Full rights for the LGBT community.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree. However, nobody has the "right" to raise a child, unless it is their own and even then comes with conditions.


Actually it is not all hyperbole. You are advocating normalising gay adoption through gay adoption. There is no gay adoption without the adopted child. Therefore the child becomes a tool in this social engineering project.


And the reason we can't wait until we actually see the results of this "education" before putting these children at avoidable risk is................???

religious and ethnic bullying rate higher in the US study. Should only white Catholics be allowed adopt?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

do explain how you placating the potential bullies puts you on the moral high ground.

Best home for the child shouldn't be denied due to a possibility of bullying. Tackle the bullies rather than punish the child.

There is not any punishment of the child. There is a massive waiting list of suitable families to adopt. There is no requirement as far as numbers are concerned for gay couples to adopt orphans.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is not any punishment of the child. There is a massive waiting list of suitable families to adopt. There is no requirement as far as numbers are concerned for gay couples to adopt orphans.

a same-sex is deemed best for the child but can't adopt under your proposal. That's punishing child in my books.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is not any punishment of the child. There is a massive waiting list of suitable families to adopt. There is no requirement as far as numbers are concerned for gay couples to adopt orphans.

So screw you gays, the bigots win. The best argument for keeping the schools segregated ever made - they needed you back in the 1960's south.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

a same-sex is deemed best for the child but can't adopt under your proposal. That's punishing child in my books.

I haven't said that. I am arguing for the impact of how the world will treat adopted child to be considered as a factor, not the only factor.

With the risk of bullying as a given with the gay parents, can you describe how a good gay couple can be "best" vs a good straight couple?

ezopsae

Great victory for LGBTQXIDA when Austria won the Eurovision.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I haven't said that. I am arguing for the impact of how the world will treat adopted child to be considered as a factor, not the only factor.

With the risk of bullying as a given with the gay parents, can you describe how a good gay couple can be "best" vs a good straight couple?

given the risk of bullying as a given for adoptive children, how can adoption be best for the child?

And that's based on incorrect assumption that 100% of children of same-sex children experience homophobic bullying.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

given the risk of bullying as a given for adoptive children, how can adoption be best for the child?

When deciding what is "best" you need to consider the alternative(s). The alternative to being adopted is foster care or state institutions.

I don't think you or anyone else is arguing that a child is better off in care than with a good adoptive family regardless of sexuality, race etc.

SW wrote: »

And that's based on incorrect assumption that 100% of children of same-sex children experience homophobic bullying.

No, the FACT that 100% of these children are placed into a high-risk category for homophobic bullying - something which is completely avoidable.

jill_valentine

I can't believe you're still trying to lead us down this garden path

Growing up with gay parents has no discernable ill effects on a child. This is a fact.

What you're waffling on about is some kind of unquantifiable potential downside that can't actually be demonstrated to be a greater issue than fat parents or disabled or Catholic ones, as if it's some new problem beamed down to earth for just this occasion.

What you've managed to do is convince yourself that, because the issue of bullying is so negligible in effect in the question of same sex adoption, that nobody cares about the children involved. Of course they do - what you cannot wrap your head around is that, even with the small risk of homophobic bullying, those same sex parent households are still a great, nurturing environment for the child with consistently positive outcomes. Again, we know this - it has been demonstrated.

What you've done here is taken it for granted that growing up with gay parents is harmful, and then spent months of your life trying to find a way that this is so.

Let me spell it out for you: this isn't about gay parents getting some medal of validation from society. It's that the risk of some other people being jerks to you during your childhood is by far outweighed by the promise of a loving, appropriate, capable and qualifying family you'd have been otherwise denied. You would deny these kids a home for fear of a risk of something because of your agenda, under criteria not applied to other potential adoptive parents, and despite all of the information we have from much more authoritative and involved sources, because gee, you just have this hunch that gay parents must not be as good.

Don't even try to pretend you're comig at this from the child's best interests. If you were, you'd want them to go to the best home, straight or gay, and that distinction wouldn't matter - that's never, ever been your angle.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree. However, nobody has the "right" to raise a child, unless it is their own and even then comes with conditions.

I never said "right", I said discrimination and not being treated equally. Nobody has the right to raise a child, but they do have the right to not be discriminated against by the State due to their sexuality or gender.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually it is not all hyperbole. You are advocating normalising gay adoption through gay adoption. There is no gay adoption without the adopted child. Therefore the child becomes a tool in this social engineering project.

It was hyperbole. "using orphans as tools..." is needlessly emotive language, as is "social engineering project".

Regardless, how do you propose we normalize gay adoption without gay adoption? Teach children that gay adoption is okay but they're not allowed to because the State says it isn't okay? That same-sex parenting is completely fine but they're not allowed to do it because... it's... not fine...? Teach them that it doesn't matter if you're LGBT... unless you want to get married... or have kids... or be treated equal in the eyes of the State...?

That still doesn't change the fact that there are children being raised by same-sex couples where one of those parents is a biological parent. Without normalizing same-sex marriage/parenting, those children might be bullied. Again, teaching children that it's normal is the only way children will view it as being normal, and the only way we can teach children it's normal is if it actually is normal. But it's not about using children to demonstrate this, it's about society as a whole demonstrating it. By legalizing these things, it is a clear message that different does not mean unequal. This can only have positive effects.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the reason we can't wait until we actually see the results of this "education" before putting these children at avoidable risk is................???

Again, teaching children that being LGBT or having LGBT parents is perfectly fine while the State and Society don't treat it as being fine is p*ssing against the wind. It also doesn't change the avoidable risk as those same children could still be bullied for a number of other possible reasons, including being adopted regardless of the sex of the parents.

This isn't something that can be kicked down the road, nor should it be. Legalizing these things sends a clear statement that it doesn't matter if you're LGBT or not, you are an equal. That can go a long way to reducing bullying of LGBT children, of which there are a far greater number being bullied than children of LGBT parents.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When deciding what is "best" you need to consider the alternative(s). The alternative to being adopted is foster care or state institutions.

I don't think you or anyone else is arguing that a child is better off in care than with a good adoptive family regardless of sexuality, race etc.


No, the FACT that 100% of these children are placed into a high-risk category for homophobic bullying - something which is completely avoidable.

The fact* is that adopted kids get bullied for being adopted, and ginger kids get bullied for being gingers. Unless you're prepared to equally damn the 'increased risks' to those 'poor orphans' who have to endure the trauma of being adopted, or the recklessness of gingers bringing their carrot-topped offspring into this world, then we'd have to conclude that, yes - you're simply wrapping your discriminatory cultural warfare in the (admittedly farcical) camouflage of 'concern'.

*Insofar as the breakdown stats for bullied kids mean anything.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

But that fear of lack of due diligence would pertain to all adoptions and not just those involving a gay element ?

Would that be fair comment

Brown Bomber any chance of an answer to this please ,? Thanks

aloyisious

EDIT: And of course the whole letting the bullies win argument is a ridiculous notion in itself, as if there is an organised network of anti-gay youths worldwide between the ages of 4 and 18 carrying out organised campaigns of terrorism to effect policy on gay adoption.

You are perfectly correct in the above, it is ridiculous. One might conclude that the persons organising the campaign to maintain the status quo on adoption laws here are all of adult age.

The notion that changing Irish adoption laws and rules to allow Gay Couples to adopt children is being pursued by an organised network of people as a Social Experiment is also equally ridiculous. That notion is being used solely as a means to hold the existing laws on adoption in place, to stop Gay Couples (as a family or partnership unit) from being allowed adopt children. Equalization of laws and rules are never a Social Experiment. Take it from me that those who bring in new laws or changes in laws are NOT into social experiments, they are terrified that they might be held responsible for the results.

Brown Bomber

jill_valentine wrote: »

I can't believe you're still trying to lead us down this garden path

Growing up with gay parents has no discernable ill effects on a child. This is a fact.

What you're waffling on about is some kind of unquantifiable potential downside that can't actually be demonstrated to be a greater issue than fat parents or disabled or Catholic ones, as if it's some new problem beamed down to earth for just this occasion.

What you've managed to do is convince yourself that, because the issue of bullying is so negligible in effect in the question of same sex adoption, that nobody cares about the children involved. Of course they do - what you cannot wrap your head around is that, even with the small risk of homophobic bullying, those same sex parent households are still a great, nurturing environment for the child with consistently positive outcomes. Again, we know this - it has been demonstrated.

What you've done here is taken it for granted that growing up with gay parents is harmful, and then spent months of your life trying to find a way that this is so.

Let me spell it out for you: this isn't about gay parents getting some medal of validation from society. It's that the risk of some other people being jerks to you during your childhood is by far outweighed by the promise of a loving, appropriate, capable and qualifying family you'd have been otherwise denied. You would deny these kids a home for fear of a risk of something because of your agenda, under criteria not applied to other potential adoptive parents, and despite all of the information we have from much more authoritative and involved sources, because gee, you just have this hunch that gay parents must not be as good.

Don't even try to pretend you're comig at this from the child's best interests. If you were, you'd want them to go to the best home, straight or gay, and that distinction wouldn't matter - that's never, ever been your angle.

You don't have to look any further than my post immediately prior to debunk this nonsense. To use your term, "let me spell it out for you".

I don't think you or anyone else is arguing that a child is better off in care than with a good adoptive family regardless of sexuality, race etc.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

Brown Bomber any chance of an answer to this please ,? Thanks

My response is that any concerns I would have would be across the board. Now since we are making requests, could you respond to this statement I put to you?

I have repeatedly stated that the child's welfare should be paramount and therefore if a straight couple can offer a comparable home to a gay couple minus the high-risk of the homophobic bullying then it is regrettable, but then the state must discriminate against the gay couple for the child's sake and place the child with the straight couple i.e. I am putting the child first.

Anyone who says different can dress it up all they like they are putting their personal political agendas before the actual child involved.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

I never said "right", I said discrimination and not being treated equally.

So we are agreed that nobody has any right to raise a child?

Penn wrote: »

Nobody has the right to raise a child, but they do have the riyght to not be discriminated against by the State due to their sexuality or gender.

Even when the welfare of a child is at stake? I disagree. Would you also say a couple who are both blind have a right to not be discriminated against when it comes to adoption?

Penn wrote: »

It was hyperbole. "using orphans as tools..." is needlessly emotive language, as is "social engineering project".

Correct me if I am wrong but understood that you wanted have children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society? While the goal is noble the method is immoral, imo. Either way, "tool" is a perfect word to use in this context.

3
: one that is used or manipulated by another

As is "social engineering".

Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups.

As you can see for yourself social engineering perfectly describes what you are advocating for. You may not like it, but it doesn't really matter.

Penn wrote: »

Regardless, how do you propose we normalize gay adoption without gay adoption? Teach children that gay adoption is okay but they're not allowed to because the State says it isn't okay? That same-sex parenting is completely fine but they're not allowed to do it because... it's... not fine...? Teach them that it doesn't matter if you're LGBT... unless you want to get married... or have kids... or be treated equal in the eyes of the State...?

You are avoiding answering the question. Can we not normalise homosexuality more than it is normalised today without gay couples adopting orphans?

I think we both know the answer to this is an emphatic yes. So again, why put these orphans, who have no political views of their own into a high risk category for homophobic bullying today when we can be more patient and wait until society has changed for the better and the risk is decreased for these children?

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My response is that any concerns I would have would be across the board. Now since we are making requests, could you respond to this statement I put to you?

No I would not put the straight couple ahead of the gay couple in adopting a child on the basis of that single concern.

In a similar fashion I would not put a straight Caucasian couple ahead of a non Caucasian couple or a mixed race couple in adopting a Caucasian child on the basis of that single concern.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My response is that any concerns I would have would be across the board. Now since we are making requests, could you respond to this statement I put to you?

Bow down to racism, bow down to sectarianism, bow down to homophobia. Great plan.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My response is that any concerns I would have would be across the board.

So, you propose that as part of a mixed race couple, you yourself should never be allowed to adopt in case racists bully your adopted child.

Fortunately for you, that sort of discrimination is against the law.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but understood that you wanted have children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society? While the goal is noble the method is immoral, imo.

Your understanding and opinion are (unsurprisingly) distorted by your bias. Again - the peer-reviewed research that you still haven't found time to read (remarkable head in the sand for someone so 'concerned') tells us that there are no additional risks to the child in same-sex couple adoptions. You're simply pushing a straw man argument well past the point of credibility. No-one is buying this guff.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So we are agreed that nobody has any right to raise a child?

We are. Doesn't change the fact that a) I never claimed they did, I specifically and purposefully never used those words, and b) they do have a right to not be discriminated against by the State due to their sexuality or gender.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Even when the welfare of a child is at stake? I disagree. Would you also say a couple who are both blind have a right to not be discriminated against when it comes to adoption?

I would, and if the adoption agency decide those parents are the best parents for a child, they should be allowed to adopt the child. There shouldn't be any quota systems or anything. In all cases, each child should be placed with whomever the adoption agency deem to be the most suitable prospective parents for the child. But people shouldn't be automatically ruled out of that due to sexuality, gender or disabilities.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but understood that you wanted have children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society? While the goal is noble the method is immoral, imo. Either way, "tool" is a perfect word to use in this context.

You're wrong. You're combining two separate ideals.
I want gay couples to not be discriminated against by the State when it comes to marriage, adoption, and basically anything else. I am not a gay rights proponent. I'm an equal rights proponent. If the State allows me to do something, it should allow everyone else that right, regardless of sexuality or gender.

The State and our society treating LGBT persons as equals will trickle down to our children, and they will see LGBT people as being equals. This will reduce LGBT bullying. Nobody wants to "use" children to do this. It's not about "You five children get to go to good adoption homes, and you five get to go to same-sex parents to be involved in our social engineering experiment where you'll be subjected to bullying". It's about placing children in the best prospective homes, even if that means it's with same-sex parents. This itself will go towards reducing bullying for same. It's an advantageous knock-on effect as opposed to being the main purpose.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are avoiding answering the question. Can we not normalise homosexuality more than it is normalised today without gay couples adopting orphans?

I think we both know the answer to this is an emphatic yes. So again, why put these orphans, who have no political views of their own into a high risk category for homophobic bullying today when we can be more patient and wait until society has changed for the better and the risk is decreased for these children?

The answer is an emphatic no, and I did answer the question. You cannot teach children that LGBT people are equal if the State does not treat them as equal. And if the State doesn't treat LGBT people as equal, bullying against LGBT children themselves will remain high, much higher than adopted children of LGBT parents. Not to mention the general feeling of discrimination LGBT children face from the State and society which contributes to depression and suicide in many cases.

How can you determine if society has changed enough for the better, or if the risk decreases enough? Is there a certain number, certain percentage? Would you agree that bullying of LGBT children is greater than children of LGBT parents (considering most of the articles and links you've provided over the last few pages are about them rather than adopted children of LGBT parents)? Shouldn't we reduce that? Because if so, giving LGBT people equal rights will hugely contribute to that. It will change society for the better. It will decrease the risk.

Brown Bomber

Penn,


So you do not stand by this statement?


Originally Posted by Penn
Because it's only by normalising same-sex marriage/parenting that people will learn to view it as normal.


How is this not:


"have(ing) children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society"

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

No I would not put the straight couple ahead of the gay couple in adopting a child on the basis of that single concern.

In a similar fashion I would not put a straight Caucasian couple ahead of a non Caucasian couple or a mixed race couple in adopting a Caucasian child on the basis of that single concern.

Could you please reread the statement and respond again? I said nothing of "that single concern". Thanks.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Bow down to racism, bow down to sectarianism, bow down to homophobia. Great plan.

Lookes like the emotive language, hyperbole etc alarm is broken.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Your understanding and opinion are (unsurprisingly) distorted by your bias. Again - the peer-reviewed research that you still haven't found time to read (remarkable head in the sand for someone so 'concerned') tells us that there are no additional risks to the child in same-sex couple adoptions. You're simply pushing a straw man argument well past the point of credibility. No-one is buying this guff.

This is about my tenth time telling you this now. I am STILL waiting for this so-called peer reviewed study which you claim to have read which shows that children of gay parents don't get bullied more to be shared by you.

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Penn,


So you do not stand by this statement?


Originally Posted by Penn
Because it's only by normalising same-sex marriage/parenting that people will learn to view it as normal.

How is this not:

"have(ing) children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society"

How in the name of God is it force-feeding normalisation of homosexuality?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is about my tenth time telling you this now. I am STILL waiting for this so-called peer reviewed study which you claim to have read which shows that children of gay parents don't get bullied more to be shared by you.

As I said - head in the sand. Read the peer-reviewed research and see if it contradicts your pet theory about the seemingly unique and exceptional instance of 'same-sex parent-based bullying'. Or, more to your style - don't, and keep rolling out this biased nonsense.

Bannasidhe

What no one seems to have considered in this discussion is that the vast majority of 'adoptions' would be by the non-biological parent where a couple have had the child together.

For example:
Lesbian couple. One is the biological parent, the other is not. In a heterosexual marriage the non-biological parent can adopt - in a civil partnership the non-biological parent cannot. The result is children who already have two parents but one is considered to be a stranger under the law and should anything happen to the biological parent is far down the line when it comes to being legally considered to continue to raise their child.

Gay couple: One is the biological parent to a child born through surrogacy - see above.

How any one can argue that is in the best interests of the child is beyond me.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you please reread the statement and respond again? I said nothing of "that single concern". Thanks.

I would not allow discrimination in ANY circumstances against any individuals or group of people based on religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age etc.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Penn,


So you do not stand by this statement?


Originally Posted by Penn
Because it's only by normalising same-sex marriage/parenting that people will learn to view it as normal.


How is this not:


"have(ing) children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society"

It's not the same for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is that your statement is the wrong way around:

It's not about having gay couples adopt children in order to normalize homosexuality, it's about normalizing homosexuality, which by extension includes granting LGBT the ability to be considered as potential adoptive parents.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Penn,


So you do not stand by this statement?


Originally Posted by Penn
Because it's only by normalising same-sex marriage/parenting that people will learn to view it as normal.


How is this not:


"have(ing) children adopted by gay couples to force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society"

Would you say the same about the integration of the schools in the US? And don't bother dodging this, because you know I won't stop until I get an answer.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lookes like the emotive language, hyperbole etc alarm is broken.

You advocate preventing gay couples adopting because of homophobic bullying. That is very clearly bowing down to homophobia.

sparkling sea

What children need more than anything is to be raised in a loving stable home, whether that is made up of one parent, 2 parents, grandparent/s, adoptive parent/s, foster parent/s. The sexuality of the parents is irrelevant.

The largest study on the issue was published by Melbourne University in 2013. The criteria used for the findings are the same as those used in any credible sceinitific study
The study can and has been tested; the study has been subjected to peer group review and publication; the known and potential error rate of the study; and the general acceptance of the study in the relevant scientific community. The funding is from an impartial observer like a government dept or NGO

Salon.com reports "According to preliminary findings from the world’s largest study on the issue, the children of gay parents are doing equally well or better than the children of straight parents on a number of key health and well-being indicators. (Not that it’s a competition or anything!)

Researchers at Melbourne University in Australia collected data on 500 children across the country and found that kids growing up in gay and straight families matched pretty equally when it came to self-esteem, emotional well-being and the amount of time they spent with parents; but when it came to overall health and family cohesion, the children of gay parents did even better than the national average.

Lead researcher Dr Simon Crouch attributed the findings to gay families fostering open communication as they endure challenges together, which helps children become more resilient. “Because of the situation that same-sex families find themselves in, they are generally more willing to communicate and approach the issues that any child may face at school, like teasing or bullying,” he said."

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am STILL waiting for this so-called peer reviewed study...

You've dismissed the reams of peer-reviewed studies you've been offered so far; you've gone so far as to question the validity of the peer review process itself. To call the quoted post "disingenuous" would be charitable.

aloyisious

@BB: seeing as how you decided to use the term "force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society", it look's like you see homosexuality as un-normal. Do you view homosexuals as un-normal and a lesser class of citizen? Is that why you believe that homosexuals should be seen as less desirable candidates for the adoption of children? How do you think homosexuals should be treated in general (citizens rights-wise) by Irish Society?

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for the correction, I was going by memory. So the fact of the matter is that according to this study, children with gay parents are 3 times more likely to feel "unsafe" in school. The point still stands. This is not insignificant, and these children deserve better than to have it brushed under the carpet.

Again, no it doesn't. What the study finds is that:

"Youth with LGBTQ parents are 3 times more likely to skip school when compared to their heterosexual peers because they feel unsafe."

This means that out of the subset of children who skip school, children with LGBT parents are 3 times more likely to be represented than children of heterosexual parents. However, this is insignificant for two reasons.

Firstly, as I pointed out here, the annual truancy rate in Canada is very low, approximately 20% of the daily rate reported by just one state in the USA. This means that the number of such children skipping school is tiny (just 0.9% of children with LGBT parents).

Secondly, according to the US study you quoted, just 2% of students reported feeling "not at all safe" in schools. So again, tiny numbers. And that would be even if we could trust the figures in the US study.

There is no solid evidence that either a) children with LGBT parents experience bullying at a rate which could honestly be described as putting them in a "high-risk category" for bullying or b) that even a substantial minority nevermind a majority of those bullied suffer any ill-effect.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually it does. It tells us that children with gay parents get bullied in school because they have gay parents.

No, it really doesn't for reasons I will explain below.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Haven't thought this through have you?

If 7% of apx 1,000 children are bullied in the US for having a gay parent that must be virtually 100% of these children are bullied.

It would seem that you haven't either. Or at least you haven't read the study carefully, because if you would you wouldn't have made such an unfounded comment.

Like I said before, we can't really glean a lot of information from this study.

Firstly, it should be noted that the percentages regarding family reasons for bullying don't sum to 100%. This suggests that students get bullied for more than one reason. So already, trying to establish a causal relationship between bullying and having LGBT parents is unsupportable.

Secondly, let's take another family-based reason why children are bullied according to the study, having mixed-race parents. According to the study, having mixed race parents was reported as the cause of bullying in 11% of children. Now, 11% of 994 (the number of children who reported bullying) is 109 children or 5% of the total students surveyed. Next, the number of children in the USA in the age group surveyed is approximately 49 million. Therefore, if the study were true and scaled up, then we should expect that 2,450,000 children should report bullying due to having mixed-race parents. However, according to the American Academy for Adolescent Child Psychiatry, only 2 million children live with mixed race parents. Therefore, the percentages reported by the study are not representative of the larger population because of the way in which the results are recorded in the report.

Furthermore, to get back to your previous point, the survey shows that children who were adopted reported bullying at the same rate as those with LGBT parents. Combined with the fact that the percentages indicate that some children were bullied for more than one reason, it cannot be argued that banning LGBT parents from adopting would lower the chances of an adopted child being bullied.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is about my tenth time telling you this now. I am STILL waiting for this so-called peer reviewed study which you claim to have read which shows that children of gay parents don't get bullied more to be shared by you.

Well, I know you didn't miss this post because you replied to it. The point that alastair is making is that the peer-reviewed research shows that both generally and specifically that children raised by LGBT parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents, even though children with LGBT parents may experience bullying.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is about my tenth time telling you this now. I am STILL waiting for this so-called peer reviewed study which you claim to have read which shows that children of gay parents don't get bullied more to be shared by you.

You've been given links, if not by one poster then by another, as per the link in post 1187. It's not acceptable to go on ignoring them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How any one can argue that is in the best interests of the child is beyond me.

In fairness to Bomber, he's said he doesn't have an issue with adoptions by gay couples where the couple are already raising the child.

It also appears that he doesn't have an issue with adoptions by non-family gay couples so long as proper vetting procedures are followed and the child's welfare is paramount, etc. Which is pretty much what we all expect and how the adoption process should work for everyone.

In light of the above, I'm not exactly sure what Bomber's bone of contention is. He keeps going on about how the child's welfare is paramount, but I'm unclear on how considering gay couples as adoptive parents jeopardises that. If a gay couple pass all the required standards and tests, and are certified as suitable to adopt by people who think a child's welfare is paramount, then what's the problem?

alastair

NuMarvel wrote: »

If a gay couple pass all the required standards and tests, and are certified as suitable to adopt by people who think a child's welfare is paramount, then what's the problem?

There isn't a problem at all. Which is why Brown Bomber's stated 'objections' are so convoluted and unconvincing. His issues clearly lie elsewhere. But he's no stranger to proxy arguments disguising his actual 'concerns'.

Sheldons Brain

marienbad wrote: »

I would not allow discrimination in ANY circumstances against any individuals or group of people based on religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age etc.

Does that include persons whose sexual orientation is paedophile or those from a culture favouring genital mutilation of children?

Adoption should be concerned with the welfare of children and nothing else. If that means some groups do not get to adopt, then so be it.

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Again, no it doesn't. What the study finds is that:

"Youth with LGBTQ parents are 3 times more likely to skip school when compared to their heterosexual peers because they feel unsafe."

This means that out of the subset of children who skip school, children with LGBT parents are 3 times more likely to be represented than children of heterosexual parents. However, this is insignificant for two reasons.

Firstly, as I pointed out here, the annual truancy rate in Canada is very low, approximately 20% of the daily rate reported by just one state in the USA. This means that the number of such children skipping school is tiny (just 0.9% of children with LGBT parents).

Secondly, according to the US study you quoted, just 2% of students reported feeling "not at all safe" in schools. So again, tiny numbers. And that would be even if we could trust the figures in the US study.

There is no solid evidence that either a) children with LGBT parents experience bullying at a rate which could honestly be described as putting them in a "high-risk category" for bullying or b) that even a substantial minority nevermind a majority of those bullied suffer any ill-effect.




No, it really doesn't for reasons I will explain below.




It would seem that you haven't either. Or at least you haven't read the study carefully, because if you would you wouldn't have made such an unfounded comment.

Like I said before, we can't really glean a lot of information from this study.

Firstly, it should be noted that the percentages regarding family reasons for bullying don't sum to 100%. This suggests that students get bullied for more than one reason. So already, trying to establish a causal relationship between bullying and having LGBT parents is unsupportable.

Secondly, let's take another family-based reason why children are bullied according to the study, having mixed-race parents. According to the study, having mixed race parents was reported as the cause of bullying in 11% of children. Now, 11% of 994 (the number of children who reported bullying) is 109 children or 5% of the total students surveyed. Next, the number of children in the USA in the age group surveyed is approximately 49 million. Therefore, if the study were true and scaled up, then we should expect that 2,450,000 children should report bullying due to having mixed-race parents. However, according to the American Academy for Adolescent Child Psychiatry, only 2 million children live with mixed race parents. Therefore, the percentages reported by the study are not representative of the larger population because of the way in which the results are recorded in the report.

Furthermore, to get back to your previous point, the survey shows that children who were adopted reported bullying at the same rate as those with LGBT parents. Combined with the fact that the percentages indicate that some children were bullied for more than one reason, it cannot be argued that banning LGBT parents from adopting would lower the chances of an adopted child being bullied.




Well, I know you didn't miss this post because you replied to it. The point that alastair is making is that the peer-reviewed research shows that both generally and specifically that children raised by LGBT parents do just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents, even though children with LGBT parents may experience bullying.

I'm just going to cut to the chase here - 0% of the bullied children get bullied for having straight parents. 7% of the bullied children, according to themselves, get bullied for having gay parents. Kids get bullied for being gay or even just appearing gay (for want of a better term) to the bully. I don't need any studies to tell me this, I've spent over half my life in school. Schools are a macho environment and any deviation from the masculine norm will get you labelled as one of the anti-gay perjoratives. Gay posters here must surely know this better than anyone and anyone who thinks this systematic homophobic bullying isn't going to target the adopted kids of gay parents and instead everyone will join hands and sing "We Are The World" together is deluding themselves imo.

Sadly, and I say sadly with all sincerity homophobia is a part of the fabric of our culture though thankfully with each passing generation this is lessening. It is now socially unacceptable to be homophobic in public and homophobes must wear a mask, though this mask comes off in the school setting. It's not considered taboo...yet. We all know this, so why pretend otherwise?

Brown Bomber

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Does that include persons whose sexual orientation is paedophile or those from a culture favouring genital mutilation of children?

Adoption should be concerned with the welfare of children and nothing else. If that means some groups do not get to adopt, then so be it.

That is my feeling on it too. I can explain by example. About a month ago in Sweden two Asian immigrants, the mother and the father, were jailed for beating their own children, to discipline them. They came from a country were corporal punishment was legal and their defense is that this is normal in their culture. If this is the case then there is a requirement to discriminate against their cullture in cases of adoption for the sake of the child.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

In fairness to Bomber, he's said he doesn't have an issue with adoptions by gay couples where the couple are already raising the child.

It also appears that he doesn't have an issue with adoptions by non-family gay couples so long as proper vetting procedures are followed and the child's welfare is paramount, etc. Which is pretty much what we all expect and how the adoption process should work for everyone.

In light of the above, I'm not exactly sure what Bomber's bone of contention is. He keeps going on about how the child's welfare is paramount, but I'm unclear on how considering gay couples as adoptive parents jeopardises that. If a gay couple pass all the required standards and tests, and are certified as suitable to adopt by people who think a child's welfare is paramount, then what's the problem?

I can honestly say that there is no problem. The best available home for every child. If that means that every single child gets placed with gay families then good luck to them. If that means that every single child gets placed with a traditional family, which is conceivable given the surplus already of adoption applicants then I strongly suspect this won't be good enough for so-called progressives and the gay lobby will start throwing around homophobia accusations and go into full ADL mode to pressure adoption agencies to place children into something less than the best home available.

NuMarvel

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Does that include persons whose sexual orientation is paedophile or those from a culture favouring genital mutilation of children?

Pedophilia isn't classified as a sexual orientation, but as a psychiatric disorder :rolleyes:.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

@BB: seeing as how you decided to use the term "force-feed the normalisation of homosexuality into society", it look's like you see homosexuality as un-normal. Do you view homosexuals as un-normal and a lesser class of citizen? Is that why you believe that homosexuals should be seen as less desirable candidates for the adoption of children? How do you think homosexuals should be treated in general (citizens rights-wise) by Irish Society?

Homosexuals as individuals are every inch my equal in every respect as far as I am concerned. They should not be denied any right that is available to me that doesn't directly impact on an innocent third-party. In fact, I would accept extra protection beyond what I receive to be given to gays as they are a minority. I fully support gay marriage, parity of the age of consent and absolutely abhor homophobia.

Even if it was something that I did find distasteful ( I don't) this would in no way influence any decision that I would make with respect to gay rights.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can honestly say that there is no problem. The best available home for every child. If that means that every single child gets placed with gay families then good luck to them.

That's great! See, isn't it better when we all get along?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I strongly suspect this won't be good enough for so-called progressives and the gay lobby will start throwing around homophobia accusations and go into full ADL mode to pressure adoption agencies to place children into something less than the best home available.

And you started off so well...

People basing their decisions on adoption based solely on the sexuality of the applicants IS homophobia, and should rightly be challenged. However, that does not mean that agencies will be pressured into placing children into lesser homes. It means that agencies must use evidence based approaches, and set aside their own biases and prejudices when making decisions. The welfare of the child demands nothing less.

I am sure there will be instances where an agency will certify a gay couple as unsuitable to adopt. But when they make that decision, it must be based on the circumstances of the individual case, and not just because the workers presumed that a gay couple would be lesser.

marienbad

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Does that include persons whose sexual orientation is paedophile or those from a culture favouring genital mutilation of children?

Adoption should be concerned with the welfare of children and nothing else. If that means some groups do not get to adopt, then so be it.

What do you think your self ? Do you think such people would get through the vetting process ?

Read posts within the context of the discussion.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

People basing their decisions on adoption based solely on the sexuality of the applicants IS homophobia, and should rightly be challenged. .

I wholeheartedly agree. However, I don't see what relevance who person X is sexually attracted to (provided it isn't children) has to anything.

If an adoption agency was to accept applications of adoption from gay couples but to have a formal position that in their view that the optimum family environment is with both a male (M) and Female (F) role models bound together by marriage as opposed to M/M, F/F units or simply F or M then their position, whether right or wrong relates to gender not sexuality.

It is acknowledging the reality that men and women are equal but different. In the same way that a combination of two gay women are equal different to two gay men.

I was lucky enough to be raised by both a mother and a father. I learned how to treat women through observing my father and how a man should be treated by a woman through my mother. They each served individual purposes to me. My dad taught me how to play sports and DIY stuff and so on. My mother was always a shoulder to cry on. And yes, I am aware these are stereotypes. I think I would have missed out if I had two mothers. For example, some of my happiest childhood memories are the hours my dad and I played with the toy soliders on the floor in our house. Playing with my mother or any woman for that matter was no fun at all, they just aren't on the same wave length as a young boy.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. However, I don't see what relevance who person X is sexually attracted to (provided it isn't children) has to anything.

If an adoption agency was to accept applications of adoption from gay couples but to have a formal position that in their view that the optimum family environment is with both a male (M) and Female (F) role models bound together by marriage as opposed to M/M, F/F units or simply F or M then their position, whether right or wrong relates to gender not sexuality.

It is acknowledging the reality that men and women are equal but different. In the same way that a combination of two gay women are equal different to two gay men.

I was lucky enough to be raised by both a mother and a father. I learned how to treat women through observing my father and how a man should be treated by a woman through my mother. They each served individual purposes to me. My dad taught me how to play sports and DIY stuff and so on. My mother was always a shoulder to cry on. And yes, I am aware these are stereotypes. I think I would have missed out if I had two mothers. For example, some of my happiest childhood memories are the hours my dad and I played with the toy soliders on the floor in our house. Playing with my mother or any woman for that matter was no fun at all, they just aren't on the same wave length as a young boy.

So we've ditched bullying and wheeled the goal posts in a new direction, completely ignoring the outcomes indicated in the various studies already provided.

jill_valentine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm just going to cut to the chase here - 0% of the bullied children get bullied for having straight parents. 7% of the bullied children, according to themselves, get bullied for having gay parents. Kids get bullied for being gay or even just appearing gay (for want of a better term) to the bully. I don't need any studies to tell me this, I've spent over half my life in school. Schools are a macho environment and any deviation from the masculine norm will get you labelled as one of the anti-gay perjoratives. Gay posters here must surely know this better than anyone and anyone who thinks this systematic homophobic bullying isn't going to target the adopted kids of gay parents and instead everyone will join hands and sing "We Are The World" together is deluding themselves imo.

Sadly, and I say sadly with all sincerity homophobia is a part of the fabric of our culture though thankfully with each passing generation this is lessening. It is now socially unacceptable to be homophobic in public and homophobes must wear a mask, though this mask comes off in the school setting. It's not considered taboo...yet. We all know this, so why pretend otherwise?

So if I were to go looking for threads about the various prospective parent groups at a significantly higher risk of "incurring" such bullying upon their child compared to same sex parents, I'll find you arguing just as frantically on the child's behalf there, will I?

Tell us again about this mask, friend.