Full rights for the LGBT community.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

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.

:pac:
.......... without a single comprehensive (large sample), long-term study with a control group.

Which is not at all the same thing.

Corkfeen

I don't believe you ever actually proved that bullying of children was an actual high risk issue. Your position also endorses preventing a person in a wheelchair from adopting on off chance of bullying. Plus people who are overweight, have eccentric dressing styles. Pretty much an endless list of potential things that they could be bullied over. Pointed out to you in the past but you prefer not to take this seriously.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

There is a clear contradiction. You're supporting a group working to stop homophobic bullying while at the same time stating that the bullies should determine who can/can't be adopted/adoptee.

It's strikes me as incredibly two-faced. "Homophobic bullying is terrible. Btw don't get any notions of ever adopting. There's a chance someone might bully the child."

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac:
.......... without a single comprehensive (large sample), long-term study with a control group.

Which is not at all the same thing.

You were presented with studies that showed there was an equal outcome. You dismissed them. I can comprehensively say that regardless of how a study is conducted, you will find fault with it. This has been discussed, you were shown to be wrong and using some dubious logic. Slinking off and coming back changes nothing.

And that's not going into the whole 'kowtowing to prejudice' nonsense.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

Marriage will make things better, not worse, for children being raised by gay couples.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

The sole morality that should be at play here is the child's best interests. Your issue is that your morality can't concede that a child's best interests can be served by being placed with a gay couple.

aloyisious

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?

Re the last sentence in your first Para, it's seem's to be a paradox because refusing to allow an adoption on the grounds of bullying-risk mean's a reduced chance of the child being adopted. I wouldn't fancy that notion.

jill_valentine

Is it Groundhog Day in here? I could swear this exact poster had all of these ideas addressed at nosebleedingly comprehensive length, by multiple posters, for pages and pages, while offering nothing of substance at all to back up his own hazily ominous and far reaching assertions.

Perhaps something has changed and he's actually read something he's been provided, or finally produced something of legitimate substance in which to found his innuendos?

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

I don't believe you ever actually proved that bullying of children was an actual high risk issue.

You really shouldn't need the self-evident explained to you. Nevertheless ...

See page 525

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the last sentence in your first Para, it's seem's to be a paradox because refusing to allow an adoption on the grounds of bullying-risk mean's a reduced chance of the child being adopted. I wouldn't fancy that notion.

Me neither, but it's based on a false premise. In reality the demand for orphans greatly exceeds the number of orphans. If that were to change placing these children with suitable gay parents would be an excellent solution. However, I feel I should clarify:

1. I don't think the high probability of homophobic bullying alone should exclude a gay couple from adoption.
2. I believe that it should be one of multiple factors to be decided upon in determining the best possible home for a child.
3. Therefore, if all else is equal and a straight couple can provide exactly the same opportunities and environment for an orphan as a gay couple minus the increased risk of homophobic bullying and discrimination then the straight couple should be chosen ahead of the gay couple every time.

For all the delusional claims of any "debunking" not a single person has mustered a single intelligent argument against my actual position.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You really shouldn't need the self-evident explained to you. Nevertheless ...

See page 525

Ahem:

This research suggests that unless homophobic practices in institutions, families and communities are combated, we are not supporting children and young people with a lesbian and gay parent to achieve these outcomes.

And from the conclusion:

Young people themselves tell us of the importance of challenging the homophobia they experience and supporting policy changes that recognise and support their families. Only by doing so will we help remove the barriers they face to ‘staying safe’ and ‘enjoying and achieving’.

Both the paper you use to support your position, and the innocent young people you purport to be concerned for, think homophobia should be challenged, not facilitated. Yours is an isolated stance with no basis in fact. Neither those qualified to talk about child welfare, nor from those you claim need protecting, support your position.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Me neither, (.............) actual position.

...which was exposed as bollocks some time ago as it was shown that outcomes are the same, at which point you conveniently disappeared.

NuMarvel

Nodin wrote: »

...which was exposed as bollocks some time ago as it was shown that outcomes are the same, at which point you conveniently disappeared.

I suppose it's hard to find intelligent arguments against your position when you point blank refuse to read the research that contains those arguments...

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You really shouldn't need the self-evident explained to you. Nevertheless ...

See page 525

Thanks although why pray tell have you not bothered to address remainder of my post. Your study doesn't support your policy of preventing same sex adoption because of bullying. Says pretty much what everyone has said to you.

'Young people themselves tell us of the impor- tance of challenging the homophobia they experience and supporting policy changes that recognise and support their families. Only by doing so will we help remove the barriers they face to ‘staying safe’ and ‘enjoying and achieving’.'

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Thanks although why pray tell have you not bothered to address remainder of my post.

Because it what is apparently acceptable parlance in this forum it was "bollocks".

Corkfeen wrote: »

'Young people themselves tell us of the impor- tance of challenging the homophobia they experience and supporting policy changes that recognise and support their families. Only by doing so will we help remove the barriers they face to ‘staying safe’ and ‘enjoying and achieving’.'

And what has that got to do with the high frequency of homophobic bullying suffered by children of gay adopted parents? Something which can be avoided?

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

I suppose it's hard to find intelligent arguments against your position when you point blank refuse to read the research that contains those arguments...

This is a completely false statement. I have read many of the fundamentally flawed studies.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

...which was exposed as bollocks some time ago as it was shown that outcomes are the same, at which point you conveniently disappeared.

Here is something for you to avoid: Which of the following are "bollocks" and why? Be specific.

1. I don't think the high probability of homophobic bullying alone should exclude a gay couple from adoption.
2. I believe that it should be one of multiple factors to be decided upon in determining the best possible home for a child.
3. Therefore, if all else is equal and a straight couple can provide exactly the same opportunities and environment for an orphan as a gay couple minus the increased risk of homophobic bullying and discrimination then the straight couple should be chosen ahead of the gay couple every time.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is (........) be chosen ahead of the gay couple every time.

How very, very convenient. Three is indeed bollocks because outcomes are the same. It doesn't matter how they get there.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

Ahem:
And from the conclusion:

Both the paper you use to support your position, and the innocent young people you purport to be concerned for, think homophobia should be challenged, not facilitated. Yours is an isolated stance with no basis in fact. Neither those qualified to talk about child welfare, nor from those you claim need protecting, support your position.

You have it wrong. The people that need protecting and which I am discussing are the literal voiceless, the orphaned children. They which don't have the PC mafia and PR departments pushing their agenda, making it a thought-crime to not be wholly submissive to the gay activists political agenda. Their agenda is simply to find the best home and life.

People like this (now teenage orphan) from Vietnam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkI3Np8-Hsg

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

How very, very convenient. Three is indeed bollocks because outcomes are the same. It doesn't matter how they get there.

I'm afraid you aren't making any sense.

What is so "convenient"?

Also, how can "outcomes be the same" if with Couple A there is a zero pc chance of homophobic bullying and with couple B there is a high chance of suffering homophobic bullying? Something which can be so severe it can lead to suicides in the children?

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because it what is apparently acceptable parlance in this forum it was "bollocks".

And what has that got to do with the high frequency of homophobic bullying suffered by children of gay adopted parents? Something which can be avoided?

By preventing it, you create more bullying. You're just letting scumbags to dictate. Also single people can adopt so gay people are already adopting. It really wasn't bollocks but I really wouldn't expect much more from you. But if you can't actually address it, fair enough. Because your stance does follow the line disabled shouldn't be allowed adopt as stigma exists and they may be bullied.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a completely false statement. I have read many of the fundamentally flawed studies.

Oldrnwisnr actually destroyed your flawed study claims. You're free to submit an analysis of their flaws to be peer reviewed but that process is too flawed for you too.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm afraid you aren't making any sense.

What is so "convenient"?

Also, how can "outcomes be the same" if with Couple A there is a zero pc chance of homophobic bullying and with couple B there is a high chance of suffering homophobic bullying? Something which can be so severe it can lead to suicides in the children?

It was shown outcomes were the same earlier in the thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90245199&postcount=1051

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

It was shown outcomes were the same earlier in the thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90245199&postcount=1051

:pac:

This was taken from the first link given. I gave up wasting my time after that.

Despite the many strengths of the present study, however,
we also acknowledge several limitations. For instance, parents
were not asked directly about their sexual identities,
and we were thus forced to rely on indirect assessments
(e.g., parents’ reports of being in a “marriage or marriagelike
relationship” with a person of the same sex). The
sample size of the current study is larger than those of much
of the previous research with this population, but the finding
of no group differences would be strengthened by replication
in larger samples. Results that include variables with
lower reliabilities should be interpreted with caution pending
replication. Finally, our assessment of victimization did
not include verbal harassment or bullying, and any interpretation
of these data must consider this fact.

Corkfeen

You're wasting our time more than your own tbh. Meta analyses make up for small studies by effectively combining existing studies. They've been provided to you but you have behaved like a brick wall for discussion so it was pointless .

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

By preventing it, you create more bullying. You're just letting scumbags to dictate. Also single people can adopt so gay people are already adopting. It really wasn't bollocks but I really wouldn't expect much more from you. But if you can't actually address it, fair enough. Because your stance does follow the line disabled shouldn't be allowed adopt as stigma exists and they may be bullied.


Oldrnwisnr actually destroyed your flawed study claims. You're free to submit an analysis of their flaws to be peer reviewed but that process is too flawed for you too.

You are right. I was rather harsh on you, and apologise.

What I was referring to as "bollocks" was the inane argument trotted out time and time again of "people get bullied for other stuff too so why not place these children in harms way by putting a crosshairs on their backs?"

Disabled people who wish to adopt are in a similar yet different situation to gays who want to adopt. Similar in that they are at a disadvantage as "ideal" parents through no fault of their own but different in that this disadvantage is curable given time, patience and being cautious.

I don't wish to discriminate against disabled people, but guess what? Discrimination is the duty of the adoption agencies. All else being equal an able-bodied couple, including a gay couple should be given preference over a disabled couple every time for the sake of the child.

Let me offer you an insight into the life and development of an orphan you probably don't have.

They have to deal with separation anxiety, the feeling of being rejected by their own mothers, as is the case now the majority of orphans adopted in Ireland will be a different ethnic group to their parents and will be visibly "different" if you compound all this forcing them to live with two dads or two mums they are ****ed. They can have the best parents in the world but won't change how the world treats them.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have it wrong. The people that need protecting and which I am discussing are the literal voiceless, the orphaned children. They which don't have the PC mafia and PR departments pushing their agenda, making it a thought-crime to not be wholly submissive to the gay activists political agenda. Their agenda is simply to find the best home and life.

Where do I have it wrong? The paper you use to support your claims says that both the researchers and the children themselves believe that discriminatory practices should be combated and challenged, not supported. For all your talk of concern for children, you're not listening to what they have to say.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

People like this (now teenage orphan) from Vietnam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkI3Np8-Hsg

Have you actually watched the video? He's speaking at a rally against gay marriage (organised by the PR department of agenda-driven anti-equality activists, btw). He has no experience of being raised by a gay couple, and says absolutely nothing about bullying. What he does say is "GAY MARRIAGE IS PURE SELFISHNESS", so I think we can guess how he fells about gay people in general.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are right. I was rather harsh on you, and apologise.

What I was referring to as "bollocks" was the inane argument trotted out time and time again of "people get bullied for other stuff too so why not place these children in harms way by putting a crosshairs on their backs?"

Disabled people who wish to adopt are in a similar yet different situation to gays who want to adopt. Similar in that they are at a disadvantage as "ideal" parents through no fault of their own but different in that this disadvantage is curable given time, patience and being cautious.

I don't wish to discriminate against disabled people, but guess what? Discrimination is the duty of the adoption agencies. All else being equal an able-bodied couple, including a gay couple should be given preference over a disabled couple every time for the sake of the child.

Let me offer you an insight into the life and development of an orphan you probably don't have.

They have to deal with separation anxiety, the feeling of being rejected by their own mothers, as is the case now the majority of orphans adopted in Ireland will be a different ethnic group to their parents and will be visibly "different" if you compound all this forcing them to live with two dads or two mums they are ****ed. They can have the best parents in the world but won't change how the world treats them.

I specifically asked would you consider bullying because of stigma around disability as reason enough to prevent adoption. Would severe facial scarring be another reason to prevent it? A child can be bullied over numerous things but gay parents are who you're focusing upon. You don't want to work against stigma, you want to legitimise it.

disj

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?

Ok, I never mentioned gay couples having kids once in what I wrote. I mentioned I'm for gay marriage and in the 21st century marriage does not equate children but I will comment on gay couples having kids and my comment is why not? What a child needs in their life is to be surrounded by love and support and where that love and support should come from is the family unit-be they married, gay, straight it should not matter. The responsibility for any person who chooses to become a parent is that they surround the child with unconditional love and give them all the help and support they need to have a happy and productive life.

There are plenty of straight parents out there who do not offer a good life to their children, there are many who abuse their children or simply cannot offer anything positive to them so how could anyone dare complain about a same sex couple? The heterosexual couple isn't exactly top notch at the old parenting job in a lot of cases so judging anyone on their sexual preferences is certainly out dated.

I'm sure plenty of same sex couples would make excellent parents and I'm sure some will be crap but it's the same with straight people. And any gay couple that decides to adopt rather than have a surrogate parent or whatever, is doing a great service also by helping out children who would other wise be left in adoption homes or foster care. (I know straight people adopt too but it is still a big issue and the more people willing to take on the role of parenthood the better)

Also, due to the fact that it will not be all that easy for a gay couple to just have a child the effort they will have to go to to adopt will only be endured as they long desperately to be a parent so perhaps they would not take that role for granted as many other people do and perhaps be far better and more loving parents.

Issues such as young people having children etc are far greater than allowing a gay couple to adopt.

aloyisious

George Takei posted-image

aloyisious

Now this is good and (I hope) get through to those who think and/or profess that gay couples cannot have/parent children.....

http://attitude.co.uk/gay-couple-share-photo-holding-baby-first-time/

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

Now this is good and (I hope) get through to those who think and/or profess that gay couples cannot have/parent children.....

http://attitude.co.uk/gay-couple-share-photo-holding-baby-first-time/

I'm not sure 1 photo will convince people

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

Now this is good and (I hope) get through to those who think and/or profess that gay couples cannot have/parent children.....

http://attitude.co.uk/gay-couple-share-photo-holding-baby-first-time/

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but a gay couple cannot - by definition - have children.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm not sure 1 photo will convince people

I wish them all the luck in the world but I am not sure what is supposed to be "convincing me of" to be honest. It's a gay male couple who have taken their tops of while they get shot by a professional photographer while they collect a baby from the woman they have hired to give birth to it.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that the birth of a baby, even in this unnatural surrogacy method "represents everything that pride is about". I wouldn't take my kids to the Pride parade. Nothing to do with sexuality of course. I wouldn't take children to a strip club either.

Just one last thing. What happens when/if this gay couple break up? Only one of them fertilised the egg. Does the second guy have any rights to the child he has absolutely no biological connection to at all?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just one last thing. What happens when/if this gay couple break up? Only one of them fertilised the egg. Does the second guy have any rights to the child he has absolutely no biological connection to at all?

What happens in heterosexual couples where this occurs?

Or has this worry just occurred to you because it involves gay men?

Phill Ewinn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wish them all the luck in the world but I am not sure what is supposed to be "convincing me of" to be honest. It's a gay male couple who have taken their tops of while they get shot by a professional photographer while they collect a baby from the woman they have hired to give birth to it.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that the birth of a baby, even in this unnatural surrogacy method "represents everything that pride is about". I wouldn't take my kids to the Pride parade. Nothing to do with sexuality of course. I wouldn't take children to a strip club either.

Just one last thing. What happens when/if this gay couple break up? Only one of them fertilised the egg. Does the second guy have any rights to the child he has absolutely no biological connection to at all?

The unnecessary toplessness was for dramatic effect. You're supposed to be impressed.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just one last thing. What happens when/if this gay couple break up? Only one of them fertilised the egg. Does the second guy have any rights to the child he has absolutely no biological connection to at all?

I can't see anything that covers same-sex couples breaking up (married or not) and what happens to the child. Information here.

Outside of marriage, Irish law only sees the biological mother as the sole guardian of the child so if the couple was two men, there are already problems for both men. The biological father can apply for legal guardianship of the child but I can't see anything to allow for the other parent to gain access or custody.

If it was a lesbian couple then the biological mother would retain custody. I presume the non-biological mother would also have problems gaining any access to the child as law currently stands.

This is a problem for all couples that are unmarried, be they heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual etc.

Opposing marriage equality, IMHO, is not serving the best interests of the child as one of the parents has no legal protection/rights regarding the couples child.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but a gay couple cannot - by definition - have children.

Of course a gay couple can have children.

What you mean is that a gay couple can't create an embryo using their own gametes. This is also true of many heterosexual couples, but you're not objecting to heterosexual couples having children that they haven't produced from their own gametes; you're only objecting to homosexual couples doing so.

So this isn't about an inability to produce children, it's about sexuality, and it's disingenuous at best for you to pretend otherwise.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course a gay couple can have children.

What you mean is that a gay couple can't create an embryo using their own gametes.

I would have thought it was quite clear what I meant.

NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have a baby TOGETHER.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is also true of many heterosexual couples, but you're not objecting to heterosexual couples having children that they haven't produced from their own gametes; you're only objecting to homosexual couples doing so.

So this isn't about an inability to produce children, it's about sexuality, and it's disingenuous at best for you to pretend otherwise.

This objecting is naturally based on my hatred for gays.

One problem though. I have not and do not object to gays having children through surrogacy or a gay partner becoming the legally adoptive parent of their partners naturally produced child. In fact, I have been explicit on more than one occasion that I have no issue with this.

Therefore I would appreciate you doing the honourable thing and withdrawing your false and thinly-veiled homophobia slur.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

I can't see anything that covers same-sex couples breaking up (married or not) and what happens to the child. Information here.

Outside of marriage, Irish law only sees the biological mother as the sole guardian of the child so if the couple was two men, there are already problems for both men. The biological father can apply for legal guardianship of the child but I can't see anything to allow for the other parent to gain access or custody.

If it was a lesbian couple then the biological mother would retain custody. I presume the non-biological mother would also have problems gaining any access to the child as law currently stands.

This is a problem for all couples that are unmarried, be they heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual etc.

Opposing marriage equality, IMHO, is not serving the best interests of the child as one of the parents has no legal protection/rights regarding the couples child.

Thanks. Though I was specifically interested in finding out about the guys in the photo.

It seems like a fairly messed up situation to me, assuming both males are capable of reproducing that they chose one over the other. I was curious if the "dad" on paper only has less rights in the case of a divorce.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would have thought it was quite clear what I meant.

NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have a baby TOGETHER.

This objecting is naturally based on my hatred for gays.

One problem though. I have not and do not object to gays having children through surrogacy or a gay partner becoming the legally adoptive parent of their partners naturally produced child. In fact, I have been explicit on more than one occasion that I have no issue with this.

Therefore I would appreciate you doing the honourable thing and withdrawing your false and thinly-veiled homophobia slur.

Wait. Hang on - why is it ok for those kids to be bullied but not the kids with no blood relationship to their parents?

Brown Bomber

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The unnecessary toplessness was for dramatic effect. You're supposed to be impressed.

Not sure what the fuss is. It's tearless "crying"/whincing which looks stage-managed to me with the poor kid used as a prop.

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Wait. Hang on - why is it ok for those kids to be bullied but not the kids with no blood relationship to their parents?

???

Have you not listened to a word I've said?

It's not "okay" for anyone to be bullied. Parents have/should have the right to decide what is in their own child's best interests (within the law). Also, it is absolutely none of my business what they decide for their own children.

What I have been discussing are orphans (y'know the term that you find so offensive?) who have no parents and rely on the state to act on all our behalf's as a society in the very best interests of the child to find the BEST possible home for these children.

Where bullying comes into it is that when you home orphans with gay parents you are automatically placing them into a high risk category for homophobic bullying -which can seriously impact on any child's welfare.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks. Though I was specifically interested in finding out about the guys in the photo.

It seems like a fairly messed up situation to me, assuming both males are capable of reproducing that they chose one over the other. I was curious if the "dad" on paper only has less rights in the case of a divorce.

I don't see how it's a messed up situation. They had to choose one of them to be the biological father as they were only trying for a single child. Plus we don't know both mens respective family history.

With regards to Canada, I found this:

Understandably, children are often the biggest concern for couples during a separation or divorce. This page will help to outline important topics regarding your children during this process.
When dealing with Child Custody in Canada our courts focus on one thing: The best interest of the children.

In some situations the decision of child custody can be amicably decided by parents at the time of separation. If this is the case, then it is important that the couple ensure their agreements are properly documented in a legally binding separation agreement.

In many cases the parents agree on joint custody. However, there are times where a parent may want sole custody of children. For example, where a parent has never been involved in a child’s life, is unable to parent, or where a parent must leave the country permanently. In these cases it may make sense for one parent to have sole custody. The many different types of custody are explained in greater detail further down this page.

If an amicable agreement is not possible then deciding who will get custody and what type it will be, gets determined by the courts. This decision is never made lightly and divorce law sets out some basic principles for a judge to follow when making this important decision.

When determining child custody in Canada a judge will consider items such as:

• First and foremost the best interest of the children.
• The parent-child relationship and bonding.
• Parenting abilities of each individual.
• Each parent’s mental, physical and emotional health.
• The typical schedule of both parents and children.
• Available support systems of each parent (for example, help and involvement of grandparents or other close relatives).
• Sibling issues. Generally, brothers and sisters will be kept together, but under some circumstances it may be necessary to consider separating them.
• Care arrangements before the separation. Who was the primary care giver?
• The child’s wishes. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is often appointed by the court to help in determining the child’s wishes. Once a child turns 12 years of age, his or her wishes to live with one parent or another are usually respected by the courts.

When determining child custody the past behavior of a parent will not be taken into consideration by the courts, unless their behavior reflects directly on the individual’s ability to act as a parent.


Source

It makes no distinction on heterosexual/homosexual/male/female so I don't see anything in the above that would mean that a homo/bi-sexual parent would be treated any differently that a heterosexual step-parent for example.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

Have you not listened to a word I've said?

It's not "okay" for anyone to be bullied. Parents have/should have the right to decide what is in their own child's best interests (within the law). Also, it is absolutely none of my business what they decide for their own children.

What I have been discussing are orphans (y'know the term that you find so offensive?) who have no parents and rely on the state to act on all our behalf's as a society in the very best interests of the child to find the BEST possible home for these children.

Where bullying comes into it is that when you home orphans with gay parents you are automatically placing them into a high risk category for homophobic bullying -which can seriously impact on any child's welfare.

All bullying can impact on a childs welfare, why should homophobic bullying be treated different from any other type of bullying?

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

Have you not listened to a word I've said?

It's not "okay" for anyone to be bullied. Parents have/should have the right to decide what is in their own child's best interests (within the law). Also, it is absolutely none of my business what they decide for their own children.

What I have been discussing are orphans (y'know the term that you find so offensive?) who have no parents and rely on the state to act on all our behalf's as a society in the very best interests of the child to find the BEST possible home for these children.

Where bullying comes into it is that when you home orphans with gay parents you are automatically placing them into a high risk category for homophobic bullying -which can seriously impact on any child's welfare.

But that makes no sense. If children who are being parented by gay couples are at risk of bullying then all children are. So you are actually saying its ok for some children to be bullied but not others. Thats the logical conclusion of your arguments.

PopePalpatine

We're back to bullying again, aren't we?

When has capitulating to bullies done anything good for society? We capitulated to the iron fist of the RCC, and guess how well that went.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would have thought it was quite clear what I meant.

NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have a baby TOGETHER.

So what? Who cares? If I see a hetero couple with a baby, I have no way of knowing whether they conceived it naturally, used a surrogate or adopted it. It doesn't matter to me. Why does it matter to you?

This objecting is naturally based on my hatred for gays.

One problem though. I have not and do not object to gays having children through surrogacy or a gay partner becoming the legally adoptive parent of their partners naturally produced child. In fact, I have been explicit on more than one occasion that I have no issue with this.

Therefore I would appreciate you doing the honourable thing and withdrawing your false and thinly-veiled homophobia slur.

I'm invoking the "walks like a duck" defence. You've spent considerable time on a thread about the right of gay couples to marry - not adopt, that's a completely irrelevant issue to the thread - arguing that the state should discriminate against homosexual couples, and hand-waving away detailed and thoroughly-researched rebuttals against your arguments.

If you don't want to receive replies that you consider thinly-veiled accusations of homophobia, perhaps you shouldn't make blatantly offensive and untrue statements like "gays can't have children".

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would have thought it was quite clear what I meant.

NO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE can have a baby TOGETHER. .

Neither can a doubly sterile hetero sexual couple.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It seems like a fairly messed up situation to me, assuming both males are capable of reproducing that they chose one over the other. I was curious if the "dad" on paper only has less rights in the case of a divorce.

And as I asked earlier -

What happens in heterosexual couples where this occurs?

Or has this worry just occurred to you because it involves gay men?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where bullying comes into it is that when you home orphans with gay parents you are automatically placing them into a high risk category for homophobic bullying -which can seriously impact on any child's welfare.

It's already been shown that outcomes are the same. Your continued use of the 'leave it, come back and start cycle again' tactic won't change that.

NuMarvel

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've spent considerable time on a thread about the right of gay couples to marry - not adopt, that's a completely irrelevant issue to the thread - arguing that the state should discriminate against homosexual couples, and hand-waving away detailed and thoroughly-researched rebuttals against your arguments.

To be fair, this thread isn't just about the right to marry, but about the LGBT community achieving full legal equality. That can include adoption.

However, that's only in the context of the law needing to recognise joint adoption, because gay people already have the same rights as any other single person in terms of adoption. Many of Bomber's comments are irrelevant, because he's choosing to concentrate on "moral" issues instead of legal issues, and he's trying to politicise the adoption decision making process.

It is not for the State to tell child welfare staff how to do their job, by placing unnecessary limits on who can or can't apply to adopt. The State's role in adoption is to ensure that the law supports the decisions made by staff, whatever decisions they may be. And in terms of gay people adopting child, everyone agrees that joint adoption is in the child's best interests.

Phill Ewinn

NuMarvel wrote: »

he's choosing to concentrate on "moral" issues instead of legal issues, and he's trying to politicise the adoption decision making process.

Why is the word moral placed in inverted comas in that sentence? Parents are there to teach their children many things. Morality is certainly one of those things.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Why is the word moral placed in inverted comas in that sentence? Parents are there to teach their children many things. Morality is certainly one of those things.

Probably because some people have a skewed interpretation of morality when it comes to gay relationships.