Full rights for the LGBT community.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?

Not once have I called you nor implied you are a homophobe, simply that you and others are not helping.

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?

Right, because the kids of straight people don't commit suicide or get bullied. Lacklustre straw man BB, you've been slacking lately.
And yeah, parents of straight kids will often hear things about their parents, slutty mothers, cheating dads and more.


Are you going to acknowledge the Aborigine thing? Or ignore it like you did with the links provided by oldrnwsr as usual?

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?


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?


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

Children from Single parent familes, mixed race, religion, children adopted from foreign countries with hetro parents etc. All get bullied. I don't understand why you feel this is such a big deal. Parents should educate children to respect differences, not point at them and accept them. That's why we break down social barriers like the above.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

The hair-combing business is far more important than I'd have imagined!

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

Children from Single parent familes, mixed race, religion, children adopted from foreign countries with hetro parents etc. All get bullied. I don't understand why you feel this is such a big deal.

Just to put things in perspective: I was asked what possible issues there could be for any potential adopted children of gay parents and I listed the inevitable bullying as one of them. I didn't say any decision should hinge on this, but it should be acknowledged as one of the multitude of variables that any decision ought to be based on. In other words, all else being equal the gay parents home and the increased probability of bullying that goes with it isn't the ideal home for an orphan.


This has branched out since then and been blown out of all proportion, dishonestly in my view, in exactly the same manner as my reasonable and rational view that anyone who openly declares their intentions to not protect any child in their care from physical attacks should not be considered as adopted parents.


I'm more Malcolm X than Gandhi but Pacism is something I have great admiration for. It's nothing personal against pacifists but the children need to come first.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

J I didn't say any decision should hinge on this, but it should be acknowledged as one of the multitude of variables that any decision ought to be based on. In other words, all else being equal the gay parents home and the increased probability of bullying that goes with it isn't the ideal home for an orphan.

So, you are saying that all else being equal, the decision should hinge on this.

You often contradict what you said a few posts back, but now you are contradicting what you said earlier in the same paragraph.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, you are saying that all else being equal, the decision should hinge on this.

You often contradict what you said a few posts back, but now you are contradicting what you said earlier in the same paragraph.

This is exactly what I am saying. If there are two identical families an orphan can be placed in with the only difference being the higher probability of bullying and all the trauma that goes with it for the child then the best possible home for this child is the home with lesser chance of being bullied over his/her parents.


Do you object to this? Could you explain your objection?

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

The hair-combing business is far more important than I'd have imagined!

Being facetous about the victims of racism. A new low.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you object to this? Could you explain your objection?

Yes: your logic is based on the idea that the authorities may use the theoretical possibility of future discrimination to apply real discrimination today.

In your own case, for example: you are in a mixed race relationship. Your rules above mean you would be disqualifed from ever adopting. You may think it's OK for the adoption authorities to discriminate against you on racist grounds, but I do not.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

You can't know that. It's one of the very few absolute truths in life that nobody is ever told what would have happened.

If the clocks could be turned back and an equally suitable (and racially-appropriate) family had adopted her, she might have had a childhood free of bullying by racists. And instead been subject to politically-motivated harassment by the Pinochet regime, or been killed in an earthquake, or any of a million other misfortunes - at which point she might now be wishing that she had been adopted by a nice blond Swedish family.

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

So you don't, and won't, have children?

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.

Let's go back to my earlier question: is it your assertion that, if they hadn't adopted her, she would definitely have been adopted instead by an equally suitable family of her own racial background?

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes: your logic is based on the idea that the authorities may use the theoretical possibility of future discrimination to apply real discrimination today.

My logic is putting the welfare of the child before the adults who want to adopt children.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In your own case, for example: you are in a mixed race relationship. Your rules above mean you would be disqualifed from ever adopting. You may think it's OK for the adoption authorities to discriminate against you on racist grounds, but I do not.

How many times must I repeat myself!?


I don't think it's "OK" to discriminate against anyone. It is absolutely wrong. It's a moral dilemma where in my view it is the lesser of the two evils to discriminate - if this discrimination is for the sake of the child.


You and everyone else won't even acknowledge that such a moral dilemma can exist. It appears to me that everyone else cares more about gay rights than the actual child involved, a living, breathing human being and fellow citizen. This isn't a job interview where the job is the prize, a child isn't a prize. They have their own individual needs independent of any desires for homosexuals or anyone else to raise children.

Christy42

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My logic is putting the welfare of the child before the adults who want to adopt children.

Yep those kids are so well off in the orphanage. Show me a couple and I will tell you what could cause their kids to get bullied. Unless you apply this rule to all couples then your logic is faulty. If you do apply it to all couples there are very few couples will be allowed to adopt. Quick list of reasons an adopted kid could get bullied due to parents,
Race-different from parents
gay parents
attractive mother,
attractive father,
unattractive mother,
unattractive father,
geeky parents,
fat parents,
poor parents,
parents with bad fashion sense,
parents who spoil the child
parents who don't spoil the child,
parents of different religion to majority
parents active in the community
a parent did something silly that one time.
single parents.

You can't pick and choose, either exclude all of these or none of these.

Annasopra

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.

Innocent children!

Again we see more deliberate use of evocative and emotive language. It's almost like you are trying to implicitly make scurrilous suggestions without directly stating them.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

Whats your point? Are you suggesting that children adopted by gay couples are at increased risk of emotional damage, suicide and murder?

Corkfeen

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Innocent children!

Again we see more deliberate use of evocative and emotive language. It's almost like you are trying to implicitly make scurrilous suggestions without directly stating them.

He's mixing things up,we're now cruel swine.

PopePalpatine

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?

I wonder, what prompts kids to bully LGBT kids or the children of LGBT people? Where did they pick up their bigotry?

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just to put things in perspective: I was asked what possible issues there could be for any potential adopted children of gay parents and I listed the inevitable bullying as one of them. I didn't say any decision should hinge on this, but it should be acknowledged as one of the multitude of variables that any decision ought to be based on. In other words, all else being equal the gay parents home and the increased probability of bullying that goes with it isn't the ideal home for an orphan.


This has branched out since then and been blown out of all proportion, dishonestly in my view, in exactly the same manner as my reasonable and rational view that anyone who openly declares their intentions to not protect any child in their care from physical attacks should not be considered as adopted parents.


I'm more Malcolm X than Gandhi but Pacism is something I have great admiration for. It's nothing personal against pacifists but the children need to come first.

Attitudes will change over time, mixed religion marriages were frowned on in Donegal and the rest of the North for years, hardly anybody bats an eyelid now.

So you may bring up studies (I note you've only pointed to 1 of a multitude of studies kindly provided for you) which point to higher incidents of bullying, but these extra rights for the LGBT community that you are against (there seems to be an element of protesting too much IMO) will actually address the same concerns concerns you have.

Bullying is very difficult to stop, unfortunately a fact of life, but if we introduce extra rights for same sex couples over time it will be seen as more and more "normal". It will always be a reason for bullying, same as mixed religion or race, but it will go a long way to reducing the amount. Arguing against extra rights is making the problem (which you are concerned about) even worse.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many times must I repeat myself!?

You can stop anytime you like - we all got the message long ago. LGBT people cannot be treated equally before the law, because of some crazy reason you just made up, such as that they are not Liam Neeson in "Taken", that their children might be bullied if legally adopted but are quite safe if raised by a gay couple who do not have legal status as guardians, that you are unfit to adopt yourself because you picked a partner of a different race...

The real reason is, of course, that thinking about male-male bum sex makes you feel all funny.

jill_valentine

They have their own individual needs independent of any desires for homosexuals or anyone else to raise children.

True. So it's a shame you don't care about those needs being met as much as you do about your agenda.

Because if you did actually care about the needs of the children in question, you'd want the children of gay people protected in law, and you'd want gay families to be able to offer parentless kids a home. You'd read the studies and you'd listen to the people who have actual experience of the subject and you'd stop trying to frantically scramble for some new mad excuse to deny these children a family for no rational reason just because you, personally, have a beef.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just to put things in perspective: I was asked what possible issues there could be for any potential adopted children of gay parents and I listed the inevitable bullying as one of them. I didn't say any decision should hinge on this, but it should be acknowledged as one of the multitude of variables that any decision ought to be based on. In other words, all else being equal the gay parents home and the increased probability of bullying that goes with it isn't the ideal home for an orphan.

.........

And of course the handy thing about that is the way any home can be shown to be short of the ideal. It's the ultimate in self-moving goalposts.

aloyisious

Thought of the day.....

Brown Bomber

Christy42 wrote: »

Yep those kids are so well off in the orphanage.

And not once have I said they were. A perfectly good home is not the same as the best possible home.

Christy42 wrote: »

Show me a couple and I will tell you what could cause their kids to get bullied. Unless you apply this rule to all couples then your logic is faulty. If you do apply it to all couples there are very few couples will be allowed to adopt. Quick list of reasons an adopted kid could get bullied due to parents,

I do apply this rule to all. I am going to strike out anything transient and/or subjective because it's not relevant.

Race-different from parents
Yes. Been over this.
gay parents
Yes. Been over this.
attractive mother,
attractive father,
unattractive mother,
unattractive father,
geeky parents,
fat parents,
While this is also subjective it can apply if we take it to mean clinically obese. If there are two adoption applicants and they are equal in every way but one, one group are clinically obese then the non-clinically obese family should be chosen as the parents.

The parents who are clinically obese are more likely to be seriously ill or even die within the time that the child is in their care and also it is probable that they have an unhealthy lifestyle and will be bad influences

poor parents,
We can use this if we are specific and have it to mean living below the poverty-line. Obviously a child is better off with a family who can feed and cloth him/her.
parents with bad fashion sense,
parents who spoil the child
parents who don't spoil the child,
parents of different religion to majority
parents active in the community
a parent did something silly that one time.
single parents.
Yes. Already been over this.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You can stop anytime you like - we all got the message long ago. LGBT people cannot be treated equally before the law, because of some crazy reason you just made up, such as that they are not Liam Neeson in "Taken", that their children might be bullied if legally adopted but are quite safe if raised by a gay couple who do not have legal status as guardians, that you are unfit to adopt yourself because you picked a partner of a different race...

The real reason is, of course, that thinking about male-male bum sex makes you feel all funny.

Does it not mean anything to you that you have to completely misrepresent me to drag us into the gutter?

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats your point? Are you suggesting that children adopted by gay couples are at increased risk of emotional damage, suicide and murder?

Well you tell me Joey. You are the gay rights activist not me. You can't have it both ways unfortunately. You can't out of the blue rattle off homophobic incidents while making the (valid) point that homophobic hatred is real and then at the same time say "ah, sure the kid's will be alright".

So you tell me a) Are gay children bullied with a higher frequency than straight children b) Are gay children currently suffering more emotional damage due to bullying c) Are gay children murdered for being gay proportionally more than straight people are for being straight d) Are gay children committing suicide more than straight people.

I'd be surprised if the answer to any of the above isn't yes, but you tell me.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Innocent children!

Again we see more deliberate use of evocative and emotive language. It's almost like you are trying to implicitly make scurrilous suggestions without directly stating them.

The children are innocent. The fact that you have a problem with stating this simple FACT speaks volumes.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The children are innocent. The fact that you have a problem with stating this simple FACT speaks volumes.

It's the use of the term innocent with regard to children that might be adopted by a same-sex couple. It suggests that children are "punished" by allowing them to be adopted by a same-sex couple.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

It's the use of the term innocent with regard to children that might be adopted by a same-sex couple. It suggests that children are "punished" by allowing them to be adopted by a same-sex couple.

The adopted children are "innocent" regardless of who does or doesn't adopt them. It seems to me that Joey want to resist any attempts at humanising these children.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The adopted children are "innocent" regardless of who does or doesn't adopt them. It seems to me that Joey want to resist any attempts at humanising these children.

Ironic considering your suggestion that allowing a same-sex couple adopt a child is potentially immoral.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The adopted children are "innocent" regardless of who does or doesn't adopt them. It seems to me that Joey want to resist any attempts at humanising these children.

No; I'm resisting all of your attempts to present them as victims.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does it not mean anything to you that you have to completely misrepresent me to drag us into the gutter?

I think he is cutting to the heart of the matter, myself.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No; I'm resisting all of your attempts to present them as victims.

Afraid not. You are making ludicrous claims of bias (despite you being the activist) based on ludicrous foundations - You actually take offense at an "orphan" being called an orphan. Why? You aren't even involving yourself in the debate. Are you so insecure in your position that you can't even respond to a single question?

Tell me this: What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Afraid not. You are making ludicrous claims of bias (despite you being the activist) based on ludicrous foundations - You actually take offense at an "orphan" being called an orphan. Why? You aren't even involving yourself in the debate. Are you so insecure in your position that you can't even respond to a single question?

Tell me this: What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?

And thus back to the false dichotomy, based on the presumption that gay parents are bad, and implying that gay rights threaten children.

Corkfeen

Nodin wrote: »

And thus back to the false dichotomy, based on the presumption that gay parents are bad, and implying that gay rights threaten children.

It is amusing that he's accusing others of not engaging. He's reduced himself to the bullying argument. The bully's parents are the one's at fault and it's a matter of highlighting bullying as unacceptable to children. You could use the same argument as a reason to segregate based on race etc... Prejudices dictating is pretty damn dodgy for society.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

And thus back to the false dichotomy, based on the presumption that gay parents are bad, and implying that gay rights threaten children.

Is this better? For what good it will do. It won't be answered.

Without any presumption of gay parents being bad or any implication that gay rights threaten children,

"What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?"

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is this better? For what good it will do. It won't be answered.

Without any presumption of gay parents being bad or any implication that gay rights threaten children,

"What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?"

And yet again the false dichotomy.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does it not mean anything to you that you have to completely misrepresent me to drag us into the gutter?

Since you have posted arguments and information which mean that you think no adoption agency should consider you and your partner fit to adopt, I don't think it's the "adoption" in the "gay adoption" that has you so fascinated.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Without any presumption of gay parents being bad or any implication that gay rights threaten children,

"What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?"

Another false dichotomy. The welfare of many children will be improved when gay people achieve equality and are treated the same as everyone else.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is this better? For what good it will do. It won't be answered.

Without any presumption of gay parents being bad or any implication that gay rights threaten children,

"What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?"

Read the documents, since it hasn't sunk in yet. Gay rights to adoption as a couple pose no threat to the welfare of adopted kids (innocent little orphan Annies or evil little brats one and all).

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Read the documents, since it hasn't sunk in yet. Gay rights to adoption as a couple pose no threat to the welfare of adopted kids (innocent little orphan Annies or evil little brats one and all).

The document I read, and was advised to read, showed that children from heterosexual & married couples do better in school. The most recent study posted in this thread was a nationwide Canadian study which showed us that only 3% of schoolchildren of heterosexual parents feel "unsafe" in school while more than 1 in 2 schoolchildren who come from homosexual parents feel "unsafe" in school.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

Another false dichotomy. The welfare of many children will be improved when gay people achieve equality and are treated the same as everyone else.

Can you explain how every second child feeling "unsafe" advances their welfare?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The document I read, and was advised to read, showed that children from heterosexual & married couples do better in school. ...............

You were advised to read all of them. You chose one, and then tried to discredit it. You then changed tack and focused on the "issue" of bullying.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Since you have posted arguments and information which mean that you think no adoption agency should consider you and your partner fit to adopt, I don't think it's the "adoption" in the "gay adoption" that has you so fascinated.

Yes. You've already said I am big, fat homophobe for putting the rights of the orphaned child before the desires of people who want children but are incapable of having them.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The document I read, and was advised to read, showed that children from heterosexual & married couples do better in school. The most recent study posted in this thread was a nationwide Canadian study which showed us that only 3% of schoolchildren of heterosexual parents feel "unsafe" in school while more than 1 in 2 schoolchildren who come from homosexual parents feel "unsafe" in school.

As you've conceded, you haven't read the documents which make clear that single sex parents pose no greater risks in adoption than mixed sex couples. Until you've done so, perhaps you'd be better placed not disputing their findings?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well you tell me Joey. You are the gay rights activist not me. You can't have it both ways unfortunately. You can't out of the blue rattle off homophobic incidents while making the (valid) point that homophobic hatred is real and then at the same time say "ah, sure the kid's will be alright".

So you tell me a) Are gay children bullied with a higher frequency than straight children b) Are gay children currently suffering more emotional damage due to bullying c) Are gay children murdered for being gay proportionally more than straight people are for being straight d) Are gay children committing suicide more than straight people.

I'd be surprised if the answer to any of the above isn't yes, but you tell me.

Joeytheparrot has lost his squalk (again) so I'll confirm my suspicion.

Gay people in Ireland are seven times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals, according to new research by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Professor Mary Cannon, a psychiatrist, who led the study, said the “striking” finding was a link between sexual orientation and mental ill health.
A hugely elevated risk of mood disorder, self harm and attempted suicide was found among lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) youth when Cannon’s team followed up a study started in 2001. “We know people who engage in suicide attempts and plans are at greater risk later from suicide,” said Cannon.
In 2001, 212 students aged 13-15 were randomly selected at several northside Dublin schools in a study to assess levels of mental disorder. About 80% agreed to take part in the recent follow-up survey.
About 6% identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. The study found the mental health of this group was far worse than that of heterosexual peers.
“There were high rates of depression and about 50% had engaged in an act of deliberate self harm, such as minor cutting and overdoses, compared with less than 20% for the rest,” said Cannon. “It appears if you are of minority sexual orientation you are at a tenfold risk of self-harm behaviours.”
The reason is unclear, although there is evidence that being part of a minority group suffering discrimination is itself stressful. Cannon said research by the National Suicide Research Foundation indicates young people with worries about their sexual orientation and who were bullied had higher rates of self-harm. The disapproval of family members may also be a factor.
“They [the LGBT group] seem to have more problems in the family environment,” Cannon said. “Those who are working seem to be having some difficulties with colleagues. I think a lot of it is to do with these young people just not fitting into their environment.
Odhran Allen, director of mental health in the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network also described the findings as striking. Other research shows the experience of being LGBT in Ireland can have a negative impact on mental health, he said. “When LGBT people experience a number of stressful situations, such as fear of coming out, lack of support after coming out, harassment in their communities, or homophobic bullying, this increases their risk of self-harm and suicide,” he said.
Cannon and her team are now planning to look at other risk factors for self-harm and suicide attempts and to rank them. “My hunch would be that being of a minority sexual orientation may be quite high up the list,” she said.
Michael Barron, executive director of BeLonG To, a service for LGBT young people called the findings worrying. He said: “It is so important that families and communities understand that bullying and prejudice, far from being part of growing up, at putting young people’s lives at risk”
This article appeared first in The Sunday Times, Irish edition, 31/03/2013

So there you have it.
Straight Children with gay parents suffer homophobic bullying.
Straight Children with with straight parents don't.
Children who suffer homophobic bullying are far more likely to be depressed, self-harm and commit suicide.
Is this a price worth paying?

Corkfeen

We're all perfectly aware of these stats BB. Your solution makes it acceptable to stigmatise groups and is more likely to legitimise homophobic bullying. You are so intent on being right,you have ignored everything that everyone has said.

If a person is bullied for any reason, it is the bully's responsibility and school's to take action. Familys should not and will not be modeled by prejudice. By letting it,you're not helping the stats that you reference in the slightest. You're allowing a prejudice to fester and hang around for generations. You yourself have referenced pieces that discuss bullying of children of same sex couples,they all offer solutions to deal with issue. None of which involve preventing same sex parenting because that would be utterly ridiculous. Selectively lifting from pieces,that's all your doing while ignoring a wealth of research that you may occasionally glance at in disgust.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So there you have it

There you have what?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Straight Children with gay parents suffer homophobic bullying.

Indeed. And children with ginger hair are bullied for being gingers, and kids with fat/tall/shortarse/foreign/ugly/what-ever-you're-having-yourself parents are bullied for the same reasons.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Straight Children with with straight parents don't.

Ehh, no. Because they don't have gay parents, or are gay themselves. But see the alternate list of options above.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Children who suffer homophobic bullying are far more likely to be depressed, self-harm and commit suicide.

We're talking about gay kids now? What about gay kids with straight parents?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is this a price worth paying?

What price?

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Afraid not. You are making ludicrous claims of bias (despite you being the activist) based on ludicrous foundations - You actually take offense at an "orphan" being called an orphan. Why? You aren't even involving yourself in the debate. Are you so insecure in your position that you can't even respond to a single question?

Tell me this: What is more important to you personally, gay rights in general or the welfare and fate of a young child without parents?

I'm surprised that you posed the above question. It is a false dichotomy, that one is completely irreconcilable with the other. The corollary to your question is that placing such a child for adoption with a gay couple would automatically place the welfare and fate of the child at risk over and above that which the child might face if adopted by a Mom and Dad couple. Your question could also be read to mean that you believe that such a child should never ever be placed with a gay couple, based on that corollary.

Re the Canadian study, does it state why the more than 1 in 2 children from homosexual parents actually feel unsafe in school? If so, is the stated reason the children gave that they feel unsafe due to anti-gay quotes or behaviour of other children in the school, over and above the "normal" bullying from the other children. Does the study in any way also include anti-gay comments or behaviour from staff, teachers or other childrens parents at schools. I don't know if the study was conducted at schools or by a nationwide poll of children at home.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm surprised that you posed the above question. It is a false dichotomy, that one is completely irreconcilable with the other. The corollary to your question is that placing such a child for adoption with a gay couple would automatically place the welfare and fate of the child at risk over and above that which the child might face if adopted by a Mom and Dad couple. Your question could also be read to mean that you believe that such a child should never ever be placed with a gay couple, based on that corollary.

I seem to have caused some misunderstanding with this question. I am asking this question in a general sense. Like I've said it's a dilemma, and not an easy question to answer but I am sure in my answer that I care more about the welfare of a parentless child than gay rights. There is absolutely no reason for anyone else not to answer, other than to conceal their true feelings.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

What price?

The torment, torture and suffering a high proportion of these children will endure which is completely avoidable.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) youth and those perceived as LGBT are at an increased risk of being bullied.
http://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/groups/lgbt/index.html

Again, is it worth it?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I seem to have caused some misunderstanding with this question. I am asking this question in a general sense. Like I've said it's a dilemma, and not an easy question to answer but I am sure in my answer that I care more about the welfare of a parentless child than gay rights. There is absolutely no reason for anyone else not to answer, other than to conceal their true feelings.

What rambling nonsense. It's a clear false dichotomy, as the scientific evidence makes clear, so all that's left is articulation of your bias, not any exposure of anyone else's 'true feelings'.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The torment, torture and suffering a high proportion of these children will endure which is completely avoidable.



Again, is it worth it?

Being gay? Most would say yes, but then - is it worth being male? You're exposed to much greater risk of heart attack, of death by violence, and a host of other possibilities. But then we're not actually talking about gay kids, are we? We're talking about kids with gay parents. I'm glad you're fully in favour of a bully's rights charter though.