Full rights for the LGBT community.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The people who are creating the victims out of the children (aside from the actual bullies) are the people who will be putting them in harms way, the people who don't actually care about them This will be real life fresh and blood children not hypothetical ones.

Explicit in this is a clear statement that Gay people who adopt children DO NOT have any regard for the care and welfare of the child in question. Explicit in this is a clear statement that Gay people DO NOT see children as flesh and blood human beings the same as themselves.

A corollary to this is that gay people see children as something of little or no value. Implicit in this statement is an opinion that gay people are at least as dangerous to children as bullies. Another corollary is that the authorities who permit adoption of children by gay people are also guilty of victimization of the children.

It seem's to me that by NOT allowing gay people to adopt children who are already victims by mischance in society, one is denying the child a home and a caring parent, purely on the grounds that children might be further victimized by bullies as a result of the adoption. This is a throwing-in of the towel by society to bullies, giving them success in their abuse of children. If anyone think's that by disallowing a gay person the right to adopt, the bully will stop bullying the child, nothing could be farther from the truth. There is the chance that as the child is already within range of the bully, it will be taken by the bully that his/her way is OK and incentivize his/her activities. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

May I ask why ? As you pointed out yourself mixed race kids are the most bullied .

You really aren't understanding me at all.

If a child has parents then it is for the parent(s) to decide what is best for their own child, within the law.

If a child doesn't have parents then the state has the responsibility to provide the best possible care for this child and make decisions that are in the best interests of the child

Brown Bomber

retrogamefan wrote: »

No I was raised as a child by my grandad and nanny. Neither of them gay. My mother and father weren't either, I was raised not to be ignorant. And to accept everyone, regardless of gender, colour, or sexual preference.

So you weren't ever bullied for having gay parents then?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You really aren't understanding me at all.

If a child has parents then it is for the parent(s) to decide what is best for their own child, within the law.

If a child doesn't have parents then the state has the responsibility to provide the best possible care for this child and make decisions that are in the best interests of the child

Does this mean, in your opinion, that mixed race couples should be viewed as less preferable to same-sex couples (who are subsequently less preferable to heterosexual couples of the same race)?

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Bullying does matter and needs to be challenged and should not be accepted.

On the other hand to suggest that we should not allow gay people to adopt on the basis the child might be bullied is actually another form of accepting the bullying.

I don't accept bullying, I accept reality. "Challenged", "not be accepted" these are just meaningless, wishy-washy words that are of no help to the gay teenagers sitting at home now cutting themselves, dreading going into school tomorrow.

It's already been said here that society's tolerance towards homosexuals and homosexuality is moving in the right direction and is continuing on this upward spiral. Is this something you agree with? If so, what is the rush? If life will be easier for these kids in 5, 10 or 20 years why not wait for their sake?

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't accept bullying, I accept reality. "Challenged", "not be accepted" these are just meaningless, wishy-washy words that are of no help to the gay teenagers sitting at home now cutting themselves, dreading going into school tomorrow.

But your support for discrimination against gay couples will help them, how?

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

But your support for discrimination against gay couples will help them, how?

My opinion doesn't change anything or help anyone, it is just my opinion.

What I am saying if put into practice would reduce the number of children placed into the high-risk category for homophobic bullying. This would help every individual child who is tormented, tortured and living in fear on a daily basis who didn't have to be placed in this high-risk category.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Does this mean, in your opinion, that mixed race couples should be viewed as less preferable to same-sex couples (who are subsequently less preferable to heterosexual couples of the same race)?

In my opinion, the child should be placed in the best available home with the best available family who can give them the best possible life. This process shouldn't be based on a first come first served basis or be concerned with filling quotas. There are a multitude of variables to be considered before making the decision. Race and gender are only two.

If family A (straight) and family B (gay) are equal in every way but the child is considerably more likely to be bullied and suffer all the trauma that goes with this with family B then Family A should should be selected every time for the sake of the child.

Or do you disagree?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In my opinion, the child should be placed in the best available home with the best available family who can give them the best possible life. This process shouldn't be based on a first come first served basis or be concerned with filling quotas. There are a multitude of variables to be considered before making the decision. Race and gender are only two.

If family A (straight) and family B (gay) are equal in every way but the child is considerably more likely to be bullied and suffer all the trauma that goes with this with family B then Family A should should be selected every time for the sake of the child.

Or do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. I don't think a mixed race or same-sex couple should be discriminated against for the possibility of bullying happening to the child. Bullying can also happen to the child in a heterosexual same-race couple.

You're not choosing the best home for the child, as you've stated both families are equal in all ways. You're punishing mixed race and same-sex couples because their adoptive child might be bullied. Every child can be potentially bullied for any number of reasons.

All couples should judged on merit and not subject to discrimination along religious/racial/sex etc. groupings.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If family A (straight) and family B (gay) are equal in every way...

When have you ever encountered two families who were equal in every way?

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Firstly you ask me to give you a summary of some arguments on this thread. Then you write your own "summary" which is completely twisted beyond rubix cube proportions.

That little

... Which I am still waiting for...

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Paragraph up there is quite hilarious.

1 It completely misrepresents what was said
2 It completely ignores what was said

You really have no argument to stand over in this thread at all.
Every single argument you have made in this thread has been thoroughly debunked and a valid and reasonable counter argument has been given.

It's quite incredible you can say these things when you know them not to be true. Here are two posts, WHICH YOU THANKED, which show I am not misrepresenting or ignoring anything. Let's not forget you have ignored about twenty straight questions.

• 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.
• 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 .

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My opinion doesn't change anything or help anyone, it is just my opinion.

Yeah. I think everyone is clear on the merits of your opinion. Luckily legislation is built on more solid grounds - like the research you're afraid to read.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In my opinion, the child should be placed in the best available home with the best available family who can give them the best possible life. This process shouldn't be based on a first come first served basis or be concerned with filling quotas. There are a multitude of variables to be considered before making the decision.

Wow, the red herring parade has hit town. Kids are placed with the best choices, and some of those best choices happen to be same-sex couples - unless there's a discriminatory law getting in the way.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Yes, I disagree. I don't think a mixed race or same-sex couple should be discriminated against for the possibility of bullying happening to the child. Bullying can also happen to the child in a heterosexual same-race couple.

You're not choosing the best home for the child, as you've stated both families are equal in all ways. You're punishing mixed race and same-sex couples because their adoptive child might be bullied. Every child can be potentially bullied for any number of reasons.

All couples should judged on merit and not subject to discrimination along religious/racial/sex etc. groupings.

Whether you admit it or not this is an open declaration the your sympathies lies first with adults and last with the children.

Also, you are twisting things. The problem is not that they "might" be bullied it is that you needlessly putting them into a much higher risk category. Evidently this is not a problem for you but it will be for every individual child who has to suffer this, possibly to suicide.

I am not saying it is just to judge potential adoptive parents on factors that are outside their control but it also unjust to ignore them for the sake of the child.

The child's welfare comes first every time.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Yeah. I think everyone is clear on the merits of your opinion. Luckily legislation is built on more solid grounds - like the research you're afraid to read.

How can I read something which you refuse to link to???
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90226718&postcount=991

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In my opinion, the child should be placed in the best available home with the best available family who can give them the best possible life. This process shouldn't be based on a first come first served basis or be concerned with filling quotas. There are a multitude of variables to be considered before making the decision. Race and gender are only two.

If family A (straight) and family B (gay) are equal in every way but the child is considerably more likely to be bullied and suffer all the trauma that goes with this with family B then Family A should should be selected every time for the sake of the child.

Or do you disagree?

So to prevent gay adoption all people have to do is keep up discrimination against the children. Good thing you weren't around during desegregation.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

Explicit in this is a clear statement that Gay people who adopt children DO NOT have any regard for the care and welfare of the child in question. Explicit in this is a clear statement that Gay people DO NOT see children as flesh and blood human beings the same as themselves.

A corollary to this is that gay people see children as something of little or no value. Implicit in this statement is an opinion that gay people are at least as dangerous to children as bullies. Another corollary is that the authorities who permit adoption of children by gay people are also guilty of victimization of the children.

It seem's to me that by NOT allowing gay people to adopt children who are already victims by mischance in society, one is denying the child a home and a caring parent, purely on the grounds that children might be further victimized by bullies as a result of the adoption. This is a throwing-in of the towel by society to bullies, giving them success in their abuse of children. If anyone think's that by disallowing a gay person the right to adopt, the bully will stop bullying the child, nothing could be farther from the truth. There is the chance that as the child is already within range of the bully, it will be taken by the bully that his/her way is OK and incentivize his/her activities. Two wrongs do not make a right.

On reflection, I regret my phrasing in the post you've quoted. It doesn't accurately reflect my true feelings and I genuinely apologise if I have caused any offense.

"Joeytheparrot" has been persistently objecting to any language at all that humanised the orphan, anything that spoke in terms of their natural innocence and vulnerability of the child and it both sickened me and aggravated me and I over-reacted and said what I didn't really mean. So again, sorry.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On reflection, I regret my phrasing in the post you've quoted. It doesn't accurately reflect my true feelings and I genuinely apologise if I have caused any offense.

"Joeytheparrot" has been persistently objecting to any language at all that humanised the orphan, anything that spoke in terms of their natural innocence and vulnerability of the child and it both sickened me and aggravated me and I over-reacted and said what I didn't really mean. So again, sorry.

No. he's been objecting to your rather vile use of emotive language to portray children as potential victims.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

No. he's been objecting to your rather vile use of emotive language to portray children as potential victims.

Really? Can you explain to me then how calling an orphan an "orphan" is "a rather vile use of emotive language to portray children as potential victims"?

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Can you explain to me then how calling an orphan an "orphan" is "a rather vile use of emotive language to portray children as potential victims"?

It's more the repeated use of "innocent", which is completely redundant, and whose use can legitimately be seen as introducing an implicit contrast with the other parties in question, namely the putative adoptive parents.

You may not have meant it in such an insidious way, but it's hard to see another reason for the over-use of such a redundant adjective.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whether you admit it or not this is an open declaration the your sympathies lies first with adults and last with the children.

Wrong. Repeatedly stated "best home for the child". You want to only allow for the best home for the child only if racism/homophobia isn't a potential reason for bullying.

Also, you are twisting things. The problem is not that they "might" be bullied it is that you needlessly putting them into a much higher risk category. Evidently this is not a problem for you but it will be for every individual child who has to suffer this, possibly to suicide.

This is why it's important to have legal, familial and social opposition to homophobia. Sweeping the problem under the rug by discriminating against same-sex or mixed race couples is not the way to go.

It is a problem for me, but I put the blame squarely on the bullies rather than on prospective adoptive parents/children. To shape reality families bullies have a problem with are reduced is to take a seat at their table.

I am not saying it is just to judge potential adoptive parents on factors that are outside their control but it also unjust to ignore them for the sake of the child.

Actually you are saying that adoptive parents should be judged based on factors outside of their control. No one is ignoring that homophobia exists, just that not everyone agrees to judging the adoptive parents in the manner you suggest.

The child's welfare comes first every time.

Agreed. The problem is that we both have a difference of opinion as to what the best interests of the child are.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's more the repeated use of "innocent", which is completely redundant, and whose use can legitimately be seen as introducing an implicit contrast with the other parties in question, namely the putative adoptive parents.

You may not have meant it in such an insidious way, but it's hard to see another reason for the over-use of such a redundant adjective.

Joey described the use of "orphan" to describe an actual orphan as "propgandising language". I remember it clearly because it was so ridiculous and when challenged refused to expand upon it.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You really aren't understanding me at all.

If a child has parents then it is for the parent(s) to decide what is best for their own child, within the law.

If a child doesn't have parents then the state has the responsibility to provide the best possible care for this child and make decisions that are in the best interests of the child

I understand you fully Brown Bomber .

And no one could disagree with your second sentence. So lets follow through on that sentence shall we- Gays parents should not be permitted to adopt as the risk of the child being bullied is too great , Is that a fair summation ?

Now in the same vein I presume you would also disallow mixed race parents to adopt as you yourself have pointed out their kids are at the most risk of being bullied .

Would that be correct ?

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

the child should be placed in the best available home with the best available family who can give them the best possible life. This process shouldn't be based on a first come first served basis or be concerned with filling quotas. There are a multitude of variables to be considered before making the decision.

That's how the adoption system works at present. But it seems you don't realise that it is still possible for gay couples, or couples of any other minority, to adopt within a system like that.

The adoption process is intensive. There is a raft of assessments, interviews, and checks. It is in-depth and rigorous, with the process being carried out by social workers qualified in child welfare. The recommendations of those social workers are evaluated by more senior social workers, and double checked by the Adoption Authority. And that's just to be deemed suitable to adopt. Actually adopting a child can take years of waiting (during which time applicants must renew their certificate of suitability), and won't happen until the agency and the birth mother are satisfied with the couple, within the terms of the Adoption Act, AND the Adoption Authority are satisfied that everything has been done correctly. And the adopting parents are still subject to a number of post adoption visits and checks before everything is finalised.

That process seems pretty robust to me. It's child centered, carried out by people qualified in child welfare, who have professional responsibilities to keep up to date on relevant research and publications, and is overseen by an independent authority publicly mandated to have the child's bests interests at heart. When a couple manages to successfully complete that process, with all the checks and balances therein, I see no reason why they then have the additional burden of passing the "Brown Bomber Test".

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Can you explain to me then how calling an orphan an "orphan" is "a rather vile use of emotive language to portray children as potential victims"?

Narrowing the goal posts now, are we? This is what I commented on.

Brown Bomber wrote:

"Joeytheparrot" has been persistently objecting to any language at all that
humanised the orphan, anything that spoke in terms of their natural innocence and vulnerability of the child and it both sickened me and aggravated me and I over-reacted and said what I didn't really mean. So again, sorry.

And indeed the phrasing of the above is more of the same shlock.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

I understand you fully Brown Bomber .

And no one could disagree with your second sentence. So lets follow through on that sentence shall we- Gays parents should not be permitted to adopt as the risk of the child being bullied is too great , Is that a fair summation ?

Actually it's not.

The current reality is that placing children with gay parents seriously increases the chances of the child suffering homophobic bullying (assuming the child isn't gay him/herself).

There is no disputing that this will impact negatively on the welfare of the child. This is not the only factor which will effect the welfare of the child, it is just one of numerous variables, but it is one that makes straight couples distinct from gay couples wishing to adopt.

Because of this the gay couple needs to compensate in other ways versus their rivals to be able to provide the best possible life and home for the orphan.

marienbad wrote: »

Now in the same vein I presume you would also disallow mixed race parents to adopt as you yourself have pointed out their kids are at the most risk of being bullied .

Would that be correct ?

Again, no.

Mixed-race children aren't bullied because of their parents, they are singled out because they are mixed race.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mixed-race children aren't bullied because of their parents, they are singled out because they are mixed race.

Hang on - didn't you say your other half was bullied because of being a different race from her parents? Are you now saying that, being mixed-race, she would have been bullied no matter who her parents were?

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on - didn't you say your other half was bullied because of being a different race from her parents? Are you now saying that, being mixed-race, she would have been bullied no matter who her parents were?

For a number of reasons - adopted, mixed race and being a different race to her parents.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am genuinely sorry you face and have faced discrimination throughout your life but I can assure you it would never have been from me.

I'm in favour of ending legal discrimination against gays, but I am not gay myself.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually it's not.

The current reality is that placing children with gay parents seriously increases the chances of the child suffering homophobic bullying (assuming the child isn't gay him/herself).

There is no disputing that this will impact negatively on the welfare of the child. This is not the only factor which will effect the welfare of the child, it is just one of numerous variables, but it is one that makes straight couples distinct from gay couples wishing to adopt.

Because of this the gay couple needs to compensate in other ways versus their rivals to be able to provide the best possible life and home for the orphan.


Again, no.

Mixed-race children aren't bullied because of their parents, they are singled out because they are mixed race.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear , I am talking about a Caucasian child being adopted by mixed race couples .

Would you forbid that as the risk of bullying is so high ?

Snake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you weren't ever bullied for having gay parents then?

No, I was however bullied because I didn't live with my parents

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For a number of reasons - adopted, mixed race and being a different race to her parents.

Well clearly no kids should be adopted by anyone then, given the risk of bullying of adopted kids. Think of the children!

sin_city

2 gay parents is a lot better than a single parent family in my opinion.

My brother is gay and my dad was from a single parent family.

Why aren't people kicking up a fuss about single parent families where the child is deprived of the same financial opportunities as a child with 2 parents.

For the record I don't believe the state has any business in marriage at all.

You can't expect the Catholic church to allow gay people to get married under their way of thinking.

If any other church would marry gays they should go there in my opinion as the Catholic church clearly does not want them part of their group.

Nodin

sin_city wrote: »

2 gay parents is a lot better than a single parent family in my opinion.

My brother is gay and my dad was from a single parent family.

Why aren't people kicking up a fuss about single parent families where the child is deprived of the same financial opportunities as a child with 2 parents.

For the record I don't believe the state has any business in marriage at all.

You can't expect the Catholic church to allow gay people to get married under their way of thinking.

If any other church would marry gays they should go there in my opinion as the Catholic church clearly does not want them part of their group.

Nobody is suggesting that the catholic church be forced to marry gay people.

sin_city

Nodin wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that the catholic church be forced to marry gay people.

That’s right…Nobody is suggesting that …and even if someone were suggesting that the Catholic Church cannot be forced to marry homosexuals.

So basically the equal rights thing is about being allowed to be part of the same contract that married people have with the state.
Can someone please let me know of the financial benefits to the marriage contract over not being involved in this contract with the state?

alastair

sin_city wrote: »

That’s right…Nobody is suggesting that …and even if someone were suggesting that the Catholic Church cannot be forced to marry homosexuals.

So basically the equal rights thing is about being allowed to be part of the same contract that married people have with the state.
Can someone please let me know of the financial benefits to the marriage contract over not being involved in this contract with the state?

This has nothing to do with the financial benefits of marriage. There are some, but they're irrelevant to this matter. Adoption is currently not available to one specific sector of society - same-sex partners (be they a civil partnership, married, or none of the above). That's all that's in dispute.

sin_city

alastair wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the financial benefits of marriage. There are some, but they're irrelevant to this matter. Adoption is currently not available to one specific sector of society - same-sex partners (be they a civil partnership, married, or none of the above). That's all that's in dispute.

So if this was granted to homosexuals then would most be satisfied?

I would strongly support this...I don't like the idea of the state being involved in a marriage contract but to block people from doing something that will not hurt anyone is pretty typical.

The type of people that go into politics want to control everything...Why can't they just leave everyone alone.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Wrong. Repeatedly stated "best home for the child". You want to only allow for the best home for the child only if racism/homophobia isn't a potential reason for bullying.

Yeah, but with you it's "the best home for the child" after we completely disregard placing them into the high-risk category for bullying. It's like the US Government bombing Iraqis in their homes and saying their first concern is the protection of civilians and they regret any "collateral damage".

SW wrote: »

This is why it's important to have legal, familial and social opposition to homophobia. Sweeping the problem under the rug by discriminating against same-sex or mixed race couples is not the way to go.

It is a problem for me, but I put the blame squarely on the bullies rather than on prospective adoptive parents/children. To shape reality families bullies have a problem with are reduced is to take a seat at their table.

Bullying and social hierarchy among packs is more common in nature than homosexuality itself. I believe it is naive in the extreme to think you can find a "cure". However, lets assume you are correct and bullying can be cured in the ways you describe. Isn't it better for the orphan, and lets not forget - they are supposedly your first concern, to wait until this "cure" has happened? I assume you don't think these sweeping societal changes are possible overnight?

SW wrote: »

Actually you are saying that adoptive parents should be judged based on factors outside of their control. No one is ignoring that homophobia exists, just that not everyone agrees to judging the adoptive parents in the manner you suggest.

I am not judging the parents, I am judging the situation, the reality.

SW wrote: »

Agreed. The problem is that we both have a difference of opinion as to what the best interests of the child are.

Yes, but you think putting the child unneccesarily into a situation where they are placed into a high-risk category for homophobic bullying is somewhow in their "best interests".


Coult you explain how?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's like the US Government bombing Iraqis in their homes and saying their first concern is the protection of civilians and they regret any "collateral damage".

That's exactly what it's like!

Oh wait...

No it isn't. Because the peer-reviewed research makes quite clear that same-sex adopters pose no additional concerns over hetero adopters. This is just your little culture-war talking point that no-one's buying.

Carry on.

Corkfeen

alastair wrote: »

That's exactly what it's like!

Oh wait...

No it isn't. Because the peer-reviewed research makes quite clear that same-sex adopters pose no additional concerns over hetero adopters. This is just your little culture-war talking point that no-one's buying.

Carry on.

And BB still seems to be ignoring that you'd have to start cutting out tonnes of potential adoptive parents because there may be an increased risk of bullying because of the attributes of parents. Prominent facial scarring, a disability, obese but not morbidly obese(even though bb discounts the former),nationality and religious denomination are all factors that could easily lead to being bullied. The list is actually fairly endless.

For example,my parents were older than the average parents. It could easily have led to bullying but it did not. On the other hand, I had a prominent stutter in my younger years and bad skin during my teenage years. Both led to bullying. What leads to bullying is fairly random and unpredictable. My parents gave me the option of leaving my secondary school because of the awful time I had there. But to be rather blunt, I had no intention of allowing bullies to dictate my life. What they were doing was wrong, I recognised this and you BB,are literally blaming the victim's side.

dalta5billion

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The current reality is that placing children with gay parents seriously increases the chances of the child suffering homophobic bullying (assuming the child isn't gay him/herself).

There is no disputing that this will impact negatively on the welfare of the child. This is not the only factor which will effect the welfare of the child, it is just one of numerous variables, but it is one that makes straight couples distinct from gay couples wishing to adopt.

Because of this the gay couple needs to compensate in other ways versus their rivals to be able to provide the best possible life and home for the orphan.

I think white orphans shouldn't be placed with black couples because they might suffer racist bullying because their parents are black.

Will you just listen to yourself.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, but with you it's "the best home for the child" after we completely disregard placing them into the high-risk category for bullying. It's like the US Government bombing Iraqis in their homes and saying their first concern is the protection of civilians and they regret any "collateral damage".

Wrong. It's the best home for the child,end of. You want the best home to be disregarded because you place the potential for someone to have a problem with the adoptive parents instead of putting the childs best interest first.

Bullying and social hierarchy among packs is more common in nature than homosexuality itself. I believe it is naive in the extreme to think you can find a "cure". However, lets assume you are correct and bullying can be cured in the ways you describe. Isn't it better for the orphan, and lets not forget - they are supposedly your first concern, to wait until this "cure" has happened? I assume you don't think these sweeping societal changes are possible overnight?

So you don't want to allow same-sex couples to adopt for the next 50/100 years because of a homophobic minority? No thanks. I'd rather that people are allowed to adopt and not subject to racial/religious/sexuality discrimination.

No social change ever occurred by just allowing the bigotry to exist unchallenged. People in society need to speak up and demand protection for the vulnerable in society and not exclude them as you suggest.

I am not judging the parents, I am judging the situation, the reality.

Actually you are judging the parents as you have stated as a general rule they should be pushed down/excluded from the list of adoptive parents. If you were judging the situation then you'd see that no bullying has occurred (and may never occur).

Yes, but you think putting the child unneccesarily into a situation where they are placed into a high-risk category for homophobic bullying is somewhow in their "best interests".

Coult you explain how?

Because the childs best interests are what matters. The parents have a responsibility to support the child if they get bullied As does society. It beats the alternative of acceptance of the bullying you are suggesting by catering to the bullies preferred model of society.

Any of the children could be bullied for any number of reasons but you only suggest that same-sex couples be punished as a group. You haven't suggested any racial or religious group be excluded in the same fashion.

Nodin

alastair wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the financial benefits of marriage. There are some, but they're irrelevant to this matter. Adoption is currently not available to one specific sector of society - same-sex partners (be they a civil partnership, married, or none of the above). That's all that's in dispute.

Yes, and gay couples are going to be allowed adopt regardless of whether or not a marriage referendum is passed.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

So you don't want to allow same-sex couples to adopt for the next 50/100 years because of a homophobic minority? No thanks. I'd rather that people are allowed to adopt and not subject to racial/religious/sexuality discrimination.

The fact of the matter is that you'd rather see children suffer homophobic bullying for generations than see gay people fulfill their desire to adopt children. Whether you accept it or not this is an admission. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are lying to me. You strike me as a thoroughly decent and honest person. I think you are lying to yourself.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

That's exactly what it's like!

Oh wait...

No it isn't. Because the peer-reviewed research makes quite clear that same-sex adopters pose no additional concerns over hetero adopters. This is just your little culture-war talking point that no-one's buying.

Carry on.

I've asked you about 5 times already to link to this ellusive peer-reviewed research which shows, as you've claimed that children of gay parents don't get bullied more.


Did you make it up?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've asked you about 5 times already to link to this ellusive peer-reviewed research which shows, as you've claimed that children of gay parents don't get bullied more.


Did you make it up?

So you are still ignoring the research that says theres no different outcome, and are now demanding research on your own little notion instead. More intellectual dishonesty.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that you'd rather see children suffer homophobic bullying for generations than see gay people fulfill their desire to adopt children. Whether you accept it or not this is an admission. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are lying to me. You strike me as a thoroughly decent and honest person. I think you are lying to yourself.

How so? You're suggesting we kick the problem down the street. Let the next generation deal with it. The bigots will just get bored of being bigots.

I wouldn't rather see anyone bullied and I don't appreciate the misrepresentation. I've repeatedly said that the bullies have to be tackled rather than accomdated. Do you not see how you're allowing the bullies to call the shots and adoptive families suffer?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've asked you about 5 times already to link to this ellusive peer-reviewed research which shows, as you've claimed that children of gay parents don't get bullied more.


Did you make it up?

Like I said - I'm not going to play your games - I'm wise to your record.

Read the peer-reviewed research, absorb the findings, and concede you're talking complete nonsense, or continue with your little fantasy that no-one's buying - the choice is yours.

fran17

alastair wrote: »

Like I said - I'm not going to play your games - I'm wise to your record.

Read the peer-reviewed research, absorb the findings, and concede you're talking complete nonsense, or continue with your little fantasy that no-one's buying - the choice is yours.

sounds like a cop out to me

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The current reality is that placing children with gay parents seriously increases the chances of the child suffering homophobic bullying (assuming the child isn't gay him/herself).

Well, no actually. The current reality is that some children with LGBT parents experience homophobic bullying. Some. The majority don't and even those who do are not necessarily negatively impacted. The number of children with LGBT parents who may resort to measures like self-harm is only a percentage of what is already a minority.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no disputing that this will impact negatively on the welfare of the child. This is not the only factor which will effect the welfare of the child, it is just one of numerous variables, but it is one that makes straight couples distinct from gay couples wishing to adopt.

Well, actually there is some dispute to your claim as it happens.

Since LGBT headed households have become more numerous, the advent of homophobic bullying anecdotes has caused researchers to study the matter to see if children, adolescents in particular are affected negatively by homophobic bullying. The evidence published to dates suggests that they are not.
Currently there are three research teams with published peer-reviewed studies of the psychological health of adolescents with LGBT parents.

The first of these is Wainwright in Patterson. Their studies use data taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health conducted by Quality Education Data. The first paper published studies substance abuse, delinquency and victimisation among adolescents raised in lesbian couples compared with heterosexual couples. The second paper studies peer relations in the same groups.
The findings show that:

"Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent–adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type."

"Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported higher quality peer relations and more friends in school and were rated as more central in their friendship networks."

The key findings of Wainwright and Patterson are that the quality of the relationship is what affects the development of adolescents. Children who have good relationships with their parents do well and those with bad relationships report increased social problems.
In particular, since previous research has found that there is a relationship between childhood peer rejection and adolescent delinquency the similar rates of deliquency among adolescents with LGBT and straight parents suggests that childhood peer rejection is not associated with family type.

Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents
With Female Same-Sex Parents

Peer Relations Among Adolescents With Female Same-Sex Parents


The second research team which has studied the psychological well-being of children raised in LGBT households is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study which has been running since 1986. The researchers have published two papers on the topic.

The key findings of the study revealed that 41% of youth with LGBT households had experienced some degree of homophobic bullying. However when the adolescents were surveyed on their happiness and psychological well-being they were consistently positive about their family experiences. The researchers found:

"Results revealed that the 17-year-old adolescents were academically successful in supportive school environments. They had active social networks and close family bonds. Nearly all considered their mothers good
role models. The adolescents rated their overall wellbeing an average
of 8.14 on a 10-point-maximum scale."

Within these papers there were several important findings.
Firstly, like Wainwright and Patterson this study found that the quality of the parent-child relationship was a strong predictor of the overall well-being of the adolescent.
Secondly, the degree to which homophobic bullying impacted those who experienced it was ameliorated by having schools with LGBT inclusive curricula and having LGBT peers.
Thirdly, the higher reported tendency of lesbian mothers to use psychiatric help meant that bullying problems were dealt with preemptively.

Adolescents in Lesbian Families: DSM-Oriented Scale Scores and Stigmatization

Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives


The third research team who have studied the matter is Golombok and Badger.

Again like the previous two studies, these researchers find that family type is not associated with child development but rather the quality of the parent-child relationship.

They find that:

"Regarding the psychological wellbeing of the young adults, those from female-headed households showed lower levels of anxiety, depression, hostility and problematic alcohol use than their counterparts from traditional families, and higher levels of self-esteem, indicating more positive psychological adjustment among young adults who had grown up in solo and lesbian mother homes, with no difference between the two."

Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood


Even as far back as 1995, it had been documented that homophobic bullying did not have long term negative impact on children who grew up in LGBT households. Tasker and Golombok report:

"Young adults from lesbian family backgrounds were no more likely to remember general teasing or bullying by their peers than were those from heterosexual parent homes. Furthermore for those who reported such hostility there was no group difference in the recollected seriousness of the episode."

Adults raised as children in lesbian families


In summary, although some children with LGBT parents experience homophobic bullying most don't. However, even among those that do strong parental relationships, having LGBT peers and inclusive schools negate the impact of any bullying.