too many people, government sanctioned reproduction should never be sponsored. Be it straight, gay or transgendered. However, if the people of that state or nation agree, then it isn't up for debate.
It can always be up for debate I think, but do all the people really agree with that? I mean, The Omega seems to be undecided, so it's at least not everyone.
Originally posted by Mindship
[B
And keeping the father out of the picture? There have been several studies now which prove that the presence of a responsible and caring Father in the picture is Just As Important as having the mother around--which does bring up the lesbian angle. If they have a male friend, or "uncle" to provide that male role model, fine. If not--well, let's just say that as much as I am for equal rights for gay couples, I still have some reservations about children being raised soley by one-sex couples. [/B]
And yet single parents tend to do just fine with their children. Infact, there are more single parent households in America than there are happy little two-parent households.
And yet single parents tend to do just fine with their children. Infact, there are more single parent households in America than there are happy little two-parent households.
Uh huh, so where can I look up these single parent vs two parent numbers to verify this? I have also heard its MUCH MUCH harder for single parents on average to raise a child, with that come many unexpected hardships that two parent households can avoid.
generalising doesnt work. all one can state is the ideal:
the ideal family consists of two parents, who are in a healthy relationship.
also the ideal situation is that one of those parents remain home to raise
the children when they are toddlers/even young children. people translate that
as "housewife" but both parents can alternate (one working in the evening)
or the father can be the one to stay home. whichever way, its ideal for one
parent to be around at all times in the kids earliest years.
with that aside, i fail to see the relevance to anything legal. all it is, is an ideal.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
And yet single parents tend to do just fine with their children. Infact, there are more single parent households in America than there are happy little two-parent households.
I don't know that that is a fact (though I note that you did not say happy "single parent households"😉.
All else being equal, the ideal is a two-parent household.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It can always be up for debate I think, but do all the people really agree with that? I mean, The Omega seems to be undecided, so it's at least not everyone.
No, what I mean is that we can debate it all we want, but if the people of Denmark have voted in support of it, then no matter what we say will make a difference. In fact, I'd support it based on the research that can be done on those families over the course of the next few decades. Statistics like 'how many males raised by single mothers commit crimes in their early teens' and 'how many female children, raised by lesbians, are also lesbian'. But, that isn't really fair to these children.
I'm just saying, I don't think the government should be handing out babies. I don't think they're handing them out to crack whores and junkies, but I don't like the idea of any government getting involved in increasing the population.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, what I mean is that we can debate it all we want, but if the people of Denmark have voted in support of it, then no matter what we say will make a difference. In fact, I'd support it based on the research that can be done on those families over the course of the next few decades. Statistics like 'how many males raised by single mothers commit crimes in their early teens' and 'how many female children, raised by lesbians, are also lesbian'. But, that isn't really fair to these children.I'm just saying, I don't think the government should be handing out babies. I don't think they're handing them out to crack whores and junkies, but I don't like the idea of any government getting involved in increasing the population.
I agree with your opinion on the topic but I don't get that
"No, what I mean is that we can debate it all we want, but if the people of Denmark have voted in support of it, then no matter what we say will make a difference."
I mean, that's what we do all the time here, right?
Originally posted by botankus
Do they offer this service for gay men, too?
No, and that’s part of my issue with the law.
IF the Danish state says “we’ll treat childlessness no matter WHAT the cause is” (a defect, single status, nature/homosexuality), then why is treatment offered only to straight childless couples (some defect), single women, and lesbian couples? Why not pay for surrogate mothers to single men and gay couples? That’s discrimination…
SHOULD the state pay? Treatment/insemination is a costly affair. But if it were to be paid by the couples/singles themselves, then only the RICH could afford the treatment, and that would be economic discrimination…
I agree, that the presence of both parents is not an absolute necessity… There are many single fathers and mothers today… But is it the BEST for the child?
Then again, a child may be better of with separated parents than constantly arguing parents. Perhaps I want to know what the motivation for HAVING the child is – aside from “I/We can.”
Originally posted by PVS
generalising doesnt work. all one can state is the ideal:the ideal family consists of two parents, who are in a healthy relationship.
also the ideal situation is that one of those parents remain home to raise
the children when they are toddlers/even young children. people translate that
as "housewife" but both parents can alternate (one working in the evening)
or the father can be the one to stay home. whichever way, its ideal for one
parent to be around at all times in the kids earliest years.with that aside, i fail to see the relevance to anything legal. all it is, is an ideal.
Why is that necessarily the ideal?? The core-family, mum/dad/kids living in a single unit is a relatively new invention in human history.
P.S.: Capt> The law was passed in parliament. It was politicans who decided, not the people of DK.