Full rights for the LGBT community.

Brown Bomber

jill_valentine wrote: »

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.

I have no intention of being unfriendly to you but I am not your friend. Nevermind "significantly" or "groups". Name a solitary parent group that imposes a higher risk of homophobic bullying onto the adopted child than gay parents.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no intention of being unfriendly to you but I am not your friend. Nevermind "significantly" or "groups". Name a solitary parent group that imposes a higher risk of homophobic bullying onto the adopted child than gay parents.

But as outcomes are the same, as per the peer reviewed studies linked earlier, this (though unfortunate) is hardly a matter of consequence.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

If you're going to respond to someone's post, it probably helps if you read their entire post, and don't just cherry pick single lines. I also said:

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

The agency's views are secondary. The welfare of the child is paramount, so I would expect any agency that holds the view that you describe to be able to point to a significant body of evidence that backs them up. Otherwise, the agency runs the risk of putting vulnerable, innocent children in less than optimal homes, by needlessly excluding couples who don't conform to the agency's prejudices and biases.

Bannasidhe

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. 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.

Your suspicions are completely unfounded.

As I have said the vast majority of 'gay adoptions' will be to enable the legal recognition of a non-biological parent of the child(ren).

Otherwise all that is being requested is that a gay couple be treated the same as straight couples and be allowed to adopt as a couple. ALL the same rules to apply.

No-One is suggested that gay people get preferential treatment as you 'suspect' may happen.

Looks like an attempt at scaremongering thinly disguised as concern BB.

Corkfeen

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.

Could you make up your mind what your argument is? Once again you're referring to anecdotal experience unrelated to what your last point was. All research points to gender having no negative impact upon the the developmental outcomes of the child. This is the research you have both lambasted and refused to read.

To use your example of the empathy of your mother. I'm a straight male however tend to be good on the empathy front. My father was good at diy but had zero interest in sports. All this proves is humans vary. Not every family is going to have a father that will play sports with them or do diy with them. A broad support network is part of the adoption considerations I believe btw, they'll definitely find someone to play football with if all else fails.

But the very fact you have reverted to a different argument is indicative of the fact,that you're latching onto anything to prevent same sex adoption. To be frank,you can't be taken seriously. You've ignored a wealth of research and then go onto making many already disproved points. You've had plenty of time to read it in between reading the articles of think tanks.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

In light of the above, I'm not exactly sure what Bomber's bone of contention is.

Now that his bullying argument is in tatters, he's going back to an argument about children needing a male and a female role model, and people will pile on and refute that argument at great length. It won't matter, because that isn't really BB's issue, either, and he'll just jump to some other easily refuted argument. After enough time passes, he'll loop back to pretending no-one refuted his first argument.

But I think we all know what his "bone of contention" really is.

alastair

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But I think we all know what his "bone of contention" really is.

His posting history is instructive in identifying his favourite 'bone'.

Penn

*Emphasis mine*

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no intention of being unfriendly to you but I am not your friend. Nevermind "significantly" or "groups". Name a solitary parent group that imposes a higher risk of homophobic bullying onto the adopted child than gay parents.

Loaded question. No other parent group could possibly impose any measurable risk of homophobic bullying onto an adopted child because no other parent group is associated with homosexuality.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

*Emphasis mine*


Loaded question. No other parent group could possibly impose any measurable risk of homophobic bullying onto an adopted child because no other parent group is associated with homosexuality.

Emphasis mine,


"So if I were to go looking for threads about the various prospective parent groups at asignificantly 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. "

Penn wrote: »

*No other parent group could possibly impose any measurable risk of homophobic bullying onto an adopted child.

This is exactly my point. You want this bullying, or more importantly the victim of this bullying to be ignored. I don't. This is the difference.

Brown Bomber

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Now that his bullying argument is in tatters, he's going back to an argument about children needing a male and a female role model, and people will pile on and refute that argument at great length. It won't matter, because that isn't really BB's issue, either, and he'll just jump to some other easily refuted argument. After enough time passes, he'll loop back to pretending no-one refuted his first argument.

But I think we all know what his "bone of contention" really is.

I am not directing anything. I am merely responding to the points raised by others.


Can you explain how the bullying argument is in tatters? Can you explain how with all else being equal between two potential adoptive couples the higher-risk of homophobic bullying shouldn't be the deciding factor?

PopePalpatine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Emphasis mine,


"So if I were to go looking for threads about the various prospective parent groups at asignificantly 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. "



This is exactly my point. You want this bullying, or more importantly the victim of this bullying to be ignored. I don't. This is the difference.

Where the hell did you get that? If it weren't for your anti-Israel posts I'd almost think you're David Quinn.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you explain how the bullying argument is in tatters?

Because it's a 'theory' refuted by the actual peer-reviewed research on the risks associated with same-sex couples adoption. The studies you keep refusing to read. That's why.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you explain how with all else being equal between two potential adoptive couples the higher-risk of homophobic bullying shouldn't be the deciding factor?

Before the change: child lives with father and father's same-sex civil partner.

After the change: child lives with father and adoptive father, who is the father's same sex civil partner.

How on earth can this change to the legal status of the family have any effect on homophobic bullying?

Note also - in the fantasy world where homophobic school bullies care about whether your dad's civil partner is your legal guardian or not - disallowing same-sex couples because of the risk of homophobic bullying would actually motivate bullies do do more of it - they are homophobes, so they are opposed to same-sex adoption, and you are telling them that more bullying is an argument against same-sex adoption.

Even here on this forum, even if they don't convince your opponents, your arguments would have the effect of encouraging homophobic bullying if anyone took you seriously. Fortunately, nobody ever will.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is exactly my point. You want this bullying, or more importantly the victim of this bullying to be ignored. I don't. This is the difference.

If that's your point, you're missing mine.

Trying to claim there is some sort of link between homophobic bullying and families where there is homosexuality is completely redundant and proves no point whatsoever. Homophobic bullying can only be associated where there is homosexuality, in the same way that racial bullying can only be associated where there is a difference in race (whether mixed-race parents or where the child is of a different race or ethnicity to the parents).

I'd also appreciate it if you retract that statement of me "wanting the victim of this bullying to be ignored", as it's completely unfounded. As stated several times, I believe that legalising same-sex marriage/adoption and teaching children that it is normal would reduce the bullying about it, as evident by the past few decades where homosexuality has become less of an issue and bullying about it has decreased. However, in order to decrease it further, this is the next step which needs to be taken. It's also a step which needs to be taken for the rights of the LGBT community itself.

sparkling sea

Brown Bomber your bullying arguement is in tatters because there is nothing to suggest the children parented by same sex couples get bullied more than children who are parented by hetrosexual couples, single parents, adpotive parents, or foster parents. They may get bullied because they are being parented by same sex couples, but again as the research below states they are better able to deal with it then children parented by other family makeups who are being bullied for a vast array of reasons.
Further children who are parented by same sex couples are less likely to be bullies, and being a bully is a much better gauge of indicating emotional and psychological well being then being bullied. Also if you are being bullied your ability to deal with the situation is an incredible tool. No matter what age you are there will always be phobic, prejudiced, judgemental people who will, because of their own life experience and lack of self worth, try to bully others.

Again
Research does show however the children who are parented by same sex couples "when it came to overall health and family cohesion... did even better than the national average."

And again properly structured, unbaised, impartial funded, scientific research suggests this is because "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."

Your bullying arguement doesn't hold water.

None of the arguements you have put forward stand when judged against the majority of real, life experienced recordings, perhapas you might consider accepting that you may hold a prejudice and misinformation may be fuelling that prejudice.

If your seriously feel the best interests of a child are paramount, examine the unbaised, truely sceintific findings, if you still feel that you know best anyway, well I hope you are never in a position to influence what is best for a child in need. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how inaccruate that opinion might be but they can always educate themselves on the facts, thats if they are really interested in children as oppossesed to just argueing a point;)

aloyisious

Brown Bomber: This is probably rehashing something you already provided/said earlier here but... has your view on what is the better-possible situation for the placement of orphaned or abandoned children, or children taken into care because of parental/guardian abuse, been influenced by your partners childhood, or something else you observed in life? Has she given you any information that could have influenced your position? Have you put the thoughts on adoption of children by gay couples (as expressed here) to her for reflection and imput?

I know there are multiple questions in Sentence 1, so if you can (without breaking trust) please reply to those individually, maybe even listing them 1. 2. etc, before answering those in Sentences 2 and 3.

Edit: the photo below from a facebook post reminds me that bullies will find a "cause" to bully another person, thinking of the taunt, child to child "You Spa".

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not directing anything. I am merely responding to the points raised by others.


Can you explain how the bullying argument is in tatters? Can you explain how with all else being equal between two potential adoptive couples the higher-risk of homophobic bullying shouldn't be the deciding factor?

Because Outcomes Are The Same overall.

aloyisious

Education People: Eileen Gamble, a gay teacher on coming out in the staffroom. Today's Irish Times Education pages/section. Item posted on facebook by Gay Switchboard.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/education-people-eileen-gamble-a-gay-teacher-on-coming-out-in-the-staffroom-1.1806611?page=3

aloyisious

This notice re attacks on members of the bear community is on facebook, posted by Dublin Pride:

A few Growlr users in Dublin have been attacked and robbed by a man they met through the app.
These incidents seem to be very rare in Ireland but if you do use Growlr, Grindr or other dating apps please be careful, look out for each other and report anything like this to the Gardaí

http://theoutmost.com/news/dublin-growlr-attacks/

aloyisious

Can some-one have a look at this and explain to me what Alan Keyes is saying please. He's confusing me.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/02/former-republican-politician-gay-sex-is-not-sexual-activity-at-all/

Nodin

aloyisious wrote: »

Can some-one have a look at this and explain to me what Alan Keyes is saying please. He's confusing me.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/02/former-republican-politician-gay-sex-is-not-sexual-activity-at-all/

My Brain is sore now. I you blame.

aloyisious

Reports of alleged gay-bashing attack at 3PM last friday afternoon in the Phoenix Park. The second (pinknews) report does not have as much detal as the Outermost GCN report.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheoutmost.com%2Fnews%2Fserious-attack-phoenix-park%2F&ei=Dt6RU9bhLOie7Abb14C4Aw&usg=AFQjCNF83IDsYDFowU6oJb6Y-Z5jGZ6PQg

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/05/dublin-three-arrested-after-attack-at-gay-cruising-spot/

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

Can some-one have a look at this and explain to me what Alan Keyes is saying please. He's confusing me.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/02/former-republican-politician-gay-sex-is-not-sexual-activity-at-all/

If you're not making babies it's not sex.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

aloyisious

SW wrote: »

If you're not making babies it's not sex.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ah. enlightenment... mind's to send Alan a "ta" PM "Dear Alan, thank you for letting me know that if you're physically having sex while using condoms or other pregnancy-preventive measures, you're not actually having sex. I always thought such activities were seen as naughty, but if it's not sex, then it's ok".

Phill Ewinn

sparkling sea wrote: »

Research does show however the children who are parented by same sex couples "when it came to overall health and family cohesion... did even better than the national averageagain

Who writes this stuff? Your bias is a bit obvious. (Long term) Relationship breakdowns happen more frequently among homosexuals. Up to 3 times as many among women-women relationships.

Putting the word 'cohesion' in your statement shows what knowledge you do have on the mattter.

Very little.

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Who writes this stuff? Your bias is a bit obvious. (Long term) Relationship breakdowns happen more frequently among homosexuals. Up to 3 times as many among women-women relationships.

Putting the word 'cohesion' in your statement shows what knowledge you do have on the mattter.

Very little.

do you have a link that shows that lesbian couples with children are 3 times more likely to break up compared to a heterosexual couple with kids?

Phill Ewinn

SW wrote: »

do you have a link that shows that lesbian couples with children are 3 times more likely to break up compared to a heterosexual couple with kids?

I suppose you could google that. Read wiki or a newspaper. I think Lawrence Kurdek has done the most studies over the last twenty years.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I suppose you could google that. Read wiki or a newspaper. I think Lawrence Kurdek has done the most studies over the last twenty years.

You made the claim, it's for you to back it up. Have you a link that shows that lesbian couples with children are 3 times more likely to break up compared to a heterosexual couple with kids?

disj

I haven't read the full thread but honestly the idea of denying anyone a basic right baffles my mind. Homosexuals are just people, who cares if they like same sex? What difference does that make to anyone's life?? Homosexuals have been on this planet as long as straight people they are not some new discovery of species in the last 30 odd years I mean wake up if you don't believe homosexuals have been around as long as straight people.

What really disgusts me is that fact that most anti gay rights people don't fully understand the gravity of things. If a man and woman are together for years and get married and one of them becomes very ill, well their other half has the right to be with them in the hospital during those last years/months/days whatever... And I could be wrong but I have a feeling if not married they may have the same right but please do correct me if I am wrong.

On the other hand if a gay couple is together for years, say 50 years, and one gets ill, terminally ill, the other member of that couple has ZERO rights and doesn't even have the right to be by their bedside during those final moments. Now this again, could be untrue so please correct me if I am wrong but I just heard it. Anyway, if it is true is that not the most inhumane and disgusting thing you have ever heard??
Even if you are anti homosexuals I mean you have a heart, imagine giving someone the better part of your life, sharing every high and low, every smile, every heartbreak, helping each other through thick and then and then in the final moments of life not being able to share that time with the person you love because 'society' has decided it is wrong????? It disgusts me to my core to think we would allow any part of our community to live like this.

Imagine spending your whole life too scared to come out? A 75 year old man, Pat Patterson of the WWE (you can see it on dinternet)
came out as gay. He was so scared to come out until now, he had a partner for 50 years who passed away and imagine he could not share that sadness or grief with nearly anybody as he was too scared to come out??? I mean that's horrific, it is horrific that our society allows people to live in such fear over something so natural.

I'm a fan of that Chris Rock DVD where he breaks down the word ******. I agree 100% with him, a ****** to me doesn't mean a gay person, any one can be a ******. If you act like a dick head or annoy the fu*k outta someone, your a ******.
The south park definition
Fag (făg) n.
1. An extremely annoying, inconsiderate person most commonly associated with Harley riders.
2. A loud and obnoxious person who owns or frequently rides a Harley.

The LGBT community deserves every right any other human has, they are just people. They deserve to have families, and some may be great and some may be **** but sure that's the same with straight people. We live in a world where a 6 year old boy got shot in Dublin, I think we have bigger things to worry about in this life than if a gay couple decide to adopt.

All rights for LGBT, wake up and stop being so backward people.

P.S No I'm not gay.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Who writes this stuff? Your bias is a bit obvious. (Long term) Relationship breakdowns happen more frequently among homosexuals. Up to 3 times as many among women-women relationships.

Putting the word 'cohesion' in your statement shows what knowledge you do have on the mattter.

Very little.

Hmmm - relationship breakdowns amongst gay couples are regular but lets not encourage them to be more stable by giving them more legal recognition. Hmmmm. Let's not look at why gay relationsips may break down more but let's use the fact that they do against them. hmmmm.

Phill Ewinn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Hmmm - relationship breakdowns amongst gay couples are regular but lets not encourage them to be more stable by giving them more legal recognition. Hmmmm. Let's not look at why gay relationsips may break down more but let's use the fact that they do against them. hmmmm.

This is in relation to?

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is in relation to?

Your claim about lesbian relationships, for which you've yet to provide sources.....

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

Your claim about lesbian relationships, for which you've yet to provide sources.....

It's probably coming from "Nearly Dead! Alive!"

Phill Ewinn

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's probably coming from "Nearly Dead! Alive!"

No it isn't. Neither is it comming from some liberal mumbo jumbo source either. Google it for yourself.

Also, I cannot read posters who are on ignore. Posters who pretend to fight for "rights" when they would deny the right of life to babies.

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I suppose you could google that. Read wiki or a newspaper. I think Lawrence Kurdek has done the most studies over the last twenty years.

The only study I can find from Kurdek is one comparing married heterosexual couples with cohabiting (not married) same-sex couples. I haven't seen anythng about these couples having children.

Any chance of a link to this other report?

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is in relation to?

your posts

Annasopra

Nodin wrote: »

You made the claim, it's for you to back it up. Have you a link that shows that lesbian couples with children are 3 times more likely to break up compared to a heterosexual couple with kids?

Just quoting this so Phil can see it

aloyisious

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No it isn't. Neither is it comming from some liberal mumbo jumbo source either. Google it for yourself.

Also, I cannot read posters who are on ignore. Posters who pretend to fight for "rights" when they would deny the right of life to babies.

By right to life, do you mean the opportunity to foetuses to proceed onto independently living creatures (babies) outside the womb?

By the way, are you trying to mix this thread up with the abortion thread and change it's topic?

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No it isn't. Neither is it comming from some liberal mumbo jumbo source either. Google it for yourself.

Also, I cannot read posters who are on ignore. Posters who pretend to fight for "rights" when they would deny the right of life to babies.

Where is your source re the lesbian couples?

Corkfeen

I'm fairly sure I'm on his ignore list too. But to cut a long story short. If he can't produce the study,we can but conclude that there is no such study.

aloyisious

Two things of interest to LGBT folk....

1. https://www.facebook.com/events/754555504566136/ This afternoon/evening 5.30-8PM - Dublin City Public Library, 138-144 Pearse St.


2. http://www.lgbtireland.net/ - (GLEN-commissioned TCD School of Nursing & Midwifery to carry out the survey on the Net Address)

Sonics2k

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No it isn't. Neither is it comming from some liberal mumbo jumbo source either. Google it for yourself.

Also, I cannot read posters who are on ignore. Posters who pretend to fight for "rights" when they would deny the right of life to babies.

And now we know your background.

disj

I find it sad that this topic even has to be discussed... I find it sad that in the 21st century with so much injustice in the world there are those who continue to be quite content to deny other human beings their basic rights, it blows my mind. People who disagree with rights for the LGBT community simply have closed minds and are not willing to open their minds.

Brown Bomber

disj wrote: »

I find it sad that this topic even has to be discussed... I find it sad that in the 21st century with so much injustice in the world there are those who continue to be quite content to deny other human beings their basic rights, it blows my mind. People who disagree with rights for the LGBT community simply have closed minds and are not willing to open their minds.

Closed mind? I'll have you know that I have recently booked myself in to go to see my gay friend perform their drag act during Stockholm Pride to raise money for the child victims of homophobic bullying. Ironically what you are advocating for would actually increase the number of victims.

Also, I would be very curious to find out how you have come to the conclusion that any group that wants to have a child in their life but cannot produce it naturally themselves has a "basic right" to raise someone else's child. Not exactly access to clean drinking water is it?

Brown Bomber

disj wrote: »

I think we have bigger things to worry about in this life than if a gay couple decide to adopt.

Yes. We do. The orphaned child. You do realise you have gone on and on about gay rights without even paying lip service to the "basic rights" of the the child?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Closed mind? I'll have you know that I have recently booked myself in to go to see my gay friend perform their drag act during Stockholm Pride to raise money for the child victims of homophobic bullying. Ironically what you are advocating for would actually increase the number of victims.

Also, I would be very curious to find out how you have come to the conclusion that any group that wants to have a child in their life but cannot produce it naturally themselves has a "basic right" to raise someone else's child. Not exactly access to clean drinking water is it?

Do you not see the contradiction in supporting groups who help children who are the victims of homophobic bullying while at the same time opposing those same children from adopting should they decide to adopt later in life?

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. We do. The orphaned child. You do realise you have gone on and on about gay rights without even paying lip service to the "basic rights" of the the child?

As has been pointed out to you many many many times, the adoption process is a rigorous one that already has the child's best interests at heart. As inconceivable as you find it, a gay couple adopting and considering a child's best interests aren't mutually exclusive concepts. The latter can be fulfilled by the former.

Anyways, most of disj's post was about allowing gay people to marry. The only extra right marriage brings in relation to adoption is joint custody, so it's not surprising disj doesn't discuss rights of children. And if memory serves, even you've accepted that joint custody is better for an adopted child.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. We do. The orphaned child. You do realise you have gone on and on about gay rights without even paying lip service to the "basic rights" of the the child?

Your argument was debunked earlier, and I fail to see why we should indulge the "long absence - start same argument over" routine. All outcomes are equal, as far as can be known.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction in supporting groups who help children who are the victims of homophobic bullying while at the same time opposing those same children from adopting should they decide to adopt later in life?

There would be a contradiction if I was opposed to gay adoption in a vacuum; I'm not. I can feel sympathy for the victims of homophobic bullying while at the same time not want innocent children to be placed in environments where they are put at increased risk of this same bullying. This is consistent. It's a moral dilemma. I don't want to deny gays any rights but My primary concern is for the child.

Liberal fantasies of a genderless, tolerant society aside the children will suffer. This suffering is of a greater concern to me than gay couples "suffering" for not being able to adopt.

I would add that if any of these children, themselves victims of homophobic bullying, who then as a gay adult wanted to expose innocent orphaned children to a much higher risk of suffering the same trauma for self-serving reasons, when this could be avoided then I would view these individuals as extremely selfish and cruel.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

As has been pointed out to you many many many times, the adoption process is a rigorous one that already has the child's best interests at heart. As inconceivable as you find it, a gay couple adopting and considering a child's best interests aren't mutually exclusive concepts. The latter can be fulfilled by the former.

Anyways, most of disj's post was about allowing gay people to marry. The only extra right marriage brings in relation to adoption is joint custody, so it's not surprising disj doesn't discuss rights of children. And if memory serves, even you've accepted that joint custody is better for an adopted child.

It's not suprising that that he/she didn't bring up the rights of the child because gay activists and their friends don't want us to consider this. It needs to be the gay couple front and centre.

And for the umpteenth time I am discussing this issue from a holistic, moral perspective. Not specific articles of legislation.