Full rights for the LGBT community.

Brown Bomber

Right, I've just read through the Rosenfeld study and it shows that American children in with heterosexual and married parents do better in school.

So I am a little confused as to how it is supposed to advance the argument that there is no difference. More than this.

Using the same data as Rosenfeld but utilising the full sample it shows that children with heterosexual and married parents are 35% better off.

And as the author states: "Sample size is power,"

The final column of Table
3
presents the unrestricted model in which both sample
restrictions are relaxed. This provides estimates utilizing the full sample of 1.6
million children.
1
In this specification, we include controls for the important sub-
groups, as in the previous two regressions. Here, the differential in the likelihood of
making normal school progress is +35 % for children in heterosexual married house-
holds, which is statistically significant at the 1 % level.

Furthermore, despite any and every delusion of any "decades of research" and "body evidence" Rosenfeld, the demographer is in agreement with me on the lack of any definitive studies.

"Sometimes we have to throw up our hands and admit that something is unknowable. But in this case, we could bring some real hard data to bear on an area that was otherwise really in the dark."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The concern is that it has been show that children raised in non-normative family structures have fared worse.

That has not been shown for same-sex adoption, no matter how many times you try to sneak it into the conversation.

If you want to show it, go ahead and cite some peer-reviewed research proving it, and tell us why the research you cite trumps all the perr-reviewd research posted upthread which proves you are completely wrong.

Note also that gay people are already allowed to adopt (singly, not as part of a couple), so you are, once again, arguing with current rules, not the proposed changes.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

...............

By which interracial couples, couples where one is fat and the other skinny, ugly people, disabled people and so on should never be allowed adopt earlier.

Also children with classes, buck teeth, obesity or any other variation from the strict norm will have to be weeded out from the gene pool. Also supporting football teams who are doing badly, a like for unpopular sports, toys and games render children bannable.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

How is it inevitable?

Surely you don't need peer reviewed studies for you to understand that adopted children being the only kid in the class with two entries into the dads race on sports day are going to be bullied? This is no trivial matter. Kids are killing themselves over getting bullied.

SW wrote: »

Who has suggested otherwise?

Funnily enough, you just did this yourself when you said:

why should same-sex couples be penalised for the possibility of some ignorant person bullying the child?

This suggests that your foremost concern is the "right" of the gay couple to be given children by the state before the actual welfare of the child.

SW wrote: »

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

Exercising patience for the sake of the child.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Surely you don't need peer reviewed studies for you to understand that adopted children being the only kid in the class with two entries into the dads race on sports day are going to be bullied? This is no trivial matter. Kids are killing themselves over getting bullied.

Which is an issue for the bullies and their parents of bullies. You don't think the fat kid or the kid with a fat parent is going to be bullied either.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This suggests that your foremost concern is the "right" of the gay couple to be given children by the state before the actual welfare of the child.

No it's saying that bullies should not dictate who can and can not raise children.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Exercising patience for the sake of the child.

Until bullies learn better? What sort of message is that? Gay people have being raising children in Ireland for years btw.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Surely you don't need peer reviewed studies for you to understand that adopted children being the only kid in the class with two entries into the dads race on sports day are going to be bullied? This is no trivial matter. Kids are killing themselves over getting bullied.

You're stating it's a certainity. I'm questioning that claim.

Funnily enough, you just did this yourself when you said:

This suggests that your foremost concern is the "right" of the gay couple to be given children by the state before the actual welfare of the child.

No. It's questioning why a same-sex couple can't adopt based on a possible event that might happen. Why aren't heterosexual couples subjected to the same level of "what if"?

Exercising patience for the sake of the child.

And that entails.....?

_Redzer_

I see you're getting whittled down to the "I just don't like it, that's why!" final argument.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, I've just read through the Rosenfeld study and it shows that American children in with heterosexual and married parents do better in school.

So I am a little confused as to how it is supposed to advance the argument that there is no difference. More than this.

Using the same data as Rosenfeld but utilising the full sample it shows that children with heterosexual and married parents are 35% better off.

And as the author states: "Sample size is power,"



Furthermore, despite any and every delusion of any "decades of research" and "body evidence" Rosenfeld, the demographer is in agreement with me on the lack of any definitive studies.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

Oh dear, I was wondering when DW Allen would be mentioned. Allen's "reanalysis" of Rosenfeld's study is deeply flawed. Rosenfeld has already pointed out in elaborate detail in the literature why Allen's study is bogus.

Reply to Allen et al.

DW Allen has made a habit of flawed analysis by the way. His other high profile paper is also deeply flawed:

High school graduation rates among children of samesex
households

1. The sample size for the study is derived from the 20% restricted master file of the 2006 Canadian census. This means that his sample has to be scaled up by a factor of five to be representative. Furthermore this means that his sample of 423 gay households and 969 lesbian households is in reality just 85 gay households and 194 lesbian households. And yet he complains about small sample sizes in other papers.
2. He makes no mention of the unusual size of his dataset. By sampling all teenagers aged 17-22 living with a parent and scaling up he gets a representative population of 1.97 million. This means that teenagers aged 17-22 living with their parents comprise 77% of all people in that age group. However, the comparable figure for American households is just 57%, something the author doesn't account for.
3. The author repeatedly refers to the odds-ratio in vague terms, i.e. 65% as likely to graduate. This makes it appear as if there is a real high school dropout problem among gay parents. Of course, there isn't. There isn't any kind of high school dropout rate in Canada. (You can check the raw data for yourself here.) Of course this doesn't stop the author and his buddy Mark Regnerus repeating the 65% figure in public interviews here and here.
4. There are other less serious but still significant flaws in the paper including failure to correct for confounding factors, selection bias, the lack of investigation of cause (as NuMarvel deals with here) and of course, the lack of any adherence to accepted sociological methodologies.

Finally, the conclusion that Rosenfeld reaches is that:
"There is no statistically significant difference in making normal progress through school between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual married couples after family socioeconomic status is taken into account (see Table 1, column E). Allen et al. noted that even if the difference is not significant, the children of heterosexual married couples appear to be faring better. By the same logic, the children raised by unmarried heterosexual couples appear to be faring worse (with higher rates of grade retention) than children raised by same-sex couples (all of whom were unmarried according to U.S. law), though the difference in grade retention is not significant after socioeconomic controls are applied."

I fail to see any cause for concern or caution from these findings.

Oh, and one last point. I am not surprised that Rosenfeld is unaware of any other definitive studies. He is a demographer and not a social scientist and is not active in the field. However, there are several literature reviews out there which would have described the kind of rigorous studies I mentioned in my second last post.

Brown Bomber

Daith wrote: »

Which is an issue for the bullies and their parents of bullies. You don't think the fat kid or the kid with a fat parent is going to be bullied either.

You also are completely neglecting to even consider the child in this. How can you possibly say that a kid being bullied in (or out) of school is only an issue for the bullies and the parents? They aren't the one's killing themselves, they aren't the innocent victims. First and foremost the "issue" of bullying concerns the victims.

Daith wrote: »

No it's saying that bullies should not dictate who can and can not raise children.

Of course not, though society through governmental institutions should, for the sake of the child.

Daith wrote: »

Until bullies learn better? What sort of message is that? Gay people have being raising children in Ireland for years btw.

And good luck to them. I wish them and their children the very best but I am specifically talking about adopting orphans and the moral requirement to place them in the best available homes. I really don't know how you can justify, when all else being equal, placing a child in an environment with a cross-hair on their backs for bullies if the opportunity existed to place a child in the same home but without this crosshair...and for what purpose?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You also are completely neglecting to even consider the child in this. How can you possibly say that a kid being bullied in (or out) of school is only an issue for the bullies and the parents? They aren't the one's killing themselves, they aren't the innocent victims. First and foremost the "issue" of bullying concerns the victims.

So, following your logic, any kind of couple that are not the norm should not be allowed adopt, for fear of bullying. Is this a correct summation of your view?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You also are completely neglecting to even consider the child in this. How can you possibly say that a kid being bullied in (or out) of school is only an issue for the bullies and the parents? They aren't the one's killing themselves, they aren't the innocent victims. First and foremost the "issue" of bullying concerns the victims.


Of course not, though society through governmental institutions should, for the sake of the child.

And good luck to them. I wish them and their children the very best but I am specifically talking about adopting orphans and the moral requirement to place them in the best available homes. I really don't know how you can justify, when all else being equal, placing a child in an environment with a cross-hair on their backs for bullies if the opportunity existed to place a child in the same home but without this crosshair...and for what purpose?

Children could be potentially bullied because they are adopted. You're suggesting no-one be allowed to adopt.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You also are completely neglecting to even consider the child in this. How can you possibly say that a kid being bullied in (or out) of school is only an issue for the bullies and the parents? They aren't the one's killing themselves, they aren't the innocent victims. First and foremost the "issue" of bullying concerns the victims.

This is not limited to gay parents. What about a normal married straight couple who have a child and that child is being bullied?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course not, though society through governmental institutions should, for the sake of the child.

Then what is your point? A government institution places a child with same sex parents.

SW wrote: »

Children could be potentially bullied because they are adopted. You're suggesting no-one be allowed to adopt.

Or indeed become a parent in case the potential child is going to be bullied.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Surely you don't need peer reviewed studies for you to understand that adopted children being the only kid in the class with two entries into the dads race on sports day are going to be bullied? This is no trivial matter. Kids are killing themselves over getting bullied.

Again with the fallacious arguments!

The really frustrating thing here is that not only are you arguing a logical fallacy (appeal to consequences of a belief) but you seem to think that bullying should only be a concern for the children of same-sex couples. Secondly and perhaps, more importantly, it is also an appeal to fear. The "Helen Lovejoy argument" you're espousing is an attempt at scaremongering. If we really were to deny gay couples the right to be considered as adoptive parents then, if we are to be consistent, we should also ban people who may have such traits that would mean their children are more likely to be bullied. But we don't, because the idea is idiotic.

Furthermore, this argument has been heard before. During the court cases which brought down anti-miscegenation laws in the US, this argument was offered in court:

"It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races."

In 1948, this argument was called out as the horsesh1t that it is in Perez v. Sharp. Somehow, over 60 years later you seem to think its a good argument. It's not.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So, following your logic, any kind of couple that are not the norm should not be allowed adopt, for fear of bullying. Is this a correct summation of your view?

No. It's not. What I am saying (ad nauseum) is that orphaned children should be placed in the best available homes.

Do you agree or disagree?

What I am also saying is that all else being equal placing a child in an environment with a lower probability of being beaten and abused by their peers is preferable.

Do you agree or disagree?

I am not saying it is right to judge people on the actions of others. It certainly is not. It's a moral dilemma but a dilemma where the welfare of the child should always be the primary concern.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's not. What I am saying (ad nauseum) is that orphaned children should be placed in the best available homes.

Do you agree or disagree?

What I am also saying is that all else being equal placing a child in an environment with a lower probability of being beaten and abused by their peers is preferable.

Do you agree or disagree?

I am not saying it is right to judge people on the actions of others. It certainly is not. It's a moral dilemma but a dilemma where the welfare of the child should always be the primary concern.

what about a gay child? By your argument, they shouldn't be adopted by anyone.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's not. What I am saying (ad nauseum) is that orphaned children should be placed in the best available homes.

.........

I'm confused. You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

I'm confused. You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question.

I've just answered your question and provided two of my own. Could you answer these first?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

what about a gay child? By your argument, they shouldn't be adopted by anyone.

Ridiculous statement that doesn't warrant a response.

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races."

In 1948, this argument was called out as the horsesh1t that it is in Perez v. Sharp. Somehow, over 60 years later you seem to think its a good argument. It's not.

Meanwhile, in reality...

In this study, multiracial students (i.e., those students who were identified as belonging to more than one racial/ethnic group) reported the highest rates of bullying involvement (30.6%), followed by those students who did not know their races/ethnicities (26.9%),
http://gradworks.umi.com/35/92/3592547.html

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just answered your question and provided two of my own. Could you answer these first?

No, you did not. You said my summation was not correct.

You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Meanwhile, in reality...

So you think that's grounds for banning interracial parenting?

Corkfeen

SW wrote: »

what about a gay child? By your argument, they shouldn't be adopted by anyone.

Yep by using stigma as grounds to not allow adoption. It's going to result in stigma remaining in certain acceptable ways. Bullying because of orientation remains acceptable. Homophobic bullying in schools is not going to disappear if lgbt are treated as second class citizens in certain regards.

People get bullied over everything and what should be dealt with is the bullying. Bullying over anything should be made unacceptable in our education system.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

No, you did not. You said my summation was not correct.

Yes. I did because this was the case. You asked a Yes/No question and I responded "No" or in other words answered your question. I can see this. You can see this. Anyone who can read can see this. Let's not play silly games and pretend otherwise.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ridiculous statement that doesn't warrant a response.

so if parents are gay, it's no to adoption but it's ok if the child is gay. Didn't realise anti-gay bullies had such parameters for potential victims.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. I did because this was the case. You asked a Yes/No question and I responded "No" or in other words answered your question. I can see this. You can see this. Anyone who can read can see this. Let's not play silly games and pretend otherwise.

Try answering the question.

You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Try answering the question.

You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question.

I am more than happy to have a discussion with you and to answer this question but it takes two (at least) to have an open and honest discussion. Like I've said I've just answered your previous question and in return asked of you two of my own. Common courtesy dictates that you now proceed to answer these questions before you then ask further questions yourself. This is not an interrogation.

It's a matter of principle.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am more than happy to have a discussion with you and to answer this question but it takes two (at least) to have an open and honest discussion. Like I've said I've just answered your previous question and in return asked of you two of my own. Common courtesy dictates that you now proceed to answer these questions before you then ask further questions yourself. This is not an interrogation.

It's a matter of principle.

No. It's not. What I am saying (ad nauseum) is that orphaned children should be placed in the best available homes.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am also saying is that all else being equal placing a child in an environment with a lower probability of being beaten and abused by their peers is preferable.

Do you agree or disagree?.

I suggest this is a fallacious question. One might say that no large urban centre is safe for a child due to the possibility of crime, that no US major city is suitable for fear of terrorist attack.

Now, I've answered you.

You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question. Yes or no with an explanation please.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

I suggest this is a fallacious question. One might say that no large urban centre is safe for a child due to the possibility of crime, that no US major city is suitable for fear of terrorist attack.

And one might also list any number of non sequiturs to avoid answering a simple question.

Nodin wrote: »

You are applying a line of reasoning - the potential of a couple to lead to their adopted child being bullied - as a reason to not allow them adopt, yet are not using it across the board.

Putting aside the fact that this is not my line of reasoning it's not even accurate. I am using my position - children should be placed in the best available homes - across the board. I have already said that I agree with the Association of Black Social Workers, and my wife, who is a mixed-race adoptee into a white family that the ideal is an ethnic match between adopted child and parents, whenever possible and assuming all else being equal

Nodin wrote: »

So, where a couple are of mixed race, in an area where there has been a history of some racial tension, they should not be allowed adopt? Its a fairly simple question. Yes or no with an explanation please.

If you read between the lines on my last comment you more or less have your answer.

Otherwise, if it's good for the goose I'll just say "I suggest that is a fallacious question".

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And one might ............ question".

So you do disapprove of mixed race adoptions. Excellent.

Do you disapprove of every situation that might lead a child to be bullied?

oldrnwisr

I hope Nodin doesn't mind but I'd rather like a crack at these questions.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's not. What I am saying (ad nauseum) is that orphaned children should be placed in the best available homes.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. However, this does not mean that same-sex couples should therefore be prohibited from adopting.

Allow me to explain using set theory.

There is a set which we will call P, which we will define as all parents who are in a position to and interested in adopting children.

Within this set (as it stands) there are two sets p and p'. p is the set of all parents who are legally allowed to be considered as adoptive parents. p' by definition is the set of all parents who are not legally allowed to even be considered as adoptive parents. Now from this basis we can show the following.

1. All same-sex couples are currently placed in set p'.

2. There exists the potential for a same-sex couple to possess the best possible characteristics for the adoptive child.

So, given that parents who are possibly the best parents for the adoptive child are excluded from the selection process, the process, by definition, is sub-optimal and flawed.

The only way that our current system of adoption could be justified would be if it could be categorically and comprehensively demonstrated that all same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. Moreover, it would have to be shown that to categorically exclude them, that the best possible same-sex couple is worse than the worst possible heterosexual couples.

None of these criteria have come within an ass' roar of being demonstrated by you or anyone else on this thread. Ergo, the best interest of children are not met by prohibiting same-sex adoption.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am also saying is that all else being equal placing a child in an environment with a lower probability of being beaten and abused by their peers is preferable.

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree, for reasons I have stated previously. Bullying is not a valid basis for denying parents the right to equal treatment under the law. Take this kid, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY39fkmqKBM

Now, its clear from the video that this kid has received a degree of bullying in school because of his red hair. However, kids are bullied just as much because of their parents' attributes as their own. Does this mean that we should ban red-haired couples from adopting. Or maybe left-handed couples. Or maybe short couples. No, of course not. Kids will be bullied for lots of reasons and the way to tackle bullying is not what you have suggested.

Oh, and one more thing. Regarding this post:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Meanwhile, in reality...

I did not contest that bullying occurs. What I pointed out is that denying legal rights because of potential bullying is not a valid argument. It was put forth as an argument in a court of law 60 years ago and found wanting. You haven't provided anything to support this fallacious argument in the meantime.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So you do disapprove of mixed race adoptions. Excellent.

Ha! Yeah I disapprove of mixed race adoptions so strongly that I married a mixed race adoptee.

I don't disapprove of anyone adopting anyone provided it is what is best for the child. My wife was born to homeless drug addict in Chile during Pinochet's reign. Her ethnicity in her homeland would be described as "mullato", which I think is a perjorative. She lived in an orphanage for 6 months and was then adopted by a wealthy blue-eyed, blond-haired Swedish family in a blue-eyed, blond haired rural village. Her parents are wonderful people and devoted parents. Her father owns a multi-national company so there was no material possesion she could not have. The Swedish countryside is about the most idyllic place to raise and child and the public services are first rate. All in all the perfect life, but with a difference - she was (undeniably, being brown skinned) adopted and she looked different to everyone else. When society sees you differently it treats you differently and she has faced discrimination throughout her life.

I don't object to her adoption into a white family, she doesn't either. In fact, she wouldn't have it any other way but there are factors which make people a better match for adopted children. Things that you sitting postulating at your desk don't understand in the way that she can. I'll give you an example - her white mother got her and herself up and hour earlier each morning to try and brush her afro hair. She didn't know what else to do, she had no experience of having afro hair.

Nodin wrote: »

Do you disapprove of every situation that might lead a child to be bullied?

I dissaprove of every situation where children are put harms way if an alternative exists where this harm, which can lead to lasting emotional damage, suicide and murder is reduced.

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I hope Nodin doesn't mind but I'd rather like a crack at these questions.



I agree. However, this does not mean that same-sex couples should therefore be prohibited from adopting.

Allow me to explain using set theory.

There is a set which we will call P, which we will define as all parents who are in a position to and interested in adopting children.

Within this set (as it stands) there are two sets p and p'. p is the set of all parents who are legally allowed to be considered as adoptive parents. p' by definition is the set of all parents who are not legally allowed to even be considered as adoptive parents. Now from this basis we can show the following.

1. All same-sex couples are currently placed in set p'.

2. There exists the potential for a same-sex couple to possess the best possible characteristics for the adoptive child.

So, given that parents who are possibly the best parents for the adoptive child are excluded from the selection process, the process, by definition, is sub-optimal and flawed.

The only way that our current system of adoption could be justified would be if it could be categorically and comprehensively demonstrated that all same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. Moreover, it would have to be shown that to categorically exclude them, that the best possible same-sex couple is worse than the worst possible heterosexual couples.

None of these criteria have come within an ass' roar of being demonstrated by you or anyone else on this thread. Ergo, the best interest of children are not met by prohibiting same-sex adoption.

I see it differently and would refer back to the analogy of vaccines. They must be tested before they are released for human consumption, not released without testing to then find out the negative side effects (if any) through their actual use.

I believe orphans are deserving of this caution also.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I disagree, for reasons I have stated previously. Bullying is not a valid basis for denying parents the right to equal treatment under the law.

It's not, but only if you pay no consideration to the wellbeing and happiness of the child who is being bullied. I do.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not, but only if you pay no consideration to the wellbeing and happiness of the child who is being bullied. I do.

I give a damn about every person who is bullied,suffered significantly from bullying during my teenage years but nice of you to indicate we don't care for people who are bullied. You're not dealing with the issue of bullying by allowing bullies to dictate what the acceptable family unit is. You're allowing bullies to set a 'norm' and allowing stigma to carry on as clockwork.

Could use it to ban all variety of parents,should a child be allowed to have an adoptive parent who is in a wheelchair? They might be bullied because of it,where exactly would you draw the line with with your antibullying scheme?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not, but only if you pay no consideration to the wellbeing and happiness of the child who is being bullied. I do.

No, you've been "urging caution" because the child might be bullied. It's a bit dishonest to paint others as not caring about children being bullied.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha! Yeah I disapprove of mixed race adoptions so strongly that I married a mixed race adoptee.


I dissaprove of every situation where children are put harms way if an alternative exists where this harm, which can lead to lasting emotional damage, suicide and murder is reduced.

@BB: I've taken the liberty of cutting out at least 50% of your post as I don't think anyone would be disagreeable with it's contents/message. I agree with all your desires to protect children from the worst other humans can throw at them.

I can only suggest that you ask to meet kids brought up by LGBT-parented families here in Ireland to see how they are not/were not put at more risk than children brought up within heterosexual families. It's possible that any fears that you have would be put at rest from the experiences related to you by those children/adults.

Society, as a general rule, worms out those people who are dangerous to children but it fails every now and again when it comes to heterosexual families which end with the children affected being placed with non-blood or law related families as a result. Putting it simply, neither you, I nor society will ever be able to ensure absolute safety for children. So decidng to disallow parenting rights to Gay people purely on the basis you are in favour of, is no way to guarantee protection of/for children.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

I give a damn about every person who is bullied,suffered significantly from bullying during my teenage years but nice of you to indicate we don't care for people who are bullied. You're not dealing with the issue of bullying by allowing bullies to dictate what the acceptable family unit is. You're allowing bullies to set a 'norm' and allowing stigma to carry on as clockwork.

Could use it to ban all variety of parents,should a child be allowed to have an adoptive parent who is in a wheelchair? They might be bullied because of it,where exactly would you draw the line with with your antibullying scheme?

You are kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Could you clarify if your position is:

A I do care about children being bullied but not as much as gay rights to adoption.
B I do care about the actual children being bullied but we need to put them on the front lines until gay adoption is fully accepted (if ever)
C I do care about children being bullied but not enough for it to actually have any influence on any decision I make.
D Something else.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Could you clarify if your position is:

A I do care about children being bullied but not as much as gay rights to adoption.
B I do care about the actual children being bullied but we need to put them on the front lines until gay adoption is fully accepted (if ever)
C I do care about children being bullied but not enough for it to actually have any influence on any decision I make.
D Something else.

Oh yay so you ignored the post where I said there should be a zero tolerance policy on bullying! Now,could you clarify, would you prevent a person in a wheelchair from adopting a child? They could be a perfect candidate but there's always a chance there will be bullying over it. Or if a prospective adoptive parent has facial scarring? More possibilities of bullying.

I could think of numerous attributes of various parents of various friends that they could have been bullied over btw. It would be ridiculous for them not to have been allowed to parent the children because of it though. I agree with you,bullying is a serious issue but your solution will just result in a certain kind of acceptable bullying.

alastair

Corkfeen wrote: »

Oh yay so you ignored the post where I said there should be a zero tolerance policy on bullying! Now,could you clarify, would you prevent a person in a wheelchair from adopting a child?

Obviously - they would fail the action hero test.

Sonics2k

Hi BB.

I was raised by a gay couple, and I must admit I was briefly bullied for it... ((( Aww isn't that tragic.

On the other hand, I was also bullied because I had an English accent, had bad teeth, loved Star Trek and anything to do with Astrophysics and space, because I did not believe the stories in the Bible, because I didn't like soccer, because my best friend was a Jew, because I wasn't very big, because I had a love for The Sex Pistols, Nirvana and the rock scene in general and not groups like Boyzone or Boys 2 Men.

My cousin had a gloriously normal household. Working mammy who looked after him at home and made his dinner, a father in the Army. He loved soccer and sports in general. He was big kid (he still is to tell the truth)and was bullied ferociously in school, so badly his family was forced to move from the area because he was so miserable.

I used to babysit a wonderful little girl a good ten years ago, who was essentially abandoned and left in an orphanage. She was eventually adopted by a lesbian couple, and is now turning 18 in the coming months. She has always been a happy child, has loads of friends and is rather smart and has never been bullied because of her parents in any real way.

Please remember this. Kids are dicks. They will pick on and humiliate anyone they can, especially to impress each other.

The only thing you have been vaguely right about is that yes, kids up for adoption should be placed in the best household, but the sexuality, race or religion should have no impact on this decision unless it will place then in immediate harm. It shouldn't matter if the adopter is white, black, Atheist or Muslim, just that the child is in a safe, loving and secure home with a family that will love them.

Now, kindly stop talking because you are wrong, you have been proven wrong more times than I can remember and will continue to be proven wrong. You have had proof given to you directly by those raised by gay and lesbian couples, and the -verified- studies linked earlier to you.

Go on now lad, scarper off like you usually do and we'll see you in a week.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I see it differently and would refer back to the analogy of vaccines. They must be tested before they are released for human consumption, not released without testing to then find out the negative side effects (if any) through their actual use.

............

Tests that, despite having been peer reviewed, you reject.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Hi BB.

I was raised by a gay couple, and I must admit I was briefly bullied for it... ((( Aww isn't that tragic.

Yes, it . Smiley faces aside I stress again that this is not a trivial matter. Children kill themselves over homophobic bullying. Children with gay parents are victims of these homophobic attacks as well. http://www.bullyfreealberta.ca/homophobic_bullying.htm#4

Who experiences homophobic bullying?

Homophobic bullying can affect anyone, may occur at any age and may be speficially targeted at individuals who:

• self-identify as non-heterosexual
• are perceived to be non-heterosexual
• don’t conform to conventional gender norms or stereotypes
• have parents or caregivers of the same gender
• have sexual or gender minority (LQBTQ) friends or siblings
• are parents, coaches, teachers and community members who are non-heterosexual

In 2011, Egale Canada released the findings from the first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian high schools11. This study found that:

• 70% of all students hear derogatory comments such as “that's so gay” every day in school.
• 37% of youth with LGBTQ parents are verbally harassed about the sexual orientation of their parents.
• Aboriginal and ethnocultural LGBTQ youth typically experience greater discrimination and harassment than their LGBTQ peers.
• 53% of LGBTQ youth felt unsafe at school, compared with only 3% of heterosexual youth.

Homophobic bullying can range from seemingly simple or benign comments (such as “That's so gay”) to acts of physical violence (gay bashing) or hate crimes. Homophobic bullying often happens in secret. Many youth are embarrassed to be singled out from the “norm”, or are afraid to report it and risk being “outed”, harassed, or re-victimized by an adult. Sadly, 10% of students report hearing homophobic comments coming directly from their teachers12.

How does homophobic bullying impact youth?

Homophobic bullying is a symptom of a pervasive societal culture of homophobia and heterosexism that threatens the physical and mental health, safety, and well-being of sexual and gender minority youth. Sexual and gender minority youth are not inherently at-risk; homophobic beliefs and behaviors produce a number of risks and stressors that may negatively impact their lives, health, and educational outcomes. For example, research indicates that sexual minority youth report more emotional and behavioural difficulties; higher symptoms of depression and externalizing behaviours; more hostile peer environments and experiences of victimization; greater rates of bullying and sexual harassment; and less social support in their family, school, and peer group contexts when compared with their heterosexual peers13.
In 2007, the McCreary Centre Society of British Columbia revealed some startling facts in regards to the well-being of LGBTQ teens14. When compared to their heterosexual peers, LGBTQ teens experienced greater levels of violence and more negative health outcomes and were more likely:

• To have experienced physical and sexual abuse, harassment in school, and discrimination in the community.
• To have run away from home once or more in the past year.
• To be sexually experienced, and more likely to have either been pregnant or have gotten someone pregnant.
• To be current smokers, to have tried alcohol, or to have used drugs.
• To have reported emotional stress, suicidal thoughts, and suicidal attempts.

The study also showed:

• LGBTQ youth were less likely to participate in sports and physical activity, and reported higher levels of time spent online.
• LGBTQ youth felt less cared for by their parents and less connected to their families than heterosexual teens, and for lesbian and bisexual females, less connected to school.
• When bisexual youth reported high family and school connectedness, their probability of suicide attempts was much lower than for bisexual teens with lower connectedness, even when they had strong risk factors for suicide such as a history of sexual abuse and current symptoms of emotional duress.

Clearly, family, school, and peer connectedness are critical protective factors that should be nourished and supported in the lives of sexual and gender minority youth.
Egale's first national climate survey found that heterosexual youth are also often the targets of homophobic bullying and harassment. This can include youth that are perceived to be sexual or gender minorities, as well as youth with LGBTQ parents or family members. For example, male heterosexual youth who are perceived to be gay by their peers and bullied are at increased risk for suicide ideation and attempts15. Egale's national climate survey found that:

• 58% of heterosexual youth report finding homophobic comments upsetting.
• 26% of heterosexual youth report being verbally harassed about their gender expression.
• 10% of heterosexual youth report being physically harassed about their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Youth with LGBTQ parents are 3 times more likely to skip school when compared to their heterosexual peers because they feel unsafe.

If children with gay parents are 3 times more likely to feel "unsafe" should we simply just ignore their feelings?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, it . Smiley faces aside I stress again that this is not a trivial matter. Children kill themselves over homophobic bullying. Children with gay parents are victims of these homophobic attacks as well. http://www.bullyfreealberta.ca/homophobic_bullying.htm#4

Who experiences homophobic bullying?

Homophobic bullying can affect anyone, may occur at any age and may be speficially targeted at individuals who:

• self-identify as non-heterosexual
• are perceived to be non-heterosexual
• don’t conform to conventional gender norms or stereotypes
• have parents or caregivers of the same gender
• have sexual or gender minority (LQBTQ) friends or siblings
• are parents, coaches, teachers and community members who are non-heterosexual

If children with gay parents are 3 times more likely to feel "unsafe" should we simply just ignore their feelings?

If children living in a poor area are 10 times more likelt to feel unsafe, do we take them from their parents?

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't object to her adoption into a white family, she doesn't either. In fact, she wouldn't have it any other way but...

...but you think she should have been raised in a more race-appropriate family.

Does she feel the same way? Does her family know that you feel that way?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

If children living in a poor area are 10 times more likelt to feel unsafe, do we take them from their parents?

1. Who said anything about anyone "taking anyone from their parents"?
2. Provide a single example of any orphan ever having being adopted into a family living in a "poor area" of Ireland where there wasn't already a family connection.

NuMarvel

It's amazing how someone who was too busy for weeks to read even one of the studies that proved his concerns were unfounded, is able to rattle off stats and "research" and anything else that he thinks backs him up...

Brown Bomber, all of this is for naught, because gay people can already adopt. The only issue is that gay couples don't have a means to adopt jointly, and that will be changed soon enough. As I said before, if you have an issue with that change in the law, then it's up to you to set out why the status quo is preferable. But be under no illusion, the status quo is that gay people can adopt, and that's not going to change.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, it . Smiley faces aside I stress again that this is not a trivial matter. Children kill themselves over homophobic bullying. Children with gay parents are victims of these homophobic attacks as well. http://www.bullyfreealberta.ca/homophobic_bullying.htm#4

Who experiences homophobic bullying?

Homophobic bullying can affect anyone, may occur at any age and may be speficially targeted at individuals who:

• self-identify as non-heterosexual
• are perceived to be non-heterosexual
• don’t conform to conventional gender norms or stereotypes
• have parents or caregivers of the same gender
• have sexual or gender minority (LQBTQ) friends or siblings
• are parents, coaches, teachers and community members who are non-heterosexual

If children with gay parents are 3 times more likely to feel "unsafe" should we simply just ignore their feelings?

Yes BB, I am painfully aware of people who commit suicide over homophobic bullying. I lost a friend when I was 17 to it, she was gay and her friends and family could not accept it.

They could not accept it because of the nonsense you are speaking, that there is something wrong or potentially wrong with being gay. There is not. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual.

People are bullied and harassed because of the mistaken belief that being gay is bad, and the longer people act like there is something wrong with it or dangerous (like you and others are doing) it will not get it any better.

Do you understand this?

I do see by your statistics that 37% of teens are verbally harassed due to their parents sexuality. In fairness, this means that some 67% are not harassed. Quite the counter balance.

I do like that you ignored the part about the Aboriginals. Do you think Australia should stop Aborigines from adopting, because it looks like theres a higher chance they can be harassed too.

You also had the outright gall to completely ignore this part

What can you do to stop homophobic bullying?
Start early – Intervene in homophobic harassment and name-calling whenever you hear it. Prejudice and hate are learned behaviours. Teach respect and an appreciation for differences at an early age before the seeds of intolerance take root. Help break the silence that surrounds sexual and gender minority discrimination and erasure by including age-appropriate information, books, and resources in your classroom, school, or public library. Ask yourself, is my school or community a welcoming, respectful, and safe place for sexual and gender minority children, youth, and families?

Speak out – Confront homophobic bullying, when it is safe to do so, every time you see or hear it. Don't be a bystander. What message is your silence sending to the target, perpetrator, or other bystanders? Recognize that your silence indicates your support for the bully's behaviour. Clearly communicate that homophobic bullying is wrong, hurtful, and never acceptable.

Educate – Educate yourself and others regarding the negative consequences that homophobic bullying has on all children and youth. Consider starting a gay-straight alliance and/or advocating for the creation of bullying prevention policies and codes of conduct that specifically name and include homophobic bullying. Develop standalone sexual orientation and gender identity school and workplace policies that demonstrate equal respect and treatment of sexual and gender minorities. Encourage professional development for all teachers, coaches, and parent councils on the damaging impacts of homophobic bullying.

By speaking out and standing up against homophobic bullying, we can actively make our schools and communities safer for everyone. It's time we change the conversation and begin to celebrate diversity and difference in our society, rather than continuing to fear or attack it.

top

Where there does it say that this means kids shouldn't be adopted by gay couples or similar?
No it says the bloody opposite. It says to actually speak out against it, celebrate who you are and stand up against homophobia.

Don't sit there and pretend to know more about the life of the child of gay couple than me, I am the child of a gay couple and thankful for my parents who gave me a good life.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's amazing how someone who was too busy for weeks to read even one of the studies that proved his concerns were unfounded, is able to rattle off stats and "research" and anything else that he thinks backs him up...

Brown Bomber, all of this is for naught, because gay people can already adopt. The only issue is that gay couples don't have a means to adopt jointly, and that will be changed soon enough. As I said before, if you have an issue with that change in the law, then it's up to you to set out why the status quo is preferable. But be under no illusion, the status quo is that gay people can adopt, and that's not going to change.

It's amazing how many times I have to tell you (at least I think it is you, I apologise If I am mistaken) that I am looking at this morally not legally.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yes BB, I am painfully aware of people who commit suicide over homophobic bullying. I lost a friend when I was 17 to it, she was gay and her friends and family could not accept it.

They could not accept it because of the nonsense you are speaking, that there is something wrong or potentially wrong with being gay. There is not. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual.

People are bullied and harassed because of the mistaken belief that being gay is bad, and the longer people act like there is something wrong with it or dangerous (like you and others are doing) it will not get it any better.

Do you understand this?

You can put your homophobia cards away. Not once have I said that there is anything wrong with being gay, nor do I think it.

Do you understand this?

Sonics2k wrote: »

I do see by your statistics that 37% of teens are verbally harassed due to their parents sexuality. In fairness, this means that some 67% are not harassed. Quite the counter balance.

Meanwhile 0% of children with straight parents are bullied about their parents sexuality but you don't think the collective suffering of the bullied children counts for anything. Why don't you just admit it?

Sonics2k wrote: »

I do like that you ignored the part about the Aboriginals. Do you think Australia should stop Aborigines from adopting, because it looks like theres a higher chance they can be harassed too.

You also had the outright gall to completely ignore this part

Where there does it say that this means kids shouldn't be adopted by gay couples or similar?
No it says the bloody opposite. It says to actually speak out against it, celebrate who you are and stand up against homophobia.

Don't sit there and pretend to know more about the life of the child of gay couple than me, I am the child of a gay couple and thankful for my parents who gave me a good life.

I don't doubt it and I am happy for you.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's amazing how many times I have to tell you (at least I think it is you, I apologise If I am mistaken) that I am looking at this morally not legally.

Yes, you've mentioned that before. And as was pointed out to you before, you're in a political forum, on a thread about legal rights. Morals don't come into it, because moral stances eliminate the chance of discussing matters objectively and coming to rational conclusions.

But at least you've dropped all pretense of "having an open mind", so I think we can stop wasting our time providing studies and having to review whatever you manage to find through Google.

However, if we are to talk about morality, let's talk about the immorality of not letting gay couples adopt jointly. This places the adopted child in the unenviable position of only having a legal relationship with one of his/her adoptive parents, even though both will be involved in their upbringing. How is that fair to the child? How is that moral that one of the people who will care for them, and raise them, will be regarded by the law as a stranger? Where's your moral outrage over that?

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but you think she should have been raised in a more race-appropriate family.

If the clocks could be turned back and an equally suitable family that were the same in every way but ethnicity were available then yes, a rough ethnic match would have made her childhood easier.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does she feel the same way?

Yes. In fact it was my conversations with her that helped me see beyond my PC conditioning.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does her family know that you feel that way?

I don't believe so, but it doesn't matter. It is no more their fault they have white skin that it is her's that she has brown skin.