Full rights for the LGBT community.

jill_valentine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Listening can be more important than saying.

It's not about any "capacity or readiness for violence". It's about a determined and absoute refusal to protect children in your care from assault, kidnap and murder.

Well, thus far, my mad chakram skills have managed to keep the constant pirate, mongol, ninja and bandito raids at bay, but you might have a point. I hear rumours amongst the smallfolk of some new threat from the North, and I fear that without the magic of straightness, I might not be able to defend the Keep from this altogether new kind of enemy.

jill_valentine

SW wrote: »

So potential parents need training to subdue any potential threat. So kids can only be adopted by Jason Bourne?

Well, now you know why prenatal classes place such a heavy emphasis on Krav Maga.

alastair

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well, now you know why prenatal classes place such a heavy emphasis on Krav Maga.

Watch it - you'll be accused of promoting not only the 'gay agenda' but BB's other fave - the 'zionist agenda'. Try something a little less jewish. Taekwondo?

Brown Bomber

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well, thus far, my mad chakram skills have managed to keep the constant pirate, mongol, ninja and bandito raids at bay, but you might have a point. I hear rumours amongst the smallfolk of some new threat from the North, and I fear that without the magic of straightness, I might not be able to defend the Keep from this altogether new kind of enemy.

Your chakram skills are overpowering your comedy skills. I am sure you know as well as I do that assault against children along with child murder and kidnap are not a "new kind of enemy".

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

No, it's a refusal to use physical violence. There's a big difference between the two.

So what is the difference between "a refusal to use physical violence" and a refusal to use physical violence to protect a child in your care?

alastair

Seems to me that two ripped gym bunny dads would offer quite the protective advantage over a mum'n'dad tag team. And then there's the powers of gay sarcasm to factor in. Think of the children someone!

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So what is the difference between "a refusal to use physical violence" and a refusal to use physical violence to protect a child in your care?

Re-read your post I was responding to. You stated pacifists refuse to protect children from rape, kidnap and murder.

jill_valentine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your chakram skills are overpowering your comedy skills. I am sure you know as well as I do that assault against children along with child murder and kidnap are not a "new kind of enemy".

Well, since your current, and utterly bonkers, angle of attack bears no resemblance to a valid concern, I figured I might as well have some fun with it.

Your "concern" amounts to a worry that gay people - unlike all straight people - might not all be Liam Neeson from the film Taken. I look forward to your future, equally legitimate enquiries as to whether a gay person could ever really have been as capable a self sacrificing space miner as Bruce Willis was in the film Armageddon. I won't want to miss a thing.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Re-read your post I was responding to. You stated pacifists refuse to protect children from rape, kidnap and murder.

Second time now. This is the definition I was working with. It was defined by Aloysius, who raised this in the first place.

that people of pacifist (or faith) beliefs against involvement in the Military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others

Corkfeen

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well, since your current, and utterly bonkers, angle of attack bears no resemblance to a valid concern, I figured I might as well have some fun with it.

Your "concern" amounts to a worry that gay people - unlike all straight people - might not all be Liam Neeson from the film Taken. I look forward to your future, equally legitimate enquiries as to whether a gay person could ever really have been as capable a self sacrificing space miner as Bruce Willis was in the film Armageddon. I won't want to miss a thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of Jack Bauer.

alastair

Corkfeen wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of Jack Bauer.

What about the homo-erotic issue though?

Rules out Rambo, Arnie, Jean-Claude, Bruce Willis and many more.

Leaves in Liam Neeson, and Chuck Norris - but maybe Chuck is too camp?

This is fraught territory!

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Second time now. This is the definition I was working with. It was defined by Aloysius, who raised this in the first place.

Which is not to say pacifists won't protect children as you had claimed.

alastair

Nope. Liam is out too.

Swan Curry

If you want,I can set up some gay kung fu classes.The belts will be fabulous!

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Second time now. This is the definition I was working with. It was defined by Aloysius, who raised this in the first place.

Actually my response was to your posting about the more feminine of gay men and that their appearance might cause others to suppose they were weak, That implied that a mugger might think them a softer target for robbery than, say; some-one of Masculine appearance.

Mine, quote; (following on from your quote below) was that on the basis of stereotyping people and defining them by such thoughts, asked if that should also be applied to pacifists or persons of faith against involvement in the military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others, should be denied the adoptive rights to children, as the children might be seen as defenceless by predators: unquote....

I meant that in line with stereotyping people with what was perceived as a weakness as therefore being unlikely or incapable of defending themselves, thus also putting children in their care at risk.

Your quote (partial): that the more feminine of gay men are generally perceived as being less capable of physically defending themselves and therefore making them more tempting targets of muggers. This, I think, would also make their adopted children more vulnerable to criminals and predators...

aloyisious

alastair wrote: »

Nope. Liam is out too.

definitely NOT bear-like, maybe an otter....

_Redzer_

aloyisious wrote: »

definitely NOT bear-like, maybe an otter....

Otters are hairy slim lads.

You fail the gay test!

aloyisious

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well, thus far, my mad chakram skills have managed to keep the constant pirate, mongol, ninja and bandito raids at bay, but you might have a point. I hear rumours amongst the smallfolk of some new threat from the North, and I fear that without the magic of straightness, I might not be able to defend the Keep from this altogether new kind of enemy.

You are communicating with Pixies?? Chakram skills don't seem to have kept Naruto safe from the wiles of Sasuke Uchiha

aloyisious

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Otters are hairy slim lads.

You fail the gay test!

Aargh....

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In this context yes. Actually using our own brains, analysing the information objectively for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions.. Not treating science as a religion and running as far a way as possible from heretical texts.

You are Jenny McCarthy, and I claim my five dollars.

The only nice thing about someone saying "science isn't always right, sometime you have to make your own mind up" is that they have definitively conceded that there is no logical or reasonable basis whatsoever for their argument.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

You are Jenny McCarthy, and I claim my five dollars.

The only nice thing about someone saying "science isn't always right, sometime you have to make your own mind up" is that they have definitively conceded that there is no logical or reasonable basis whatsoever for their argument.

Strawman. Never said this. We are talking about peer-review; not science itself.


Science involves analysing the evidence. Not refusing to look at it. It's not me who is being anti-science. Science tells us that men and women are different and therefore two men are different to two women and both are different to a man and a woman. Again, not me being anti-science.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Science tells us that men and women are different and therefore two men are different to two women and both are different to a man and a woman. Again, not me being anti-science.

Science tells us that everyone is different. One hetero couple are different to another hetero couple. The anti-scientific failure is to deny the body of evidence that makes clear that there's no difference in the parenting potential of same-sex couples as hetero couple.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Strawman. Never said this. We are talking about peer-review; not science itself.


Science involves analysing the evidence. Not refusing to look at it. It's not me who is being anti-science. Science tells us that men and women are different and therefore two men are different to two women and both are different to a man and a woman. Again, not me being anti-science.

available evidence states same-sex couples do as well as (and sometimes better than) hetero couples when it comes to adoption. If you're not anti-science then what reason do you have for opposing same-sex couples adopting children?

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Strawman. Never said this. We are talking about peer-review; not science itself.

Good stuff. Now all you need to do is describe a process of evaluating scientific investigation that's better than peer review, and explain how it's quantifiably superior to peer review.

Corkfeen

*twiddles thumbs and awaits some actual peer reviewed research from BB*
The studies we have linked to follow a scientific methodology. Just because a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, does not mean that two people of the same sex being parents will have a negative effect because of their anatomy. The numerous studies we have linked to,back this up. You haven't shown anything to backup deficiencies in parenting because of gender.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Strawman. Never said this. We are talking about peer-review; not science itself.


Science involves analysing the evidence. Not refusing to look at it. It's not me who is being anti-science. Science tells us that men and women are different and therefore two men are different to two women and both are different to a man and a woman. Again, not me being anti-science.

Thus far, yes, it is.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anyone who is not openly committed to defending a potential adopted child from violence, up to and including kidnap and murder by outsiders should not be considered as adoptive parents.

There is no requirement on current adoptive parents to prove that they are Hollywood action movie characters, so once again you are arguing against the current adoption rules, not any proposed changes.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Science involves analysing the evidence. Not refusing to look at it.

So having presumably read the research provided to you, as oft requested by you, what is your analysis of the evidence?

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Strawman. Never said this. We are talking about peer-review; not science itself.

Speaking of peer-review, did you ever get round to reading any of the research posted up very helpfully by a user. Must be nearly 2 weeks ago.

Annasopra

K-9 wrote: »

Speaking of peer-review, did you ever get round to reading any of the research posted up very helpfully by a user. Must be nearly 2 weeks ago.

Think hes too busy

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

Speaking of peer-review, did you ever get round to reading any of the research posted up very helpfully by a user. Must be nearly 2 weeks ago.

Unfortunately not. I haven't found the free time yet, though I remain fully committed to doing so. My work takes up a lot of my time, In the last two weeks I've had family staying with me for Easter, I've had food poisoning and even yesterday, coincedentally enough it was the Anniversary of my wife's adoption, so I was with her family. Reading these studies is something I certainly want to do but I have to be realistic. I've already said this,

I'll just preface this by saying that I haven't been ignoring the previous posts, I've had other priorities. Oldernwiser, again my hat is off to you for the depth of your response. For clarity and to avoid a repeat of the previous confusion,, I have thanked your post for your efforts; not for the accuracy of your claims, which will need to be examined and this will also take time, I request your patience on this because I actually want to get to the bottom of this.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Think hes too busy

More projectionism Joey. How you have the gaul to accuse an individual expressing their honest opinion publically of "propagandising" is incredible when any brief perusal of your post will show your involvement with gay activist groups and your lobbying on boards,.

You have wilfully ignored every question and statement I have put to you.

Here are the last 4 you didn't answer, what chance now?

1. What do we call an orphan if not an "orphan"?
2. How can you possibly have a problem with an orphan being describe as vulnerable? They are by definition vulnerable,
3. Tell me, who is more vulnerable and more deserving of the assistance of our state than an orphan?
4. Is the use of "normative" propagandising when used to describe a Mom & Pop family structure?

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

Actually my response was to your posting about the more feminine of gay men and that their appearance might cause others to suppose they were weak, That implied that a mugger might think them a softer target for robbery than, say; some-one of Masculine appearance.

Mine, quote; (following on from your quote below) was that on the basis of stereotyping people and defining them by such thoughts, asked if that should also be applied to pacifists or persons of faith against involvement in the military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others, should be denied the adoptive rights to children, as the children might be seen as defenceless by predators: unquote....

I meant that in line with stereotyping people with what was perceived as a weakness as therefore being unlikely or incapable of defending themselves, thus also putting children in their care at risk.

Your quote (partial): that the more feminine of gay men are generally perceived as being less capable of physically defending themselves and therefore making them more tempting targets of muggers. This, I think, would also make their adopted children more vulnerable to criminals and predators...

I know all this.

Once again, this is the question you posed and to which I responded. (with my added emphasis).

would one be right to think that people of pacifist (or faith) beliefs against involvement in the Military, or using physical force to defend one-self or others, should be denied the adoptive rights to children, as the children might be seen as defenceless by predators?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

available evidence states same-sex couples do as well as (and sometimes better than) hetero couples when it comes to adoption. If you're not anti-science then what reason do you have for opposing same-sex couples adopting children?

Where have I said I outright oppose gay couples adopting? I am stressing caution. I am putting the welfare of the innocent children before the desires of gay couples. Big difference.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Good stuff. Now all you need to do is describe a process of evaluating scientific investigation that's better than peer review, and explain how it's quantifiably superior to peer review.

???

Why do I have to do this? What I have said is that a) Peer review isn't flawless and b) Something can be true or false whether it is peer reviewed or not.

You are connecting dots that aren't there . Do you actually object to A or B above?

_Redzer_

If you haven't had the time to analyse the data and reports put to you, then why are you still back here banging the drum that they're flawed?

Here's an idea, why not come back when you've studied those reports and find the flaws in them you're looking for, then come back and challenge the arguments put to you.

What you're doing now is pointless. You're just going around in a circle not addressing anyone's point and still criticising the authenticity of reports which you haven't bothered to read.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Just because a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, does not mean that two people of the same sex being parents will have a negative effect because of their anatomy.

Dear me. Do you actually believe the only difference between a man and woman are their respective sex organs? Really? Please tell me you are just being disingenious...

diograis

yawn.
circular arguments abound, fair dues to the posters taking the time to spell it out to this guy!

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

If you haven't had the time to analyse the data and reports put to you, then why are you still back here banging the drum that they're flawed?

Here's an idea, why not come back when you've studied those reports and find the flaws in them you're looking for, then come back and challenge the arguments put to you.

What you're doing now is pointless. You're just going around in a circle not addressing anyone's point and still criticising the authenticity of reports which you haven't bothered to read.

I am sure that you are aware it is far less time consuming to respond to comments here, especially the level of comments which usually involve fallacious arguments, mud-slinging and misrepresentations than it is to read and digest a report and then to consider it to form conclusions.

Some time back I did open the Australian study (the one authored by the gay father) as it was billed here as "the definitive study". First line of the preamble declares it is only in it's preliminary stage. How is that "definitive"?

Can you help me out? Can you link to the one study above all else can be considered absolutely conclusive?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where have I said I outright oppose gay couples adopting? I am stressing caution. I am putting the welfare of the innocent children before the desires of gay couples. Big difference.

so what are concerns regarding same-sex couples adopting?

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Dear me. Do you actually believe the only difference between a man and woman are their respective sex organs? Really? Please tell me you are just being disingenious...

I was being facetious for the most part.What I don't believe is that opposite genders are required to be decent parents. All research backs this up. Do you have evidence of deficiencies in overall parenting ability because of gender?

You have engaged in this discussion for over a month,posted absolutely ridiculous links as proof but haven't gone near one of the studies we've linked to. You assume that you are right on a subject which you appear to have no knowledge on, in relation to the research. So do you have any actual peer reviewed research to backup your position? Anything?

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

I was being facetious for the most part.What I don't believe is that opposite genders are required to be decent parents. All research backs this up. Do you have evidence of deficiencies in overall parenting ability because of gender?

You have engaged in this discussion for over a month,posted absolutely ridiculous links as proof but haven't gone near one of the studies we've linked to. You assume that you are right on a subject which you appear to have no knowledge on, in relation to the research. So do you have any actual peer reviewed research to backup your position? Anything?

One step at a time.

Without being facetious/disingenious. Can you tell us the differences between a man and a woman - hormonal, neurological etc.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am sure that you are aware it is far less time consuming to respond to comments here, especially the level of comments which usually involve fallacious arguments, mud-slinging and misrepresentations than it is to read and digest a report and then to consider it to form conclusions.

Some time back I did open the Australian study (the one authored by the gay father) as it was billed here as "the definitive study". First line of the preamble declares it is only in it's preliminary stage. How is that "definitive"?

Can you help me out? Can you link to the one study above all else can be considered absolutely conclusive?

OK, there are a couple of important points here.


Firstly, it is highly hypocritical of you to open your post by stating:

"...which usually involve fallacious arguments, mud-slinging and misrepresentations"

and then go on to say:

"the Australian study (the one authored by the gay father)"

which is a textbook example of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.


Secondly, the results of the Australian study are preliminary. However, the scale and design of the study is what makes it definitive. Its methodology is definitive. Also, I never tried to conceal the fact that the results were preliminary. In fact, in this post, I specifically pointed out in the link title that it was an "interim" report.


Thirdly, regarding your question about "definitive" studies. I have repeatedly posted links to same and delineated them as such where I have posted them. However, for the sake of progress either of these studies will be fine:

Rosenfeld, M.J., (2010), Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school Demography, 47(3), 755-775

or


A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents




Finally, regarding your quote here:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Dear me. Do you actually believe the only difference between a man and woman are their respective sex organs? Really? Please tell me you are just being disingenious...

It is just a little bit rich for you to accuse Corkfeen of being disingenuous, especially having made the comment:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Science tells us that men and women are different and therefore two men are different to two women and both are different to a man and a woman. Again, not me being anti-science.

despite the fact that I had already pointed out in post #595 that this statement is false (at least in the context of parenting). As I pointed out the last time, the science actually shows that:

"...students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father."

There is no difference between two men, two women or a man-and-woman from a parenting perspective. The attributes of a parent that influence child outcomes in postive or negative ways are not based on gender.

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unfortunately not. I haven't found the free time yet, though I remain fully committed to doing so. My work takes up a lot of my time, In the last two weeks I've had family staying with me for Easter, I've had food poisoning and even yesterday, coincedentally enough it was the Anniversary of my wife's adoption, so I was with her family. Reading these studies is something I certainly want to do but I have to be realistic. I've already said this,

Fine.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where have I said I outright oppose gay couples adopting? I am stressing caution. I am putting the welfare of the innocent children before the desires of gay couples. Big difference.

Mod:

Okay, I think we've reached an impasse here. You keep saying we should be cautious, that's fine, but we are getting close to soap boxing level here, and that's against the charter. There's only so many times a poster can keep finding the time to keep saying the same thing over and over and making the same or similar points, and yet not find time to read some of the research posted (Research that btw you asked for and others helpfully provided).

So, I'm afraid I feel I have to ask you to not post in this thread again until you read some of the research you asked for, and come back with any questions or concerns then.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

so what are concerns regarding same-sex couples adopting?

Aside from the impact on the child of the inevitable bullying?

The concern is not that gay parents will be "bad" parents or that they would not try their very best. The concern is that it has been show that children raised in non-normative family structures have fared worse. Single-parent families, children in divorced families and so on. Correct me if you do not agree but we have an obligation as a society to place our orphans in the best available home and family. Again, what I am saying is not that gay folk shouldn't be able to adopt but that we should be patient and err on the side of caution i.e. "not preliminary results" for the sake of the innocent child until a time when we can conclusively be certain that this change on the family structure will not have some negative impact on the child, who should be our first concern.

EDIT: K9, This was posted before I'd seen the prior message. I accept and actually agree with the reason for your action FWIW.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Aside from the impact on the child of the inevitable bullying?

Are you honestly suggesting that children with a mom and dad don't get bullied?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The concern is not that gay parents will be "bad" parents or that they would not try their very best. The concern is that it has been show that children raised in non-normative family structures have fared worse. Single-parent families, children in divorced families and so on. Correct me if you do not agree but we have an obligation as a society to place our orphans in the best available home and family. Again, what I am saying is not that gay folk shouldn't be able to adopt but that we should be patient and err on the side of caution i.e. "not preliminary results" for the sake of the innocent child until a time when we can conclusively be certain that this change on the family structure will not have some negative impact on the child, who should be our first concern.

So what do you propose to do with children who are already being raised by same sex parents.

Also I assume you want to prevent single people to adopt regardless of sexuality?

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

One step at a time.

Without being facetious/disingenious. Can you tell us the differences between a man and a woman - hormonal, neurological etc.

Why exactly? I'll happily admit that tendencies such as greater empathy exist among women and the list goes on etc. But why exactly should I be expected to answer your questions when I have asked you to provide research in the direction of a dozen times.

You're dodging giving peer reviewed studies because you have none and have not read any that we have provided. These studies go into immense detail on how both male and female couples get on as parents. They also point to the fact that gender has no impact on overall quality of parenting or outcome for the children. Why should we engage with you when you have made literally no effort?

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I know all this.

Once again, this is the question you posed and to which I responded. (with my added emphasis).

This is almost going circular, with us posing question to and fro. On the basis of not giving adoption rights to pacifists or non-believers in the use of force, in reference to their choosing not to use force in defensive-response to any attack on them or theirs, you are totally opposed to such people being allowed adopt children.

I'll leave this discussion about adoption by people other than those in same sex relationships - be they CP'd or Married - here, as it's straying away from the issue of adoption by Same Sex Couples.

Corkgirl18

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Aside from the impact on the child of the inevitable bullying?

The concern is not that gay parents will be "bad" parents or that they would not try their very best. The concern is that it has been show that children raised in non-normative family structures have fared worse. Single-parent families, children in divorced families and so on. Correct me if you do not agree but we have an obligation as a society to place our orphans in the best available home and family. Again, what I am saying is not that gay folk shouldn't be able to adopt but that we should be patient and err on the side of caution i.e. "not preliminary results" for the sake of the innocent child until a time when we can conclusively be certain that this change on the family structure will not have some negative impact on the child, who should be our first concern.

There are hundreds of children in foster care and there are loads of gay couples that would love to adopt in this country. By your views, is the child better off staying in foster care than being brought up by two loving parents?
Just wondering if you know anyone that was brought up by a gay couple. Because I do and she cannot say enough good things about her two mothers and was never bullied.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Aside from the impact on the child of the inevitable bullying?

How is it inevitable? And why should same-sex couples be penalised for the possibility of some ignorant person bullying the child? We don't apply that rule to any other couple, why are same-sex couples held to a higher standard?

The concern is not that gay parents will be "bad" parents or that they would not try their very best. The concern is that it has been show that children raised in non-normative family structures have fared worse. Single-parent families, children in divorced families and so on.

But the studies posted on this thread show that children in same-sex parented families do as well as other children.

Correct me if you do not agree but we have an obligation as a society to place our orphans in the best available home and family.

Who has suggested otherwise?

Again, what I am saying is not that gay folk shouldn't be able to adopt but that we should be patient and err on the side of caution i.e. "not preliminary results" for the sake of the innocent child until a time when we can conclusively be certain that this change on the family structure will not have some negative impact on the child, who should be our first concern.

What is "err on the side of caution" if it's not barring same-sex couples from adoptiong?