Full rights for the LGBT community.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

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.

I don't have any "solution". There is no easy answers. The ideal would be that society would accept these children and they would be left alone to get on with their lives. Sadly, we live in the real world and we don't have a utopian magic wand to change this overnight.

Therefore the prudent course of action is once again caution and patience as society naturally progeesses. I sense that isn't good enough for you and the rest of Gay Rights NOW! mob. Your solution appears to me to use the children of today as marthyrs or sacrificed pawns to force gay adoption into a state of normalisation within society. I cannot accept this.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

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.

That is not what I am asking you. What I am asking you is if it is worth it to place children into a higher risk category of homophobic bullying which can lead to all kinds of emotional problems and suicide, when an alternative exists where this can be avoided so that two gay men or two gay women can raise someone else's child?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't have any "solution". There is no easy answers. The ideal would be that society would accept these children and they would be left alone to get on with their lives. Sadly, we live in the real world and we don't have a utopian magic wand to change this overnight.

Therefore the prudent course of action is once again caution and patience as society naturally progeesses. I sense that isn't good enough for you and the rest of Gay Rights NOW! mob. Your solution appears to me to use the children of today as marthyrs or sacrificed pawns to force gay adoption into a state of normalisation within society. I cannot accept this.

Read the actual science and get over this specious guff.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is not what I am asking you.

Why quote issues relating to a different group then? Try and stick to the topic at hand.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am asking you is if it is worth it to place children into a higher risk category of homophobic bullying which can lead to all kinds of emotional problems and suicide, when an alternative exists where this can be avoided so that two gay men or two gay women can raise someone else's child?

Because it's a nonsense. Kids get bullied for all kinds of reasons. You can't cure bullying by hiding away all potential 'causes' of said bullying - you'll veto anyone associating with any kids, ever. The best scientific studies demonstrate that gay parenting poses no additional risks to children - end of story.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't have any "solution". There is no easy answers. The ideal would be that society would accept these children and they would be left alone to get on with their lives. Sadly, we live in the real world and we don't have a utopian magic wand to change this overnight.

Therefore the prudent course of action is once again caution and patience as society naturally progeesses. I sense that isn't good enough for you and the rest of Gay Rights NOW! mob. Your solution appears to me to use the children of today as marthyrs or sacrificed pawns to force gay adoption into a state of normalisation within society. I cannot accept this.

I hope you feel suitably morally superior now, maybe one day you'll actually read the research. Actually listen to the facts rather than assuming to be an expert offhand on the subject. This utopian mob is opting out of the discussion because it has just become another BB versus the world moment. Have fun!

alastair

Corkfeen wrote: »

This utopian mob is opting out of the discussion because it has just become another BB versus the world moment. Have fun!

Just wait until there's a 'Zionist' Israeli Jewish gay couple looking to adopt a poor innocent kiddie of a different race. It'll cause some sort of bigotry meltdown, that would take more than the sort of Liam Neeson machismo to counter. Think of the (poor innocent orphaned vulnerable) children!

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is not what I am asking you. What I am asking you is if it is worth it to place children into a higher risk category of homophobic bullying which can lead to all kinds of emotional problems and suicide, when an alternative exists where this can be avoided so that two gay men or two gay women can raise someone else's child?

You can use that argument against any injustice-

should the laws discriminating against African Americans not be granted for fear of antagonising the white backlash or the vote granted to women for fear of the male backlash ? The answer is clearly no

And so it is in this case .You are just making an emotional appeal by bringing children into it and at the same time trying to cast it as a selfish choice by gay people .

The only way to get society to accept changes is to make changes, not to delay it . It worked in the case of civil rights and female suffrage and it will work in this case .

Your attitude reminds me of the Catholic Church's attitude for most of the life of this state - better let all those kids go un adopted rather than be taken by childless Protestant couples and we all know how that worked out

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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



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?

what you quoted relates to LGBT children not their parents. Are you suggesting homosexual children shouldn't be available for adoption?

Annasopra

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.

I don't place some sort of false hierarchy of importance on the issues or set one group against another. Again you by creating a false dichotomy of choosing one or another you are trying to implicitly suggest that children are victims of gay people.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't have any "solution". There is no easy answers. The ideal would be that society would accept these children and they would be left alone to get on with their lives. Sadly, we live in the real world and we don't have a utopian magic wand to change this overnight.

Therefore the prudent course of action is once again caution and patience as society naturally progeesses. I sense that isn't good enough for you and the rest of Gay Rights NOW! mob. Your solution appears to me to use the children of today as marthyrs or sacrificed pawns to force gay adoption into a state of normalisation within society. I cannot accept this.

Great. You're now finally agreeing with us all that you are not neutral on this and are biased.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Can you answer my question first? Namely:

How is it better for a vulnerable orphan who has been placed in the care, protection, and security of a gay couple who qualified child welfare experts deem to be suitable to adopt, to only have a legal relationship with one of his/her adopted parents, instead of the two of them? How is that right? How is that moral?

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

Can you answer my question first? Namely:

Sure.

NuMarvel wrote: »

How is it better for a vulnerable orphan who has been placed in the care, protection, and security of a gay couple who qualified child welfare experts deem to be suitable to adopt, to only have a legal relationship with one of his/her adopted parents, instead of the two of them? How is that right? How is that moral?

It's exceptional circumstances, but under these circumstances it is clear that it would be in the child's best interests to be under the legal guardianships of both of these people.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I don't place some sort of false hierarchy of importance on the issues or set one group against another. Again you by creating a false dichotomy of choosing one or another you are trying to implicitly suggest that children are victims of gay people.

If that is the case then when you sit down and watch the news and first item shows African refugees starving to death and the next item is an interview with millionaire who lost a slice of his personal fortune on Madoff's Ponzi schemes and has had to sell his private jet to offset the loss you feel an equal amount of sympathy for both. You ... "don't place some sort of false hierarchy of importance on the issues or set one group against another".

This is utterly ridiculous. If you care more about gay rights than the lives of orphans why are you so ashamed to admit it?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

what you quoted relates to LGBT children not their parents.

Yes, and as I've showm 1 in 3 of Canadian children of gay parents suffer homophobic bullying.

SW wrote: »

Are you suggesting homosexual children shouldn't be available for adoption?

Of course not.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If that is the case then when you sit down and watch the news and first item shows African refugees starving to death and the next item is an interview with millionaire who lost a slice of his personal fortune on Madoff's Ponzi schemes and has had to sell his private jet to offset the loss you feel an equal amount of sympathy for both. You ... "don't place some sort of false hierarchy of importance on the issues or set one group against another".

This is utterly ridiculous. If you care more about gay rights than the lives of orphans why are you so ashamed to admit it?

An invalid comparison and back to the false dichotomy again....

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, and as I've showm 1 in 3 of Canadian children of gay parents suffer homophobic bullying.

And the correct thing to do is to make it unacceptable to bully people because of their parents sexuality/skin colour/religion etc. You don't bar the victimised group from adopting. That's giving the bullies exactly what they want.

Heck, even your language with regards to "innocent children" being adopted by same-sex couples is part of that mindset (singling out same-sex parented families). Albeit not as out in the open compared to those that physically beat a child of a same-sex couple, but it's still insidious.

Of course not.

Even though they will inevitably suffer from bullying (your claim btw)?

aloyisious

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.

I edited my post about 6 minutes (to include questions about the Canadian report you referred to) after your reply, so you missed my add-on. I asked if the report gave definitions as to whom was doing the bullying, it's location and if it got it's bullying data from the kids at school or in a nationwide home poll. Can you put up the Canadian report's address so I can look at it?

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

You can use that argument against any injustice-

This is simply not true.

marienbad wrote: »

should the laws discriminating against African Americans not be granted for fear of antagonising the white backlash or the vote granted to women for fear of the male backlash ? The answer is clearly no

Yes, it is. However, there is no innocent third party involved here to also take into consideration..

marienbad wrote: »

And so it is in this case .You are just making an emotional appeal by bringing children into it and at the same time trying to cast it as a selfish choice by gay people .

How can you say this???

I am not "bringing children into" adoption. There is no adoption without the children.

marienbad wrote: »

The only way to get society to accept changes is to make changes, not to delay it . It worked in the case of civil rights and female suffrage and it will work in this case .

You honestly think that there is no racism in America? How many white people live in Harlem?

It's easy for you to say "make changes". It won't be your blood spilled, you won't be the sacrificial pawn.

marienbad wrote: »

Your attitude reminds me of the Catholic Church's attitude for most of the life of this state - better let all those kids go un adopted rather than be taken by childless Protestant couples and we all know how that worked out

Not once/ave I said let any children go "unadopted". Gay/Single/Old/Poor/Handicapped/take-your-pick people could all make perfectly good adoptive parents and provide perfectly good homes to the best of their abilities. They could provide better environments for children in care and better environments than a great number of current biological parents who are straight and married. I have never disputed this. What I am saying is that orphaned children should be placed in the best possible homes.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

It's easy for you to say "make changes". It won't be your blood spilled, you won't be the sacrificial pawn.


.........

Good to see you've stopped the emotive language.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am saying is that orphaned children should be placed in the best possible homes.

Which, according to the best research, includes gay couples. And makes no mention of Liam Neeson or Bruce Willis.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am saying is that orphaned children should be placed in the best possible homes.

Says the person "urging caution" about letting same-sex couples adopt because of the potential for homophobic bullying (a concern that doesn't extend to homosexual adoptive children for some reason).

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

under these circumstances it is clear that it would be in the child's best interests to be under the legal guardianships of both of these people.

Wonderful! Then you presumably don't oppose the provisions in the upcoming Child & Family Relationships Bill that will grant joint guardianship to gay couples in those circumstances.

I'm glad we can draw a line under the issue of adoption. The discussion about whether gay people should be eligible to adopt in the first place is moot because they already are. The only outstanding issue is around allowing gay people the means to adopt jointly, and we all agree that such joint adoptions should be permitted.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is simply not true.


Yes, it is. However, there is no innocent third party involved here to also take into consideration..


How can you say this???

I am not "bringing children into" adoption. There is no adoption without the children.



You honestly think that there is no racism in America? How many white people live in Harlem?

It's easy for you to say "make changes". It won't be your blood spilled, you won't be the sacrificial pawn.


Not once/ave I said let any children go "unadopted". Gay/Single/Old/Poor/Handicapped/take-your-pick people could all make perfectly good adoptive parents and provide perfectly good homes to the best of their abilities. They could provide better environments for children in care and better environments than a great number of current biological parents who are straight and married. I have never disputed this. What I am saying is that orphaned children should be placed in the best possible homes.

So when the waffle is stripped out you are saying anyone but gay people ?

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

I edited my post about 6 minutes (to include questions about the Canadian report you referred to) after your reply, so you missed my add-on. I asked if the report gave definitions as to whom was doing the bullying, it's location and if it got it's bullying data from the kids at school or in a nationwide home poll. Can you put up the Canadian report's address so I can look at it?

I couldn't locate the post again but here is the report.
http://www.bullyfreealberta.ca/homop...bullying.htm#4

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

what you quoted relates to LGBT children not their parents. Are you suggesting homosexual children shouldn't be available for adoption?

SW wrote: »

And the correct thing to do is to make it unacceptable to bully people because of their parents sexuality/skin colour/religion etc. You don't bar the victimised group from adopting. That's giving the bullies exactly what they want.

Heck, even your language with regards to "innocent children" being adopted by same-sex couples is part of that mindset (singling out same-sex parented families). Albeit not as out in the open compared to those that physically beat a child of a same-sex couple, but it's still insidious.

Even though they will inevitably suffer from bullying (your claim btw)?

Please get your facts straight before making such ugly accusations. The survey also refers to children of gay parents being targetted for homophobic bullying, because of their parents.

Also, let me know when you've cured bullying.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

So when the waffle is stripped out you are saying anyone but gay people ?

No, I am rejecting your "solution" of using children as cannon fodder to advance the general's personal political agenda while they sip scotch sitting in their leather armchairs.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please get your facts straight before making such ugly accusations. The survey also refers to children of gay parents being targetted for homophobic bullying, because of their parents.

That's exactly what I mentioned in post you quoted. It's not an ugly accusation as you aren't "urging caution" with regard to homosexual adoptive children.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, I am rejecting your "solution" of using children as cannon fodder to advance the general's personal political agenda while they sip scotch sitting in their leather armchairs.

Kinda hard to strip the waffle out of that post.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

That's exactly what I mentioned in post you quoted. It's not an ugly accusation as you aren't "urging caution" with regard to homosexual adoptive children.

Right, if I am such a homophobe for putting the children first at what point do you start putting the children first?

How many dead children from suicide because of homophobic bullyying -because of their gay parents - is too many for you?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, I am rejecting your "solution" of using children as cannon fodder to advance the general's personal political agenda while they sip scotch sitting in their leather armchairs.

That makes no sense. You're not saying to bar same-sex couples but you refer to children as cannon fodder with regards to the topic? That's reading that you are in fact leaning towards barring same-sex couples adopting.

It's either a poor choice of phrasing on your behalf or you're not being entirely honest in this discussion.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, if I am such a homophobe for putting the children first at what point do you start putting the children first?

How many dead children from suicide because of homophobic bullyying -because of their gay parents - is too many for you?

Let's not pretend you're putting children anywhere - you're so desperate for any angle into your little culture war, that you've chosen to ignore all the evidence that demonstrates kiddies are not being put at any additional risk within adoptive same sex couples. You're entirely dishonest, and opaquely so. Again - I'd suggest you have a nice hot cup of STFU until you've made yourself familiar with the peer-reviewed research.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

That's exactly what I mentioned in post you quoted. It's not an ugly accusation as you aren't "urging caution" with regard to homosexual adoptive children.

How can you not understand this?

A child who is gay is already in the high-risk category for homophobic bullying.
A child who isn't gay is not in this high-risk category.
This same child enters into this high-risk category if he is placed with gay parents.
He stays outside this category if he isn't placed with gay parents. Therefore the his potential trauma is considerably minimised if he isn't placed with gay parents.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, if I am such a homophobe for putting the children first at what point do you start putting the children first?

where did I say you were a homophobe?

I want children to have best home possible. I don't want to to be subject to the potential for racism/homophobia/<insert other arbitrary bully reasons here>. You're the one that is making the childs best interests conditional on hypothetical bullying.

How many dead children from suicide because of homophobic bullyying -because of their gay parents - is too many for you?

Wow. You're actually are suggesting that X number of suicides are acceptable? :eek:

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How can you not understand this?

A child who is gay is already in the high-risk category for homophobic bullying.
A child who isn't gay is not in this high-risk category.
This same child enters into this high-risk category if he is placed with gay parents.
He stays outside this category if he isn't placed with gay parents. Therefore the his potential trauma is considerably minimised if he isn't placed with gay parents.

Moronic, paradoxical argument, since you're so concerned about the children.

Legalising same sex adoption normalises it more and more until it's not a big deal anymore. So when it's not a big deal and gay parents are not seen as something taboo or very unusual, there'll be very little fodder for singling out children of gay couples.

So by you not allowing same-sex adoption you're not letting the idea of it become commonplace in society so it can be normalised and seen as nothing unusual or out of the ordinary.

You're the very cause of your own conundrum. You're a paradox.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How can you not understand this?

A child who is gay is already in the high-risk category for homophobic bullying.
A child who isn't gay is not in this high-risk category.
This same child enters into this high-risk category if he is placed with gay parents.
He stays outside this category if he isn't placed with gay parents. Therefore the his potential trauma is considerably minimised if he isn't placed with gay parents.

You make it sound like homophobic bullying is a fact of life and has to be worked around:( What needs to be done is tackle the bullies and for people to say it's not acceptable. Much better than suggesting discriminating against homosexual couples and adoptive children, i.e. the people who aren't the villian(s) in this scenario.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

That makes no sense. You're not saying to bar same-sex couples but you refer to children as cannon fodder with regards to the topic? That's reading that you are in fact leaning towards barring same-sex couples adopting.

It's either a poor choice of phrasing on your behalf or you're not being entirely honest in this discussion.

Cannon Fodder,

Cannon fodder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder‎
Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for combatants who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire.

Is a perfectly apt description for how it is being advocated here that we use the orphans of today to advance personal, political goals.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Cannon Fodder,



Is a perfectly apt description for how it is being advocated here that we use the orphans of today to advance personal, political goals.

Says the man afraid to read the actual scientific data on the subject. You were saying about personal, political goals?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

You make it sound like homophobic bullying is a fact of life and has to be worked around:( What needs to be done is tackle the bullies and for people to say it's not acceptable. Much better than suggesting discriminating against homosexual couples and adoptive children, i.e. the people who aren't the villian(s) in this scenario.

Can you name a single period in history from any culture where bullying doesn't exist? Do you really think somebody saying "this is not acceptable" and wagging their finger is actually going to change anything?

What you are saying is right in theory but I prefer to base my decisions on reality.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Says the man afraid to read the actual scientific data on the subject. You were saying about personal, political goals?

I've already told you I have read various papers on this now. None of them were long-term studies, with a large representative sample and used a control group. The last one I read showed that children of married and straight couples do best in school.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What you are saying is right in theory but I prefer to base my decisions on reality.

This is the 'reality' that focuses on Liam Neeson fantasies at the expense of actual scientific evidence?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already told you I have read various papers on this now. None of them were long-term studies, with a large representative sample and used a control group. The last one I read showed that children of married and straight couples do best in school.

You've managed to roll out a series of lame excuses for an inability to read the research, which runs counter to your supposed concern for the poor orphan babbies, and the awful gay agenda they're being subjected to. Didn't wash then, doesn't wash now.

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Moronic, paradoxical argument, since you're so concerned about the children.

Legalising same sex adoption normalises it more and more until it's not a big deal anymore. So when it's not a big deal and gay parents are not seen as something taboo or very unusual, there'll be very little fodder for singling out children of gay couples.

So by you not allowing same-sex adoption you're not letting the idea of it become commonplace in society so it can be normalised and seen as nothing unusual or out of the ordinary.

You're the very cause of your own conundrum. You're a paradox.

1. Hasn't homosexuality been normalised? Can you explain why homophobic bullying persists?
2. What would be your message to the children who are the victims of homophobic bullying, something which could have been avoided for them, until this normalisation occurs?

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. Hasn't homosexuality been normalised? Can you explain why homophobic bullying persists?
2. What would be your message to the children who are the victims of homophobic bullying, something which could have been avoided for them, until this normalisation occurs?

1. It's getting better and better because the stigma is being eroded all the time.

2. It would be the same for all children who get bullied. Your argument is to submit to bullying and let them win. Bullying should be tackled hard and parents should do their jobs and not teach their kids to be intolerant little shíts, the same way they'd be taught not to be racist.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, I am rejecting your "solution" of using children as cannon fodder to advance the general's personal political agenda while they sip scotch sitting in their leather armchairs.

This is a nonsensical response.

If children are being bullied in school for ANY reason then lets solve the bullying problem .

You don't tell red haired kids go change colour because other kids don't like 'gingers' ,
You don't send kids to elocution because others don't like the 'culchie' accents ,
You don't tell kids to change parents because other kids don't like 'tinkers'


Following your logic we should ban any non white, non catholic immigrants for fear they might be bullied or endure racist taunts .

You fix the actual problem and not the imagined one . And if the imagined one does come to pass then you fix that one too. It is called progress

alastair

A sociologist's response to the Canadian education study: http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-douglas-allen-study-of-canadian-children-of-gaylesbian-parents-is-worthless/

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

This is a nonsensical response.

If children are being bullied in school for ANY reason then lets solve the bullying problem .

And since you've found this genie in the bottle can you wish for world peace with your second wish?

There is a quote from an article on the failure on bussing that applies here:

And so, sixty years after Brown, it is clear that the notion of segregation as a discrete phenomenon, an evil that could be flipped, like a switch, from on to off, by judicial edict, was deeply naïve.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And since you've found this genie in the bottle can you wish for world peace with your second wish?

There is a quote from an article on the failure on bussing that applies here:

Are you interested in a serious discussion is it just going to be rent-a-quote for the night ?


I take it you are not in favour of reversing the civil rights legislation ?

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If that is the case then when you sit down and watch the news and first item shows African refugees starving to death and the next item is an interview with millionaire who lost a slice of his personal fortune on Madoff's Ponzi schemes and has had to sell his private jet to offset the loss you feel an equal amount of sympathy for both. You ... "don't place some sort of false hierarchy of importance on the issues or set one group against another".

This is utterly ridiculous. If you care more about gay rights than the lives of orphans why are you so ashamed to admit it?

Please quit telling me what I think.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, I am rejecting your "solution" of using children as cannon fodder to advance the general's personal political agenda while they sip scotch sitting in their leather armchairs.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, if I am such a homophobe for putting the children first at what point do you start putting the children first?

How many dead children from suicide because of homophobic bullyying -because of their gay parents - is too many for you?

And yet again we see even more use of hysterically emotive language to suggest that adopted children of gay couples are victims because their parents are gay. Your earlier claims of neutrality on this are complete fiction.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I prefer to base my decisions on reality.

and yet you ignore the reality of dozens and dozens of peer reviewed research papers on LGBT people parenting because it doesnt suit your so called reality.