Full rights for the LGBT community.

NuMarvel

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.

Because there is nothing immoral about a child being adopted by a gay couple who have been judged suitable to adopt.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

I don't see how it's a messed up situation.

This is how.

SW wrote: »

They had to choose one of them to be the biological father as they were only trying for a single child.

SW wrote: »

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.

Only 1 is the natural parent. They have to decide who wins and who loses and then according to you if they divorce the loser loses again as he is relegated to "step parent".

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

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

Because any children being placed with gay parents and suffering homophobic bullying because of this is a situation that is completely avoidable.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is how.

Only 1 is the natural parent. They have to decide who wins and who loses and then according to you if they divorce the loser loses again as he is relegated to "step parent".

how exactly is a not being the biological donor considered a loser? and "relgated to step parent" is a pretty poor turn of phrase. Step-parent = non-biological parent.

In addition to that, you didn't read the information regarding Canada and divorces or you would have seen that the non-biological isn't viewed any differently than the biological parent when it comes to custody cases. It's down to the best interests of the child. This means it's entirely possible for the non-biological parent to retain primary custody of the child.

These are issues that already exist for heterosexual couples, yet you don't seem to be suggesting they not be allowed adopt/re-marry.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because any children being placed with gay parents and suffering homophobic bullying because of this is a situation that is completely avoidable.

Not this ****e again , you are working overtime to live up to your avatar.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because any children being placed with gay parents and suffering homophobic bullying because of this is a situation that is completely avoidable.

adoptive children also suffer bullying yet you don't seem to be suggesting stopping people adopting.

You're also presuming that everyone has a problem with same-sex parents. This is not so. It's entirely possible to go to school and not be bullied for having same-parents.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because any children being placed with gay parents and suffering homophobic bullying because of this is a situation that is completely avoidable.

Yet, the children themselves don't share your concern. They think more should be done to stop bullying. They DON'T think that gay couples should stop raising children until the bullying stops.

What's more, research shows that despite the effects of bullying (if any), children raised by gay couples do just as well, and sometimes better than those raised by heterosexual couples.

So what you're saying is that you know better than the experts who research this area AND the children who have been raised by gay couples. Seeing as how you don't even know the basics of how adoption works in Ireland, I find that hard to believe.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

How much it "matters" to you or I is irrelevant. It is a basic scientific fact that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce together.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

1 - This is from the OP.

Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children.

2-I begged and pleaded to see the mythical study claimed to exist which proves that children of gay parents aren't greater victims of homophobic bullying.
3-If you truly believe that putting the orphan's welfare before the desires of gay couples is homophobia then I'd suggest you have a warped view of what it is to be homophobic.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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".

The only thing "blatantly offensive and untrue" is your second consecutive false allegation against me. I never said such a thing.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How much it "matters" to you or I is irrelevant. It is a basic scientific fact that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce together.


1 - This is from the OP.

2-I begged and pleaded to see the mythical study claimed to exist which proves that children of gay parents aren't greater victims of homophobic bullying.
3-If you truly believe that putting the orphan's welfare before the desires of gay couples is homophobia then I'd suggest you have a warped view of what it is to be homophobic.


The only thing "blatantly offensive and untrue" is your second consecutive false allegation against me. I never said such a thing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

adoptive children also suffer bullying yet you don't seem to be suggesting stopping people adopting.

You're also presuming that everyone has a problem with same-sex parents. This is not so. It's entirely possible to go to school and not be bullied for having same-parents.

I feel like we went to school on different planets. The lads who got the hardest time by far in my school were the ones were feminine and presumed gay.

Also "entirely possible" is a child found hanging from a tree in his garden because he couldn't take the homophobic bullying anymore.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

you wont be confused if you understand that a gay couple is not the same as "gays" in general.

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I feel like we went to school on different planets. The lads who got the hardest time by far in my school were the ones were feminine and presumed gay.

Also "entirely possible" is a child found hanging from a tree in his garden because he couldn't take the homophobic bullying anymore.

Hmmm. I'm gay and not one person has ever seriously presumed I was gay in my life. Many don't believe me when I tell them. We're not all walking stereotypes.

I'm starting to get really tired and really annoyed at your feigned concern for us. Bollox. You're the one contributing to all this homophobia and negative perceptions. You want to deny us rights, make life harder for us and our families by making us different and keeping us "over there". Because segragation has never caused any problems for anyone. ever :rolleyes:

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I feel like we went to school on different planets. The lads who got the hardest time by far in my school were the ones were feminine and presumed gay.

The kids that got the hardest time in my schools were Protestants. Should we bar certain religious groups from adopting also?

Also "entirely possible" is a child found hanging from a tree in his garden because he couldn't take the homophobic bullying anymore.

Must we descend to emotional manipulation? :rolleyes:

Why must homophobic bullying be sublety condoned by pandering to homophobic bullies? Why does the best interests of the child get ignored? If an adoption agency choose a same-sex couple as the best home, why should they be barred because some knuckle-dragger might possibly bully the child? How does this serve the best interest of the child? And why do you presume that the rest of society/children/teaching staff will condone the bullying?

Barring same-sex couples from adopting bolsters the bullies claims that same-sex parents are unnatural/unfit etc.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

you wont be confused if you understand that a gay couple is not the same as "gays" in general.

but gay couples do have children, be it through surrogacy/adoption/previous relationships.

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Hmmm. I'm gay and not one person has ever seriously presumed I was gay in my life. Many don't believe me when I tell them. We're not all walking stereotypes.

I'm starting to get really tired and really annoyed at your feigned concern for us. Bollox. You're the one contributing to all this homophobia and negative perceptions. You want to deny us rights, make life harder for us and our families by making us different and keeping us "over there". Because segragation has never caused any problems for anyone. ever :rolleyes:

You don't have to take my word on it.

Moreover, no school is exempt. "This is not class-specific," says Alan Wardall of the gay rights group Stonewall. "It happens in all schools - public, state, all-girl schools and all-boy schools." Wardall says that straight children are also at the mercy of homophobic bullies. "It can happen to the girl with the short hair who is good at hockey, or the boy who is studious and plays in the boy band," he says. "If you don't conform to the quite narrow gender stereotypes that children have, you can be a victim."


Homophobic bullying carries a particular menace because rarely does any young person want to admit to the nature of their abuse. Children who are victimised might not even be gay, or know they are, or have come out. They are unlikely to raise such a subject with teachers or parents. So they suffer in silence. And because it is so hidden, this type of bullying can have horrifying consequences. Something To Tell You, a study of lesbian and gay teenagers, showed that one in five had attempted suicide at least once.


According to research carried out by Rivers, nearly a third of bullied lesbian, gay or bisexual children self-harm. Nearly one in five display symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Rivers's survey participants showed higher tendencies to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem. "These young people face a daily barrage, an unprecedented level of violence," says Jill Greenfield at Manchester's Peer Support Project, which advises young gays and bisexuals. She says it is impossible to imagine the daily trauma of negotiating school: how to get in and out, which corridors to walk down, which class might be problematic, where might be safe to go at break times. Children who experience such bullying commonly skip lessons, or entire chunks of school, or stop attending altogether.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/01/gayrights.schools

more
http://www.independent.ie/life/family/learning/students-stand-up-to-homophobic-bullying-29768841.html

and more again.
http://www.dcu.ie/education_studies/schooling_sexualities/documents/schoolingsexualities-phase2report.pdf

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

but gay couples do have children, be it through surrogacy/adoption/previous relationships.

Name a single same sex couple who have procreated together in in the history of the world.

comongethappy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Name a single same sex couple who have procreated together in in the history of the world.

Why is that important?

Brown Bomber

comongethappy wrote: »

Why is that important?

This is getting ridiculous now.

It is important because it would establish if two men or two women can have sex together and reproduce. Can't believe I am actually having this conversation...

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't have to take my word on it.


more
http://www.independent.ie/life/family/learning/students-stand-up-to-homophobic-bullying-29768841.html

and more again.
http://www.dcu.ie/education_studies/schooling_sexualities/documents/schoolingsexualities-phase2report.pdf

There is a certain irony that you linked to a document called "stand up to homophobic bullying" while suggesting we bar same-sex couples from adopting so we can sweep the problem under the carpet.

The documents also are regarding homosexual students not children of same-parents. I guess we should impose home-schooling on those students to avoid the bullying.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Name a single same sex couple who have procreated together in in the history of the world.

I said "have", not "procreated", so I'm not sure why you're asking me for such an example.

Here's an example to illustrate why I see a problem with your claim that same-sex couples don't have children.

A man and woman have a child.

Does this mean?

1. They are both biological parents of the child?
2. One of the parents had the child from a previous relationship?
3. They adopted the child?
4. They use a surrogate mother?
5. They used a sperm donor?
5. Any one of the above?

comongethappy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now.

It is important because it would establish if two men or two women can have sex together and reproduce. Can't believe I am actually having this conversation...

You've proven resolute at stating the blindingly obvious.

You haven't made anything remotely close to a coherent point in all your scores of posts on why you think them icky queers can't marry one another.

Where I that bad at debate I'd give up.

Brown Bomber

ed

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yet, the children themselves don't share your concern. They think more should be done to stop bullying. They DON'T think that gay couples should stop raising children until the bullying stops.

What's more, research shows that despite the effects of bullying (if any), children raised by gay couples do just as well, and sometimes better than those raised by heterosexual couples.

So what you're saying is that you know better than the experts who research this area AND the children who have been raised by gay couples. Seeing as how you don't even know the basics of how adoption works in Ireland, I find that hard to believe.

You don't have to answer this but can I ask if you are gay?

If so, have you perceived a general positive shift in attitudes towards homosexuals in your lifetime?

If so, is there any reason to suggest this trend won't continue?

If not, wouldn't it be fairer on the children to be patient and cautious before placing them in unpredictable and potentially harmful situations?

As we lack a single comprehensive and long-term study worldwide nevermind in the Irish context isn't it in the parentless child's interests to dip our toe in the water before opening the floodgates?

Wouldn't we understand this whole situation better if we were to run a pilot programme first? Where we could track and study these children's development into adulthood and then make an informed decision?

Brown Bomber

comongethappy wrote: »

You've proven resolute at stating the blindingly obvious.

You haven't made anything remotely close to a coherent point in all your scores of posts on why you think them icky queers can't marry one another.

Where I that bad at debate I'd give up.

You are. Strawman + false premise. I am in favour of gay people having the right to marry each other if that is what they want.

So do give up. Bye.

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

ed
You don't have to answer this but can I ask if you are gay?

If so, have you perceived a general positive shift in attitudes towards homosexuals in your lifetime?

If so, is there any reason to suggest this trend won't continue?

If not, wouldn't it be fairer on the children to be patient and cautious before placing them in unpredictable and potentially harmful situations?

As we lack a single comprehensive and long-term study worldwide nevermind in the Irish context isn't it in the parentless child's interests to dip our toe in the water before opening the floodgates?

Wouldn't we understand this whole situation better if we were to run a pilot programme first? Where we could track and study these children's development into adulthood and then make an informed decision?

How come you think its ok for children with gay biological parents to be bullied?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

I said "have", not "procreated", so I'm not sure why you're asking me for such an example.

Here's an example to illustrate why I see a problem with your claim that same-sex couples don't have children.

A man and woman have a child.

Does this mean?

1. They are both biological parents of the child?
2. One of the parents had the child from a previous relationship?
3. They adopted the child?
4. They use a surrogate mother?
5. They used a sperm donor?
5. Any one of the above?

I don't want to patronise you because I respect you but you need to go back to Aloysius' original comment and understand that slash (/) means "or" when he said "have/parent".

I am more interested in your views on 1 in 5 child victims of homophobic bullying attempting suicide at least once and the logic behind intentionally placing children into this risk category.

Sacksian

This article from Slate popped up in my inbox and seems guite relevant to the discussion: Conservatives Harm Children by Opposing Gay Adoption

It reports recent research which found that:

The children of gay parents are just as healthy and happy as the children of straight parents. Actually, the study found that children in gay families are a bit healthier and happier than their counterparts in straight families, since gay parents often “take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into … gender stereotypes,” creating a “more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and well being.”

Essentially, it concludes (as a lot of people here have been posting) that the problem for children of gay parents isn't their parents' sexuality but reactionary or homophobic arguments that perpetuate stigma against same-sex couple adoption.

"Gay parents don’t disadvantage their children—but conservatives’ smear campaigns against gay parents do."

"Conservatives have been claiming for years, in one form or another, that gay people are hurting children, and that kids need to be protected from gays. But in reality, it isn’t gays from whom kids must be protected. It’s conservatives themselves."

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How come you think its ok for children with gay biological parents to be bullied?

I have answered this. Perhaps I didn't do so clearly?

Children with gay biological parents:Have parent(s) to decide what is in their own child's best interests; an orphan does not. The orphan is in the care of the state who are obligated both legally and morally to act in the child's best interests i.e. not in the best interests of prospective adoptive couples.

The state has no grounds to interfere in the private relationship between a parent and child. Except in exceptional circumstances such as abuse, neglect and so on.

An alternative exists where the orphan is not placed into the high risk category for homophobic bullying. No such alternative exists for the biological child with a gay parent as the parent cannot stop being the natural parent not become "ungay".

In our democratic society the state acts in my name. The private relationship between a gay biological parent and their children is none of my business.

+++

Now if I could just turn your own question on you. Why do you think the suffering of orphaned children through needless homophobic bullying is a price worth paying?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't want to patronise you because I respect you but you need to go back to Aloysius' original comment and understand that slash (/) means "or" when he said "have/parent".

I am more interested in your views on 1 in 5 child victims of homophobic bullying attempting suicide at least once and the logic behind intentionally placing children into this risk category.

Teens also attempt suicide when parents separate. Are you opposed to divorce also?

Homophobic bullying needs to be tackled head on. Not supported by virtue of barring same-sex couples from adopting for example. Parents, teachers, and the community need to oppose this bullying where it happens. It's on each person to challenge it where it happens. These simple acts of emotional support for the young people will have a positive effect and will go a long way towards reducing suicide attempts. Your suggestion of barring same-sex adoption won't.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

wouldn't it be fairer on the children to be patient and cautious before placing them in unpredictable and potentially harmful situations?

As we lack a single comprehensive and long-term study worldwide nevermind in the Irish context isn't it in the parentless child's interests to dip our toe in the water before opening the floodgates?

Gay people raising children isn't an unpredictable or harmful situation. We don't lack comprehensive and long-term studies.

We just don't have studies that satisfy you, because you're intentionally setting absurd criteria. It's like insisting that we don't allow the sale of milk formula until a test group has reached adulthood and had their own children.

There is no support for your position from the people who have done the research, the people who make adoption decisions everyday, or, most importantly, from the children themselves. I've seen nothing that shows why your opinion deserves to be elevated over theirs.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now.

Ain't that the truth.

It is important because it would establish if two men or two women can have sex together and reproduce.

Everybody knows that a gay couple can't have sex together and reproduce.

I'll ask the same question again: who cares? What difference does it make? How is it qualitatively different from an infertile heterosexual couple who can't reproduce by having sex?

You keep banging on about an inability to conceive as if it has anything to do with the topic, but you won't explain how such an inability to conceive justifies discrimination against gays when it doesn't justify discrimination against an infertile hetero couple.

If there's a reason for this, just tell us. If you don't perceive it as a justification for discrimination against gays, you'd be doing us all a favour - yourself chiefly - by not continuing to witter on about it.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

ed
You don't have to answer this but can I ask (..........) informed decision?

Why are you going over what has been debunked, derided and dealt with in detail already at least twice in the thread? Outcomes are the same, you have no case whatsoever.

I note you lacked the wherewithal to answer my question earlier
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91166119&postcount=1298

Phill Ewinn

Sacksian wrote: »

This article from Slate popped up in my inbox and seems guite relevant to the discussion: Conservatives Harm Children by Opposing Gay Adoption

It reports recent research which found that:



Essentially, it concludes (as a lot of people here have been posting) that the problem for children of gay parents isn't their parents' sexuality but reactionary or homophobic arguments that perpetuate stigma against same-sex couple adoption.

"Gay parent is best parent" type propoganda doesn't fly in the real world.

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

"Gay parent is best parent" type propoganda doesn't fly in the real world.

No that won't fly in the real world because studies have shown no advantage or disadvantage to same-sex parenting compared to heterosexual couples.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

"Gay parent is best parent" type propoganda doesn't fly in the real world.

Is that your best effort?

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

ed

If not, wouldn't it be fairer on the children to be patient and cautious before placing them in unpredictable and potentially harmful situations?

As we lack a single comprehensive and long-term study worldwide nevermind in the Irish context isn't it in the parentless child's interests to dip our toe in the water before opening the floodgates?

Wouldn't we understand this whole situation better if we were to run a pilot programme first? Where we could track and study these children's development into adulthood and then make an informed decision?

That notion sounds like a social experiment, something frowned upon by those who have stated opposition to the notion of Same-Sex Couples adopting or raising children within Same-sex parented families. Given the age-range you suggest for the children to be tested-on, it also seem's that it would likely result in a delay of over a decade in the current progression of public opinion of who is, and is not, an adult fit to fulfil the role of parent. The use of the word "floodgates" seem's emotive, implying that lives/futures of children would be lost if homosexuals were to be allowed marry another person of the same sex, adopt etc....

Nodin

_Redzer_ wrote: »

No that won't fly in the real world because studies have shown no advantage or disadvantage to same-sex parenting compared to heterosexual couples.

So you now acknowledge outcomes are the same? Well done.

_Redzer_

Nodin wrote: »

So you now acknowledge outcomes are the same? Well done.

Ehm, thanks?

Nodin

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ehm, thanks?

Sorry, confused you with another.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

That notion sounds like a social experiment,

It would be precisely that.

aloyisious wrote: »

something frowned upon by those who have stated opposition to the notion of Same-Sex Couples adopting or raising children within Same-sex parented families.

Well it's a social experiment either way. The benefit of a pilot project is that it limits the amount of potential victims. I'm not assuming victims but at the same time not assuming it would be without problems either.

aloyisious wrote: »

Given the age-range you suggest for the children to be tested-on, it also seem's that it would likely result in a delay of over a decade in the current progression of public opinion of who is, and is not, an adult fit to fulfil the role of parent.

Not sure what showing patience should be a critical issue. Can you explain?

aloyisious wrote: »

The use of the word "floodgates" seem's emotive, implying that lives/futures of children would be lost if homosexuals were to be allowed marry another person of the same sex, adopt etc....

I am sorry if it causes any offense but "opening the floodgates" is a perfect description.

open the floodgates

› If an action or a decision opens the floodgates , it allows something to happen a lot or allows many people to do something that was not previously allowed : Officials are worried that allowing these refugees into the country will open the floodgates to thousands more

.

I would be very keen to to see you do out a pros and cons list for actually testing out the effects on the child of adoption of orphans by gay couples as I believe the pros far outweigh the cons.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ain't that the truth. Everybody knows that a gay couple can't have sex together and reproduce.

Except when I say it I am quacking like a gay bashing duck right?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll ask the same question again:

The same question is "why do you care?". The reality is that you never had any reason to think that I care. Which you would have known if you had actually read my opinions and not resorted to mud slinging and false accusations.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You keep banging on about an inability to conceive as if it has anything to do with the topic, but you won't explain how such an inability to conceive justifies discrimination against gays when it doesn't justify discrimination against an infertile hetero couple.

If there's a reason for this, just tell us. If you don't perceive it as a justification for discrimination against gays, you'd be doing us all a favour - yourself chiefly - by not continuing to witter on about it.

Once again, I was just correcting an error. A gay couple cannot have (as in create) a child together.

There is no reason you should have a problem with this.

Brown Bomber

Sacksian wrote: »

This article from Slate

Supports what I have been saying.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Supports what I have been saying.

Really?

The children were not upset that their parents are gay. In fact, most of them embraced it. The negativity that children with gay parents experience is rarely the result of having gay parents. Instead, it's the cultural stigma that causes all the problems. Any concerns they had were the result of how they would be treated in the public sphere. Research constantly shows that children with gay parents are normal, healthy, well-adjusted people. It's the social scrutiny and stigmatization that children have to negotiate and contend with.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I feel like we went to school on different planets. The lads who got the hardest time by far in my school were the ones were feminine and presumed gay.

Also "entirely possible" is a child found hanging from a tree in his garden because he couldn't take the homophobic bullying anymore.

That is a direct result of your peers' intolerance, ignorance and homophobia.

It is not the fault of the effeminate male, nor his parents.

Yet you're suggesting 'punishing' the latter group for the former's issues? Rewind 70 years, should we have prevented mixed race couples from adopting, or forge on with an equal rights movement?

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It would be precisely that.


Well it's a social experiment either way. The benefit of a pilot project is that it limits the amount of potential victims. I'm not assuming victims but at the same time not assuming it would be without problems either.


Not sure what showing patience should be a critical issue. Can you explain?


I am sorry if it causes any offense but "opening the floodgates" is a perfect description..

I would be very keen to to see you do out a pros and cons list for actually testing out the effects on the child of adoption of orphans by gay couples as I believe the pros far outweigh the cons.

You strike me as somebody who is very socially conservative, probably opposed divorce because of the harm it does to children, you've said you are opposed to mixed race adoptions IIRC, and if you'd lived years ago would have been against mixed race marriage, mixed religion, stuff like that.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It would be precisely that.


Not sure what showing patience should be a critical issue. Can you explain?

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

@BB: I was thinking that that social experiment would be an excellent way (devil's advocacy - not mine - angle) to put a delay in changes entered into our country's statute law and law-books being put into legal practice; ala, if one can't stop it, one might "string-out" it's implementation 'til public opinion change, the "cute-hoor" approach.

NuMarvel

SW wrote: »

Really?

The children were not upset that their parents are gay. In fact, most of them embraced it. The negativity that children with gay parents experience is rarely the result of having gay parents. Instead, it's the cultural stigma that causes all the problems. Any concerns they had were the result of how they would be treated in the public sphere. Research constantly shows that children with gay parents are normal, healthy, well-adjusted people. It's the social scrutiny and stigmatization that children have to negotiate and contend with.

In this thread alone, that makes 3 studies from 4 universities around the world (London, Melbourne, and Nebraska & Pretoria) in which the children involved tell us that discriminatory practices are the problem; not being raised by gay people.

Yet the only solution put forward by some is to continue discriminatory practices... But hey, what do these kids know right? It's not as if having first hand experience should matter in all this :rolleyes:.

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

You strike me as somebody who is very socially conservative,

Right, but you don't know me. I don't have any political affiliation or any ideology. I just try to judge each issue on it's own merits.

I've just done the political compass thing and if that is accurate you have completely misjudged the situation.

K-9 wrote: »

probably opposed divorce because of the harm it does to children,

I was a child myself when this being debated.

K-9 wrote: »

you've said you are opposed to mixed race adoptions IIRC,

Well no, and I am assuming you mean inter-racial adoption? Well my wife ticks both boxes anyway. She is mixed race and was adopted into a white family. In any case I am certainly not an opponent of mixed race children being adopted or interacial adoptions either. . My opinion, and that of my wife who has lived through it is that where possible and appropriate the adopted child's life will be easier they can be homed with a family of the same race.

K-9 wrote: »

and if you'd lived years ago would have been against mixed race marriage,

That's funny (see above).

K-9 wrote: »

mixed religion stuff like that.

Well I was raised Catholic she was raised Lutheran. My last serious relationship was with a half-Arab Muslim.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Except when I say it I am quacking like a gay bashing duck right?

If you're going out of your way to convince me that you're not even attempting to make sense, you're on the right track.

The same question is "why do you care?". The reality is that you never had any reason to think that I care.

Bollox. You alone and unprompted dragged the whole issue of inability to conceive into the discussion. You alone and unprompted insisted on narrowing the definition of "having" a child down to one of natural conception, but only where gay couples are concerned; you've repeatedly avoided questions as to why you don't make the same distinction for infertile hetero couples.

You've been given ample opportunity to explain why this distinction is important to you only in the case of gay couples, and you've refused to do so. On that basis, your faux outrage at alleged veiled accusations of homophobia come across as insincere at best.

Once again, I was just correcting an error. A gay couple cannot have (as in create) a child together.

Thus far, the only one who seems to be obsessed with this inability is you, for reasons you refuse point-blank to enumerate. When you bang on and on and on about something and won't explain why, you don't get to be precious about people who draw their own conclusions as to your motives.

Brown Bomber

Aloysius, could you please explain to oscarbravo who it was that actually brought up the ability or otherwise of same-sex parents to "have/parent" children. Thanks. I really can't explain myself anymore.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Aloysius, could you please explain to oscarbravo who it was that actually brought up the ability or otherwise of same-sex parents to "have/parent" children.

Sorry, but I've rejected your premise that two people can't have or parent a child unless both of them contributed gametes to that child. I rejected it because, frankly, it's a premise that demonstrates a hideous lack of empathy, particularly when it seems only to be directed at same-sex couples.