Full rights for the LGBT community.

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.




I was a child myself when this being debated.

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.

That's funny (see above).


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

Yes, but those are all at higher risk of getting bullied than the "norm", so to be consistent and logical you'd be against them as well.

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but those are all at higher risk of getting bullied than the "norm", so to be consistent and logical you'd be against them as well.

I was kinda hoping for "well it seems I was wrong to insinuate you are a racist". Nevertheless, I don't understand what you mean when you say "those".

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Dear me. Not once have I said a gay people can't "parent" a child. This is absurd. You are making all kinds of nasty accusations over and over based on a statement of fact I made, that you agree with as do billions of people in the world.

Two gay people of the same sex cannot engage in intercourse and "have" a child together. How many times do you want me to say this?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Really?

Yes. Really. That the world treats children of gay parents differently than the children of normalised families.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Really. That the world treats children of gay parents differently than the children of normalised families.

Nothing in the quote, or linked source, supports your suggestion of barring same-sex couples from adopting. If anything, it says that same-sex couples generally have a very positive effect on their adoptive children. So why should they and the potential adoptive children be punished because of the actions of their bullies? Seems nonsensical to me.

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was kinda hoping for "well it seems I was wrong to insinuate you are a racist". Nevertheless, I don't understand what you mean when you say "those".

By those I mean all the other "non normal" families that attract higher levels of bullying, mixed race, religion, ones like that. If you aren't against those adopting, I'd wonder why.

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Absolutely.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet you're suggesting 'punishing' the latter group for the former's issues?

Regretfully yes, at least temporarily. I am firmly of the opinion that the suffering of a child due to homophobic bullying is of greater concern than the suffering of gay couple who desire to raise a child. The two aren't even comparable IMO. Whose suffering is of the greater concern to you?

Unless you have an overnight cure to homophobic bullying that isn't <<Insert empty slogan here>> someone has got to suffer so who is to be? The gay parents or the children?

Deleted User wrote: »

Rewind 70 years, should we have prevented mixed race couples from adopting, or forge on with an equal rights movement?

This is what can happen when you do the right thing for the right reasons but at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuwTyBu9Vw

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

By those I mean all the other "non normal" families that attract higher levels of bullying, mixed race, religion, ones like that. If you aren't against those adopting, I'd wonder why.

OK, just to clarify: I am against neither gay people adopting nor people of any race adopting a child of any race. There is nothing inherently flawed in a gay person or in any of the races the makes them somehow less as a parent or a person.

My position is quite simple. The best available home for every orphaned child. This is after taking EVERYTHING into account including how the world will treat them. Therefore, all else being equal between two prospective families (1 gay and 1 straight) the straight couple should be chose for the sake of the child. The same applies to couples of the same ethnicity as the orphan - all else being equal they should be chosen.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, just to clarify: I am against neither gay people adopting nor people of any race adopting a child of any race. There is nothing inherently flawed in a gay person or in any of the races the makes them somehow less as a parent or a person.

My position is quite simple. The best available home for every orphaned child. This is after taking EVERYTHING into account including how the world will treat them. Therefore, all else being equal between two prospective families (1 gay and 1 straight) the straight couple should be chose for the sake of the child. The same applies to couples of the same ethnicity as the orphan - all else being equal they should be chosen.

So if a same-sex couple is viewed as the best home, are they to be passed over "for the sake of the child"?

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My position is quite simple. The best available home for every orphaned child. This is after taking EVERYTHING into account including how the world will treat them. Therefore, all else being equal between two prospective families (1 gay and 1 straight) the straight couple should be chose for the sake of the child. The same applies to couples of the same ethnicity as the orphan - all else being equal they should be chosen.

There is no evidence base for your assumption. The research shows that children raised by gay couples fare just as well, and sometimes better, as those raised by heterosexual couples. Your assertion jeopardises a child's welfare because it would deprive them of the best possible home. You place bullies and homophobes at the centre of the adoption process, instead of the child.

However, like you, I have an open mind on this. If I'm wrong, then please provide a comprehensive, long range study, preferably into adulthood, that supports your point of view.

Peanut Butter Jelly

The best place for a child isn't based on whether the parents are homosexual or heterosexual.

It's where they will be loved the most. If that's a heterosexual house, good. If it's a homosexual house, good. It's the child that matters.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

There is no evidence base for your assumption.

How exactly is this not evidence?

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/200...rights.schools

And why exactly should we place children into this lion's den when it is completely avoidable?

Brown Bomber

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

The best place for a child isn't based on whether the parents are homosexual or heterosexual.

It's where they will be loved the most. If that's a heterosexual house, good. If it's a homosexual house, good. It's the child that matters.

You are correct up to a point but what happens when the child has to leave this bubble?

Actually, I can answer that.

The bullying of Andrew Keats began when he was 13, after his two best friends outed him. He had just told them about his sexuality and asked them to keep it secret. But they didn't, and soon the whole school knew. It was great gossip, Keats being gay - but not great for him. Friends he'd known since he was a toddler started phoning, calling him a "****ing ******" or saying, "Don't come near me - I've seen the way you look at me in the changing rooms."

That's how the bullying began, with a tirade of insults: "******", "queer", or shouts of "Backs against the wall - gay boy's coming" as Keats passed through the school corridors. There was graffiti about him, on his locker, on desks, on the toilet walls. "I'd see 'For gay sex, phone this number' next to my mobile number etched into desks," he says. Then he started to receive hate mail, graphic illustrations of anal sex with his name scrawled all over them. And one day, coming out of a science lesson, Keats was beaten to the floor by one of his tormentors. The teacher managed to pull the attacker off, but by then Keats had been badly injured, his glasses smashed into his face, cuts all over his hands, wrists, face and arms. The boy who launched the attack was expelled, but for Keats, now 19, the bullying didn't stop until he left school.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How exactly is this not evidence?



And why exactly should we place children into this lion's den when it is completely avoidable?

that's homosexual children, not same-sex adoptive parents. the same people who, after putting up with homophobic bullying, you want to subsequently penalise when applying to adopt.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

So if a same-sex couple is viewed as the best home, are they to be passed over "for the sake of the child"?

EDIT: Sorry,read the question wrong, watching the match- MY answer is no

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes.

so a child won't be placed in the best home. That means that you aren't putting the childs interest as the priority when it comes to adoption.

AFTER SEEING EDIT: No problem, BB.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are correct up to a point but what happens when the child has to leave this bubble?

Actually, I can answer that.

The bullying of Andrew Keats began when he was 13, after his two best friends outed him. He had just told them about his sexuality and asked them to keep it secret. But they didn't, and soon the whole school knew. It was great gossip, Keats being gay - but not great for him. Friends he'd known since he was a toddler started phoning, calling him a "****ing ******" or saying, "Don't come near me - I've seen the way you look at me in the changing rooms."

That's how the bullying began, with a tirade of insults: "******", "queer", or shouts of "Backs against the wall - gay boy's coming" as Keats passed through the school corridors. There was graffiti about him, on his locker, on desks, on the toilet walls. "I'd see 'For gay sex, phone this number' next to my mobile number etched into desks," he says. Then he started to receive hate mail, graphic illustrations of anal sex with his name scrawled all over them. And one day, coming out of a science lesson, Keats was beaten to the floor by one of his tormentors. The teacher managed to pull the attacker off, but by then Keats had been badly injured, his glasses smashed into his face, cuts all over his hands, wrists, face and arms. The boy who launched the attack was expelled, but for Keats, now 19, the bullying didn't stop until he left school.

No, I am 100% correct. The problem you outline isn't one caused by the child being placed in the care of homosexual parents, it's caused by homophobia. The child would still be treated the same if he was gay with heterosexual parents.

jill_valentine

SW wrote: »

that's homosexual children, not same-sex adoptive parents. the same people who, after putting up with homophobic bullying, you want to subsequently penalise when applying to adopt.

Which, btw, has been explained to him before.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why exactly should we place children into this lion's den when it is completely avoidable?

Come now, these kinds of outbursts won't help anyone. I'm simply looking for the same thing you were looking for; a comprehensive, long term study that supports your assumption. The welfare of innocent orphans demands that you be able to prove that your viewpoint.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Dear me. Not once have I said a gay people can't "parent" a child. This is absurd.

Can gay people have children? Yes.

Can gay people parent children? Yes.

Can a gay couple create a child with their own gametes? No. Nobody has said they can. The only person who has brought this truism into the discussion is you, in response to the statement that gay couples can have/parent a child.

You're the one who brought biology into it, as a counter to the idea that gay couples can have/parent children. You're the one who insists on emphasising this truism about gays, while scurrying away from the same truism about infertile heteros.

You are making all kinds of nasty accusations over and over based on a statement of fact I made, that you agree with as do billions of people in the world.

Two gay people of the same sex cannot engage in intercourse and "have" a child together. How many times do you want me to say this?

I didn't want you to say it in the first place. It is of no interest or relevance whatsoever except to the person who first dragged it into the discussion without an explanation as to what it had to do with anything whatsoever.

If you want to explain why you think it is any more relevant that a gay couple can't create an embryo with their own gametes than it is that an infertile hetero couple can't, please feel free.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, just to clarify: I am against neither gay people adopting nor people of any race adopting a child of any race. There is nothing inherently flawed in a gay person or in any of the races the makes them somehow less as a parent or a person.

My position is quite simple. The best available home for every orphaned child. This is after taking EVERYTHING into account including how the world will treat them. Therefore, all else being equal between two prospective families (1 gay and 1 straight) the straight couple should be chose for the sake of the child. The same applies to couples of the same ethnicity as the orphan - all else being equal they should be chosen.

Outcomes are the same, therefore your argument has no validity. Why are you repeating the same discredited crap over and over again?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Outcomes are the same, therefore your argument has no validity. Why are you repeating the same discredited crap over and over again?

1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying try to kill themselves but "outcomes are the same". Keep telling yourself that...

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying try to kill themselves but "outcomes are the same". Keep telling yourself that...

We have no choice but to tell ourselves that when you can't show us anything that shows the outcomes are different.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can gay people have children? Yes.

Can gay people parent children? Yes.

Can a gay couple create a child with their own gametes? No. Nobody has said they can. The only person who has brought this truism into the discussion is you, in response to the statement that gay couples can have/parent a child.

You're the one who brought biology into it, as a counter to the idea that gay couples can have/parent children. You're the one who insists on emphasising this truism about gays, while scurrying away from the same truism about infertile heteros.

I didn't want you to say it in the first place. It is of no interest or relevance whatsoever except to the person who first dragged it into the discussion without an explanation as to what it had to do with anything whatsoever.

If you want to explain why you think it is any more relevant that a gay couple can't create an embryo with their own gametes than it is that an infertile hetero couple can't, please feel free.

1) It takes a man and woman to create life or "have" a baby. I clarified my meaning to you long ago. Why you continue to labour this I don't really now.
2) Not once have I said that it is anymore relevant. The reason I haven't commented on an infertile straight couple being able to "have" a baby is that nobody has made such a claim.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying try to kill themselves but "outcomes are the same". Keep telling yourself that...

that refers to homosexual children/teens. Are you suggesting that homosexual children shouldn't be allowed to be adopted?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying try to kill themselves but "outcomes are the same". Keep telling yourself that...

Stop conflating homophobic bullying and that of the children of gay couples.

The studies show outcomes are the same. This has been shown to you at least twice already in this thread.

Brown Bomber

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

No, I am 100% correct. The problem you outline isn't one caused by the child being placed in the care of homosexual parents, it's caused by homophobia.

... which is triggered by a kid having gay parents.

Now, if you have an overnight cure for homophobia then please share it. Until you wave your magic wand we will have to live in the real world which will not universally accept the children of gay parents and these children will be victimised.

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

The child would still be treated the same if he was gay with heterosexual parents.

Unfortunately this is true. However, it is different. The gay child cannot become "ungay".

What was the "cure" for racism?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

that refers to homosexual children/teens.

Not exclusively. Please read the actual article.

SW wrote: »

Are you suggesting that homosexual children shouldn't be allowed to be adopted?

Of course not.

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

What was the "cure" for racism?

Ha! You actually think racism has been cured???

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha! You actually think racism has been cured???

No, not in the slightest. However I think it's a fair question to ask, given that mixed race couples aren't treated as second-class couples in the eyes of the law, whereas 70 years ago the same intolerance and ignorance could have been levelled at their children (adopted or not).

What has changed since then? Why should the LGBT community not be afforded the chance at those changes?

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

No, not in the slightest. However I think it's a fair question to ask, given that mixed race couples aren't treated as second-class couples in the eyes of the law, whereas 70 years ago the same intolerance and ignorance could have been levelled at their children (adopted or not).

What has changed since then? Why should the LGBT community not be afforded the chance at those changes?

Sorry Emmet. You make no sense. You are asking what the cure for something is that you don't think has been cured.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not exclusively. Please read the actual article.

I did. I haven't seen any mention of 1 in 5 heterosexual teens of same-sex parents attempting in the article.

Of course not.

Why are you willing to let homosexual children be thrown into the lions den? (that's your phrasing, btw, not mine).

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sorry Emmet. You make no sense. You are asking what the cure for something is that you don't think has been cured.

Ok, we'll take the step back that you want.

70 years ago, you could make the claim that Mixed Race couples should not be afforded adoption rights as their children could be potential targets for Racist bullying.

That is no longer the case.

Agreed?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Stop conflating homophobic bullying and that of the children of gay couples.

We'll just brush under the carpet that 1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying try to kill themselves then? How does that sound?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We'll just brush under the carpet that 1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying then? How does that sound?

Stop conflating homophobic bullying and that of the children of gay couples.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... which is triggered by a kid having gay parents.

Now, if you have an overnight cure for homophobia then please share it. Until you wave your magic wand we will have to live in the real world which will not universally accept the children of gay parents and these children will be victimised.

The abuse isn't triggered by a kid having gay parents. It's the kid being gay himself. Two different things. The problem however is neither of them things, it's homophobia.

And I don't think it's right to say we have to universally accept homophobic abuse. Because we don't. And we shouldn't. That attitude is why it will not shift from our society.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We'll just brush under the carpet that 1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying then? How does that sound?

BB, are you rejecting the studies that show that adopted kids of homosexual couples fair exactly the same as the adopted kids of straight couples?
Or are you just straight out pretending they don't exist?

What about the study that stated that the main cause of homophobic bullying (thus the deaths of those 1 of 5) is positions like yours that disparage gay people as somehow lesser or that gays are more interested in themselves than children?

Why are these studies invalid?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We'll just brush under the carpet that 1 in 5 victims of homophobic bullying try to kill themselves then? How does that sound?

this from someone who has been proposing to sweep homophobia under the carpet by penalising same-sex couples.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Stop conflating homophobic bullying and that of the children of gay couples.

Hope fully this will make you stop pretending that children of gay parents won't suffer homophobic bullying.

Who gets homophobically bullied?

Anyone can become a victim of homophobic bullying:

• Teenagers who have misjudged their best friend by confiding in them only to find themselves 'outed' are the principal targets of this form of bullying.
• Heterosexual girls and boys who others think of as lesbian or gay can come under similar attack. Most young people taunted about their sexual orientation are, in reality, too young to know what sexuality is.
• Friends of lesbian and gay young people are frequently forced to face up to their own prejudices, fears and preconceptions whilst regularly finding themselves the targets of homophobia by being 'guilty by association.'
• Brothers and sisters of homophobically bullied siblings are also often victimised.

• Children of a lesbian or gay parent can often be vulnerable to homophobic abuse from peers should their family situation become known.

It continues,

How can homophobic bullying affect young people?

Young people can have their education disrupted. They may not participate in lessons appropriately due to feelings of fear or anger.
Pupils' self-esteem is often severely affected and, as a result, their academic potential is not fulfilled.
Young people whose fears and confusions are not adequately dealt with in their youth too often go on to dvelop problems in adulthood including depressive disorders or dependencies upon alcohol and drugs.
Schools who dismiss the problem are not helping any of their young people to develop a concern for the well-being of others and an understanding and healthy acceptance of people's difference.
Lesbian and gay young people can find themselves seriously stressed by having to wrestle with their own feelings about themselves and the problems other people have in coming to terms with their sexual orientation.
Too many victims of homophobic bullying are driven to self-harm and suicide.

But hey if just keep saying "four legs good. two legs bad", sorry "outcomes are the same". Everything will be alright and we don't have to give a fleeting thought to this self-harm and suicide.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hope fully this will make you stop pretending that children of gay parents won't suffer homophobic bullying.
.

Where did I demonstrate that?


As said earlier, outcomes are the same. This has been proven, and thus you have no case.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

this from someone who has been proposing to sweep homophobia under the carpet by penalising same-sex couples.

I am not proposing sweeping homophobia under the carpet. I am urging patience and caution and minimising it as much as reasonably possible before exposing innocent children to it unnecessarily.

Also, could you my please share my oft-stated justification for penalising same sex couples? For who's benefit would this be for?

Phill Ewinn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For who's benefit would this be for?

Tried this a few pages back. I'd like to know this too.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For who's benefit would this be for?

Homophobes who oppose gay marriage are the only ones who benefit.
Which in turn promotes and legitimises homophobic bullying.

Preventing gay people from adopting only decreases the amount of families that are perfectly suitable and able to raise a child to the same outcome as a straight couple.

Preventing gay people from adopting harms children who already have one gay parent but are not allowed be cared for by their other gay parent.

Allowing gay marriage would help normalise homosexuality, and therefore decrease homophobic bullying.
Not allowing gay marriage results in a slower decrease, resulting in more children being bullied.

Your position does not benefit children.

Phill Ewinn

King Mob wrote: »

Homophobes who oppose gay marriage are the only ones who benefit.
Which in turn promotes and legitimises homophobic bullying.

Preventing gay people from adopting only decreases the amount of families that are perfectly suitable and able to raise a child to the same outcome as a straight couple.

Preventing gay people from adopting harms children who already have one gay parent but are not allowed be cared for by their other gay parent.

Allowing gay marriage would help normalise homosexuality, and therefore decrease homophobic bullying.
Not allowing gay marriage results in a slower decrease, resulting in more children being bullied.

Your position does not benefit children.

And you seem so sure of yourself. When history has proved you wrong so many times.....

King Mob

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And you seem so sure of yourself. When history has proved you wrong so many times.....

Could you explain, citing examples and historical precedent, which part of my post is wrong?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not proposing sweeping homophobia under the carpet. I am urging patience and caution and minimising it as much as reasonably possible before exposing innocent children to it unnecessarily.

Suggesting that same-sex couples be pushed down/removed for the adoption process is sweeping homophobia under the carpet. You're suggesting that excluding same-sex couples from adopting is somehow a solution to homophobia. It's not, it's sweeping it under the carpet.

It needs to be faced. Racism is still in society but we don't suggest that minority races/ethnicities be treated in the same fashion you suggest for same-sex couples.

Also, could you my please share my oft-stated justification for penalising same sex couples? For who's benefit would this be for?

The homophobic bullies as the threat of possible aggression is shaping adoption policies. The same-sex couples are to be viewed as less favourable adoptive parents, so they aren't benefiting by your suggested course of action. The child won't be placed with a same-sex couple if a man+woman couple is available. Adoptive children have said that they are happy with their same-sex parents, yet that is to dismissed "for the sake of the children".

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1) It takes a man and woman to create life or "have" a baby. I clarified my meaning to you long ago. Why you continue to labour this I don't really now.

I'm continuing to "labour" it because you continue to insist on a definition of "having" children that lets you single out gay couples as being incapable of "having" children. It's not a definition that is of any value to a discussion on full rights for the LGBT community, unless you're using it to underscore a reason why there shouldn't be discrimination against gay couples that doesn't exist against infertile hetero couples. You're patently not using it for this reason, which is why I've been trying to establish why you're so hell-bent on insisting on narrowing the definition of "having" children down to this one particularly un-empathic definition - a question you've worked incredibly hard to avoid answering.

If you want to bring the discussion to a close, perhaps you could explain why the only definition of "having" children you're prepared to entertain in a discussion about full rights for the LGBT community is the only definition that explicitly precludes gay couples from "having" children.

2) Not once have I said that it is anymore relevant. The reason I haven't commented on an infertile straight couple being able to "have" a baby is that nobody has made such a claim.

I'll claim it now: an infertile straight couple can have a baby (and many do).

Now, you can argue with that statement - but only if you're prepared to tell adoptive parents that they don't have a child, because they don't measure up to criteria that you've arbitrarily (and, despite repeated efforts, inexplicably) introduced to qualify for "having" children.


Let's take a moment and remember where this whole tangent came from: you said - in as many words - that gay couples can't have children. You tried to deny saying it, using some fairly transparent semantics, but you said it, and you justified saying what is a self-evidently dickish thing to say by introducing and insisting on your own personal definition of "having" children.

Normally when someone introduces a loaded definition of a term to an emotive discussion, it's for a reason. You have repeatedly refused to explain why you've done so, all the while getting huffy and indignant at people drawing their own conclusions as to why you did so. I'm not buying into the faux outrage, and if you want people not to draw their own conclusions as to your reasons for insisting on your specific definition, the onus is on you to explain it.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Absolutely.


This is what can happen when you do the right thing for the right reasons but at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuwTyBu9Vw

Re the right thing for right reason, I assume you mean the Federally-imposed busing operation, given that the protestors shown in the video are blatant racists trying to stop the racially-integrated busing.

Re the issue of same-sex couples parenting children it's true that same-sex couples (by themselves alone) can't make either partner (in Lesbian relationships) pregnant without male sex intervention at some level going either the natural-creation (male-female coupling) or IVF-type route. We all know that male same-sex couples can and do use surrogacy (volunteer female) for parenting, again by IVF or natural-creation sexual intercourse.

Do you think/suggest that male and female same-sex couples be disbarred from the alternative routes - incl IVF - outside the natural-creation route of achieving a pregnancy and becoming parents? If this is your belief, is it based upon religious-book or other ethical base? (a reply to both questions would be liked, if they are NOT too intrusive).

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

The term Natural-Creation is something I came up with to describe that which some people of Religious/Genesis belief may have sole faith in, and not from another source.

I'm a little confused by the relevance of being able to have/create/gametes/bring into the world etc (however you want to semantically discuss it) a child to your suitability as an adoptive parent (especially from a negative side).

In my mind, couples who cannot physically have their own children are prime examples of those who might be interested in adoption. Couples with reproductive issues who have exhausted medical assistance but who are otherwise determined and healthy parental candidates can't be deemed unsuitable simply by virtue of their inability to produce their own offspring can they?