Full rights for the LGBT community.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I abhor elitism but if a every orphaned child's best chance in life is to be placed with a mid-30's, University educated, white, husband and wife professionals then these are the homes the children should go to. Surely?

I'm not sure why you are posting in this thread. You are opposed to our current adoption system, the European Convention of Human Rights and a host of other things, none of which have got anything to do with allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

First, let's remove the clear discrimination in the law. We'll worry about the Adoption Agency's policies later.

Which is easy for you to say as presumably you are not an orphaned child being placed on the front line of a social experiment.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

If an employer decided with all else being equal a white candidate is preferable to a black one for every vacancy, is that discrimination?

Clearly you are not comparing like with like.

In your scenario there is only one potential victim; the black applicant. In what we are discussing there are two potential victims, the gay applicants and crucially the orphaned child that they want to raise.

I have never suggested that preventing homosexuals from raising children that aren't theirs is of itself a good thing; it isn't. I am saying that the welfare of the child should be paramount at all times in the adoption process. Any "discrimination" is the lesser of two evils if it can mean that the orphan is being placed in a better home.

A more relevant and appropriate question for you to pose would be is it racist for the/any state to as-a-rule and wherever possible to place orphans in homes with parents of the same ethnicity?

What do you think?

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Any "discrimination" is the lesser of two evils if it can mean that the orphan is being placed in a better home.

Again, you are arguing with our current laws and rules, not the proposed ones.

Corkfeen

Bb, anecdotal evidence can provide a negative example of literally everything. Provide me with a study that has not been debunked that shows a negative impact. No goal posts were shifted,it was an expectation of real evidence.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again, you are arguing with our current laws and rules, not the proposed ones.

I am not speaking of any rules at all but morality.

I'm not sure what your point is, or why you want to use innocent children as guinea pigs and then clean up any potential mess after any potential damage has been done . Like I've said you are not an orphan in need of a home and family. Though you probably should care more about the fate of our singularly most vulnerable sub set of fellow citizens.

In an ideal society rules should be a reflection of morality. Rules don't define what is moral. For example, the prior criminalisation of homosexual acts.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not speaking of any rules at all but morality.

The subject of this thread is full rights for the LGBT community, not your moral qualms about our current adoption rules.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can it be that gay adoption is/ certainly would be absolutely perfect.

Delightful straw man argument.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The subject of this thread is full rights for the LGBT community, not your moral qualms about our current adoption rules.

This from the the OP.

Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This from the the OP.

And how exactly does that relate to your personal moral compass?

Annasopra

Corkfeen wrote: »

No goal posts were shifted.

BBs are constantly

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This from the the OP.

Yes, there is discrimination against LGBT people in our laws. It should be removed.

Meanwhile, you don't think it is moral that single people should be able to adopt the way they can today. Who cares? It's nothing to do with this thread.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

And how exactly does that relate to your personal moral compass?

The claim is that gays are second class citizens "because" they cannot marry and adopt children,

I am in agreement with the first part (marriage) as I believe people should have the liberty to marry whomever, whatever, and with as many different people as they want without government intrusion into their personal affairs. This is with the exception of a age of consent rule being enforced to protect children.

When two consenting adults agree to marry then it doesn't cause anyone else any harm, Adoption is different as the welfare of the child SHOULD become the primary concern.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, there is discrimination against LGBT people in our laws. It should be removed.

Should it? Even if it means that innocent children may have to be the one suffer the consequences? Do you think orphans care about what is politically correct?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, you don't think it is moral that single people should be able to adopt the way they can today. Who cares? It's nothing to do with this thread.

Our rights our based on the collective morality. Morality should be the cornerstone for any laws we are expected to abide by. Or perhaps you disagree? Do you think that two men or two women (or a man and a woman for that matter) who are by definition incapable of reproducing together have a "right" to demand to be given parentless children to imitate a natural family if they so desire it?

Delirium

What consequences are you referring to?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Adoption is different as the welfare of the child SHOULD become the primary concern.

No-one (except yourself) is disputing that this is currently, and would remain, the case in a scenario of equal rights.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When two consenting adults agree to marry then it doesn't cause anyone else any harm, Adoption is different as the welfare of the child SHOULD become the primary concern.

Who has said otherwise? The only legal change being sought in terms of adoption is the ability for gay couples to adopt jointly. No one is looking for gay people, or any other group, to have an automatic right to adopt, because no such right exists.

The welfare of the child will still be paramount for the people who make decisions on adoptions and no one expects that to change.

At this stage, I'm not sure what you're arguing against, so let's try and simplify this: Do you have any objections to the proposed change in the law that would allow civil partners to adopt jointly? If you do, what are the reasons for your objections?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Our rights our based on the collective morality.

Collective consensus, including aspects of morality. Not your personal morality.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you think that two men or two women (or a man and a woman for that matter) who are by definition incapable of reproducing together have a "right" to demand to be given parentless children to imitate a natural family if they so desire it?

Any adoptive family are 'imitating' a natural family. The capacity for an adopting couple to reproduce together hasn't been an issue to date, so quite why mixing in sexuality to the mix changes anything is something of a mystery?

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have never suggested that preventing homosexuals from raising children that aren't theirs is of itself a good thing; it isn't. I am saying that the welfare of the child should be paramount at all times in the adoption process.

And by arguing against allowing gay couples to adopt, you're implying that the welfare of the child would somehow not be paramount in the case where a gay couple applied to be adoptive parents. This is a complete fiction, and the very archetype of a straw man. I'll give you points for being very good at appearing reasonable in debates like this, but that doesn't change the fact that your core argument is a logical fallacy.

A more relevant and appropriate question for you to pose would be is it racist for the/any state to as-a-rule and wherever possible to place orphans in homes with parents of the same ethnicity?

An even more relevant and appropriate question is: if a gay couple is evaluated for suitability to adopt a child, is there always, as an axiomatic principle, a better-suited hetero couple available to adopt that child instead?

If your answer is "yes", you have to explain why you believe so. If your answer is "no", your entire argument in this thread is null and void.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Should it? Even if it means that innocent children may have to be the one suffer the consequences?

Yes: the only consequence is that the innocent child adopted jointly by both gay partners has two adoptive parents instead of one in the current set-up where only one gay person is officially an adoptive parent. The child has legal protections if one of them dies, instead of being an orphan again.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A more relevant and appropriate question for you to pose would be is it racist for the/any state to as-a-rule and wherever possible to place orphans in homes with parents of the same ethnicity?

What do you think?

Yes. Clearly such a policy would be racist and discriminatory. This type of argument comes up all the time on boards, particularly in Feedback and Forum Requests. People who think that the Soccer forum needs a mod who supports Chelsea or people who think that the Christianity forum needs a Catholic mod.

As Beruthiel points out here:

"We do not appoint Moderators on this site because they follow a certain religion.

We chose Moderators for this site as follows:
They are deemed by the Admins to be the best choice for the intended forum."

Similarly, adoptive parents shouldn't be picked because they are white, or black, or gay or straight, but because they are the best candidates available.

Like I said already the core of the matter is this:

Article 40.1 states:

"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and social function."


Now, the Adoption Act, 1991 states:

10.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, an adoption order shall not be made unless—

(a) the applicants are a married couple who are living together, or

(b) the applicant is the mother or father or a relative of the child, or

(c) the applicant is a widow or a widower.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, where the Board is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable, an adoption order may be made in favour of an applicant who is not a person specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Subject to subsection (1) (a) of this section, an adoption order shall not be made for the adoption of a child by more than one person.

So, in accordance with Article 40.1 gay couples must be held equal before the law unless there is a valid reason for not doing so. However, no evidence has been presented to show that this is the case, while a mountain of evidence has been presented to show that gay couples are just as good as straight couples. Furthermore, the fact that a gay singleton can adopt under the terms of Section 10.2 above, but couples are categorically prohibited makes even less sense. The law is suggesting that not only are gay couples worse than the worst possible straight couple, but that they are also worse than a single parent. This is contrary to all logic and evidence. Therefore, such a situation should not continue to exist. And yet it does.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is, or why you want to use innocent children as guinea pigs and then clean up any potential mess after any potential damage has been done . Like I've said you are not an orphan in need of a home and family. Though you probably should care more about the fate of our singularly most vulnerable sub set of fellow citizens.

You keep going on about potential and consequences and social experiment. Somebody would almost think from reading your posts as if allowing gay couples to adopt children is some unknown, untested idea. It isn't. The scientific research in this area has been going on for decades. We know, as well as we can know anything in science, that gay parents are just as good as straight parents. Yes, the paramount concern is the welfare of the child, but no evidence at all has so far shown that the welfare of a child would be negatively impacted by allowing gay couples to adopt.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you think that two men or two women (or a man and a woman for that matter) who are by definition incapable of reproducing together have a "right" to demand to be given parentless children to imitate a natural family if they so desire it?

Nice strawman. Nobody in this thread has made this argument. This is not about a right to be given adoptive children. It is about the right to be treated equally before the law.

Tell me one thing Brown Bomber. Let's say that you have a married straight couple living on benefits, both drug users and both with extensive previous criminal records. Now you also have a middle class professional gay couple with clean records. Do you think it is appropriate that the gay couple cannot even be considered as adoptive parents while the straight couple can?

Corkfeen

Bb,you were perfectly capable of providing anecdotes. Now let's see some actual research. If in a 30 year period,one is not capable of providing proof of a negative impact from same sex parenting when research has been constantly run.It is fair to conclude that it has no negative impact.

Zubeneschamali

I don't think the research matters. Suppose the research said that a lesbian couple was more stable and loving on average than a heterosexual couple, and that children adopted by lesbian couples showed better outcomes and less risk of abuse than those adopted by heterosexual couples.

Would anyone think it was sensible to say that only lesbian couples should be considered based on that? I don't think so - everyone should be treated equally before the law.

Corkfeen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think the research matters. Suppose the research said that a lesbian couple was more stable and loving on average than a heterosexual couple, and that children adopted by lesbian couples showed better outcomes and less risk of abuse than those adopted by heterosexual couples.

Would anyone think it was sensible to say that only lesbian couples should be considered based on that? I don't think so - everyone should be treated equally before the law.

I agree but the way BB has been going on,one would assume that we have not an iota of knowledge in relation to the subject.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The limitations on any single person vs a husband and wife, all else being equal should be obvious. I abhor elitism but if a every orphaned child's best chance in life is to be placed with a mid-30's, University educated, white, husband and wife professionals then these are the homes the children should go to. Surely?

The above has to be a complete and utter wind-up - unless of course the couple have a live-in nanny to look after the children.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you (again). I will read it with an open mind.

I've had family from overseas visiting for Easter and was tour guide yesterday and today is the day we celebrate Easter here so it'll be tomorrow before I'll have the opportunity to give this document the attention it deserves. I give you my word that I will read it, primarily for myself. This is an important issue and feel obligated as a citizen to be informed so as to make the right judgements.

For balance I've been trying to cross reference it with a work by two quantitative analysts which finds many of the studies listed as agenda-driven and flawed.

No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

by Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you do, what are the reasons for your objections?

Adoption involves the care of children. These children SHOULD BE the primary concern. Joint gay adoption changes the family structure. This change may be positive or negative - a similar situation where the family structure has been changed has been the advancement of divorce where the record shows the damage it has caused to the children -- I don't believe that any conclusive proof - and unless I am mistaken no has actually claimed to provide conclusive proof -- that changing the family structure again would not have similar damaging effects on the child then we have a moral obligation to err on the side of the caution for the sake of the child's welfare and future prospects until a time when conclusive proof arrives (assuming it isn't actually harmful to the child).

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Would anyone think it was sensible to say that only lesbian couples should be considered based on that?

If we had conclusive proof that lesbian couples provided the best homes for children then surely it would be "sensible" to have lesbian couples as the gold standard and all else being equal trying to find orphans homes with lesbians?

If not, why not?

PopePalpatine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For balance I've been trying to cross reference it with a work by two quantitative analysts which finds many of the studies listed as agenda-driven and flawed.

No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

by Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

And a site called "protectmarriage.com" isn't?

Corkfeen

The text you are referencing is not peer reviewed which is an automatic red flag. The site it is hosted on is also a red flag and it's original publishers are a legal firm opposed to SSM. Peer reviewed research would be great instead of texts that literally made the NARTH review list. It's also worth looking at the author's background which shows up with a quick search.

They criticise methodology even though those who are peer reviewed are under far greater scrutiny than the various think tanks they work for. Also meta analyses check for the best run of the studies so one can't help but raise their eyebrow if this is the best research you can come up with. These guys are literally commissioned to write what their boss wants them to write.

PopePalpatine

Corkfeen wrote: »

The text you are referencing is not peer reviewed which is an automatic red flag. The site it is hosted on is also a red flag and it's original publishers are a legal firm opposed to SSM. Peer reviewed research would be great instead of texts that literally made the NARTH review list. It's also worth looking at the author's background which shows up with a quick search.

They criticise methodology even though those who are peer reviewed are under far greater scrutiny than the various think tanks they work for. Also meta analyses check for the best run of the studies so one can't help but raise their eyebrow if this is the best research you can come up with. These guys are literally commissioned to write what their boss wants them to write.

So, how likely is it that this article is going to become part of the Imoaners' ammunition? :pac:

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes. Clearly such a policy would be racist and discriminatory.
Clear to whom?

Not the National Association of Black Social Workers

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Similarly, adoptive parents shouldn't be picked because they are white, or black, or gay or straight, but because they are the best candidates available.

I absolutely agree that the best candidates available should be chosen. There is nothing intrinsic in black, white, gay or straight person that makes them a good or bad parent. However, ethnicity and whether the marriage unit consists of a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman are variables that need to be considered; at least until there is a definitive study that suggests otherwise

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So, in accordance with Article 40.1 gay couples must be held equal before the law unless there is a valid reason for not doing so.

Which there may be. The adopted child's welfare. If a definitive study was released which conclusively showed that an adopted child's life is more difficult and that face more problems as adults would you accept a policy of actively trying to find suitable husband/wife families before suitable gay couples are considered.

(will reserve comments until I read that paper you linked to)

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Nice strawman. Nobody in this thread has made this argument. This is not about a right to be given adoptive children. It is about the right to be treated equally before the law.

... to be given orphans by the state.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Tell me one thing Brown Bomber. Let's say that you have a married straight couple living on benefits, both drug users and both with extensive previous criminal records. Now you also have a middle class professional gay couple with clean records. Do you think it is appropriate that the gay couple cannot even be considered as adoptive parents while the straight couple can?

Obviously in this case the gay people would provide the better home. The "ideal" gay home would be a far better environment for a great number of children in Foster care and with abusive or negligent straight couples. I am not disputing this. My point is that we have a responsibility to place parentless children in the BEST AVAILABLE home.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes. Clearly such a policy would be racist and discriminatory.
Clear to whom?

Not the National Association of Black Social Workers.

You're referencing a 1972 position from a group who were right in the centre of black separatism? Wouldn't that movement be just as racially motivated and discriminatory as that which motivated it?

As to that "No Basis" study - a bit of context to it's authors, flexible attitudes to methodology, and agenda: http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/02/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards/

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My point is that we have a responsibility to place parentless children in the BEST AVAILABLE home.

No. Your point (contrary to all the evidence you've been shown) is that, all things being equal, the gay parenting option, by definition, cannot be the best option. That's your discrimination in a nutshell.

Corkfeen

It should be easy for BB to produce the peer reviewed research we''ve asked him for throughout. We've provided enough to fill a few academic journals.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

It's also worth looking at the author's background which shows up with a quick search.

Is it? I had advocated being above all this and rather than picking sides us all being on the side of the innocent child.

On account of your even-handedness and balance I assume that you already know this; that you have already looked into the all the authors backgrounds and not just the ones you wish to smear.

Dr Crouch, who is openly gay, and who is the father to four-year-old twin boys, ran the study, the world’s largest of its kind, on gay parenting.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/20/study-finds-that-children-of-gay-parents-are-generally-happier/

Corkfeen wrote: »

They criticise methodology even though those who are peer reviewed are under far greater scrutiny than the various think tanks they work for. Also meta analyses check for the best run of the studies so one can't help but raise their eyebrow if this is the best research you can come up with. These guys are literally commissioned to write what their boss wants them to write.

That is a lot of words to use in talking about a study without even mentioning the veracity of their claims. What is of most importance is if the reasons described for rejecting these various studies stand up. Do they?

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You're referencing a 1972 position from a group who were right in the centre of black separatism? Wouldn't that movement be just as racially motivated and discriminatory as that which motivated it?

As to that "No Basis" study - a bit of context to it's authors, flexible attitudes to methodology, and agenda: http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/02/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards/

It remains the official position. http://nabsw.org/?page=PositionStatements

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

No. Your point (contrary to all the evidence you've been shown) is that, all things being equal, the gay parenting option, by definition, cannot be the best option. That's your discrimination in a nutshell.

Can you quote me on this?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is a lot of words to use in talking about a study without even mentioning the veracity of their claims. What is of most importance is if the reasons described for rejected these various studies stand up. Do they?

No they don't - by the very measures that the author claims to apply to other studies. And Dr Crouch's sexuality and parent status is not quite the same thing as being commissioned by an organisation openly opposed to same sex marriage, or of having a history of (non-peer-reviewed) reports with the same remarkable ideological agenda evident.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you quote me on this?

Read your own posts.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Read your own posts.

You have made a claim of discrimination against me based on what I know to be complete nonsense. The onus is on you to now support your claim or withdraw your scurrilous accusation.

I suspect you will do neither.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

No they don't

Could you be more specific?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

It remains the official position. http://nabsw.org/?page=PositionStatements

So? The ideology remains the same.

_Redzer_

I'm doing science. If it's not peer-reviewed it's no good. I'd actually get scolded for using non-peer-reviewed references because they haven't been adequately validated and are not thorough, or proven worthy enough for use.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have made a claim of discrimination against me based on what I know to be complete nonsense. The onus is on you to now support your claim or withdraw your scurrilous accusation.

I suspect you will do neither.

I don't need to do anything but point you to your own posts. Your discriminatory claims are self-evident. No need to play games; your own words are quite transparent.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

So? The ideology remains the same.

So now you are accusing the Association of Black Social Workers. A group who set up during the Civil Rights Movement to combat anti-black racism of being a bunch of racists and radicals? Really...?

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

I don't need to do anything but point you to your own posts. Your discriminatory claims are self-evident. No need to play games; your own words are quite transparent.

My own words that you can't quote me on? Try your words that you put into my mouth. I didn't expect you to do the decent thing so we can just drop it.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So now you are accusing the Association of Black Social Workers. A group who set up during the Civil Rights Movement to combat anti-black racism of being a bunch of racists and radicals? Really...?

Racially motivated. Of course. And they were set up in '72 - after the civil rights movement, and well into the black power movement. More Bobby Seale than Martin Luther King.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My own words that you can't quote me on? Try your words that you put into my mouth. I didn't expect you to do the decent thing so we can just drop it.

Again - I'm not interested in playing your game - you hoist yourself with your own petard quite nicely. And it's not as if this is anything new for you - you might get away with this guff in the conspiracy theory forum, but your agenda is quite apparent here.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Adoption involves the care of children. These children SHOULD BE the primary concern. Joint gay adoption changes the family structure.

If you're opposed to joint adoption, what you're saying is that when (not if, when) the State places a child with a gay couple in a civil partnership, you don't want the child to have the benefits of a secure legal relationship with both of his or her adoptive parents. That would seem to fly in the face of all logic, particularly when the needs of the child SHOULD be the primary concern.

Are you sure you're really concerned about the welfare of the children here, because I can't see any way that the bar on joint adoption makes thing better for the child being adopted by civil partners.