Full rights for the LGBT community.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

I

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.

OK. Then we need to be accurate.

This is where the tangent actually came from, and it wasn't from me.

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-sha...by-first-time/

'

And this was my response in full.

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

Note: Aloysius says that gay COUPLES CANNOT HAVE OR PARENT CHILDREN.

While "have" and "parent" are both ambigious terms. In terms of the the possible relationships between a parent and child once you exclude everything that is covered under "parent" all that is left to define "have" is the biological or natural process of male/female reproduction.

Something which as I've said by definition gay couples are incapable of. Furthermore, I have clarified to my intentions several times.

Also take note that I said nothing of a gay couple being unable to "parent" a child.

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

No. Nobody has said this either.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Nobody has said this either.

uhm, you have.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

How are they blatant racists? My uncle was going to school in South Boston at the time (70s) and a Klan office was opened up to take advantage of the situation. They were run out of town within a week.

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

uhm, you have.

Getting tired of this now. Quote me on it or withdraw it.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Getting tired of this now. Quote me on it or withdraw it.

Apologies, I have read back and I must be seeing things. I have no idea how it's managed to take up so many pages in that case.

I retract the above.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

.

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.

And the reason to not legalise marriage first and then later adoption if the bullying will be reduced is...................????

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the reason to not legalise marriage first and then later adoption if the bullying will be reduced is...................????

Because it still irrationally separates gay couples from "normal" couples.
You can't normalise something by not treating it as normal.

You have not provided a reason to delay the ability to adopt that doesn't result in same damage you say you are concerned about.

Homophobic bullying isn't going to go away, and it isn't going to be reduced by bowing to the bullying. Doing what you are suggesting will just mean that more people will have to suffer it for longer as well as needlessly causing harm to gay people and the children they can already have.

So can you please address my other question?
Do you reject the studies you have been shown that prove that gay couples are no worse than straight couples?
If so, why?

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the reason to not legalise marriage first and then later adoption if the bullying will be reduced is...................????

Adoption by gay people is already legal. All that's going to change is a child adopted by a gay couple will have a legal relationship with BOTH parents, and not just one.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Because it still irrationally separates gay couples from "normal" couples.
You can't normalise something by not treating it as normal.

You have not provided a reason to delay the ability to adopt that doesn't result in same damage you say you are concerned about.

Homophobic bullying isn't going to go away, and it isn't going to be reduced by bowing to the bullying. Doing what you are suggesting will just mean that more people will have to suffer it for longer as well as needlessly causing harm to gay people and the children they can already have.

So can you please address my other question?
Do you reject the studies you have been shown that prove that gay couples are no worse than straight couples?
If so, why?

I don't reject outright any of the studies, no. If you are curious you can read back on this thread.

You seem to be contradicting yourself within the space of two posts. Could you please clarify if this is your actual opinion please?

Allowing gay marriage would help normalise homosexuality, and therefore decrease homophobic bullying.

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies, I have read back and I must be seeing things. I have no idea how it's managed to take up so many pages in that case.

I retract the above.

Your honesty and integrity is both admirable and greatly appreciated. May you be an example to us all.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't reject outright any of the studies, no. If you are curious you can read back on this thread.

So then you agree with their conclusion that the children of gay couples turn out exactly as well as those of straight couples?

Because based on your continued insistence that there is some risk or that gay couples are not preferable it seems that you do not agree with this, hence reject the studies.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself within the space of two posts. Could you please clarify if this is your actual opinion please?

I meant as marriage that was exactly the same as marriage between straight people. There is no contradiction there.

Gay marriage without adoption might have some of the effect, but by treating gays as different or not normal or otherwise deficient, you are prolonging it's normalisation and increasing the number of people who are effected by homophobic bullying over a longer time.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then you agree with their conclusion that the children of gay couples turn out exactly as well as those of straight couples?

Because based on your continued insistence that there is some risk or that gay couples are not preferable it seems that you do not agree with this, hence reject the studies.

I meant as marriage that was exactly the same as marriage between straight people. There is no contradiction there.

Gay marriage without adoption might have some of the effect, but by treating gays as different or not normal or otherwise deficient, you are prolonging it's normalisation and increasing the number of people who are effected by homophobic bullying over a longer time.

1) I've just told you to read back on this thread if you want my already stated opinion.
2) I'm still none the wiser where you are coming from.

Which of these statements, both yours and from the last 24 hours, actually represents your honest opinion?

1.

Allowing gay marriage would help normalise homosexuality, and therefore decrease homophobic bullying.

2.

Gay marriage without adoption might have some of the effect

If 2. Do explain why legalising gay marriage might not help normalise homosexuality in our society?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1) I've just told you to read back on this thread if you want my already stated opinion.
2) I'm still none the wiser where you are coming from.

And I have been reading the thread.
You say you don't reject the studies, but then claim things as if these studies don't exist. For example saying that the children of gay parents have an increased risk of suicide or you claim that there's been no long term studies or that it's a totally untested area.

Do you agree with their conclusions that gay parents are just as good as straight parents? Yes or no.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which of these statements, both yours and from the last 24 hours, actually represents your honest opinion?

They both are. They don't contradict each other.
In that quote I mean marriage there as in the exact same type of marriage straight people are allowed, full adoption rights included.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If 2. Why might not legalising gay marriage help normalise homosexuality in our society?

As I explain in my previous post (previous 2 actually),

Gay marriage without adoption might have some of the effect, but by treating gays as different or not normal or otherwise deficient, you are prolonging it's normalisation and increasing the number of people who are effected by homophobic bullying over a longer time.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And I have been reading the thread.
You say you don't reject the studies, but then claim things as if these studies don't exist. For example saying that the children of gay parents have an increased risk of suicide or you claim that there's been no long term studies or that it's a totally untested area.

Do you agree with their conclusions that gay parents are just as good as straight parents? Yes or no.

They both are. They don't contradict each other.
In that quote I mean marriage there as in the exact same type of marriage straight people are allowed, full adoption rights included.


As I explain in my previous post (previous 2 actually),

You have explained sweet **** all to be frank. Will or will not gay marriage help normalise homosexuality in Ireland?

It's a very simple question.

EDIT: Just noticed that apparently you were using a non-existent definition of marriage before. Ha! Sure you were...

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have explained sweet **** all to be frank. Will or will not gay marriage help normalise homosexuality in Ireland?

I have explained it very clearly.

Gay marriage without adoption will help normalise homosexuality to a degree.
However because you would be treating it differently to straight marriage, then by definition you are not treating it as normal.
It's hard to normalise something when you still treat it as not normal.

Gay marriage with adoption would normalise homosexuality more than Gay marriage without adoption because you would be treating it as normal.

You have not provided a rational reason to not do this.
Your irrational idea harms more people in the way you say you want to prevent.

If any part of this is unclear, please point to it and I try to explain even clearer.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a very simple question.

Do you agree with the conclusions of the papers you have been shown, that gay parents are just as good as straight parents? Yes or no.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I have explained it very clearly.

Gay marriage without adoption will help normalise homosexuality to a degree.

Finally!!!

And this increase in normalisation will lead to a decrease in homophobic bullying right?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Finally!!!

Finally? I've said the same thing 4 times...?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this increase in normalisation will lead to a decrease in homophobic bullying right?

Yes. To a degree.

However (and this is the important part) it would still be legitimising and promoting that bullying because it would still be considered different from straight marriage. This would minimize the effect.
Having gay marriage with adoption would have an even stronger effect.

Do you agree with the conclusions of the papers you have been shown, that gay parents are just as good as straight parents? Yes or no.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't reject outright any of the studies, no. ................

From april. There was at least one other.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89944148&postcount=557

jill_valentine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the reason to not legalise marriage first and then later adoption if the bullying will be reduced is...................????

You're still babbling on about something which may or may not actually happen because you really want to find some downside to being adopted by gay parents. People are so blue in the face telling you - spelling out - to you that the outcomes are the same that it's become a thread in joke.

Let's run through this once more for the craic - what "the outcomes are the same" means is that the end result of a child being raised by a gay couple are at least the same as that of a child being raised by a heterosexual couple. What this means is that even if the invisible hypothetical potential bullying you're itching for is landing uniquely on gay couples, evidently some other positive advantages would seem to be compensating for it. Because, ultimately the outcomes are the same.

You want to deny these kids demonstrably appropriate and best selection families over a theoretical risk of something, versus the known problems associated in growing up without a family at all. You can't possibly reason your priority is the child's best interest when the consensus at much more involved and informed tiers than you is quite clear where that interest lies.

Neither plugging your fingers in your ears or swimming around the fishbowl a few times makes dismantled arguments suddenly more worthwhile. What your posting amounts to is that there "must be something wrong with it" and then frantic flailing to find something - anything - to that end. Why you've lighted on angle so feeble is beyond me. The outcomes are the same - so even if bullying is even happening to this uniquely elevated degree, it's either so negligible in effect as to be ultimately indetectable, or something else is comfortably compensating for it.

The reason people keep pointing out those same outcomes, over and over again, is because it's a self contained rebuttal to your vague concern troll style agenda. It speaks for itself.

Absoluvely

Has anyone pointed out yet in this particular thread that independent, natural reproduction does actually happen in gay couples?
There are lots of gay couples where one partner has had a legal sex change and both partners are fertile.

The whole idea of basing a person's or couple's eligibility for anything on their legal sex or sexes is ridiculous and arbitrary.
It's as offensive as if the government measured the colour of your skin at birth, recorded it on your birth certificated, assigned you a legal status based on this, and then used this criterion to determine your eligibility for state institutions.

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How are they blatant racists? My uncle was going to school in South Boston at the time (70s) and a Klan office was opened up to take advantage of the situation. They were run out of town within a week.

side-stepping again from the thread's original topic: was the busing brought in because it was seen to be the only way for Black Americans to get safely and successfully from their home/assembly point to their "integrated by order" schools/colleges & houses of learning (and back home again at the end of lessons)? Re Boston, was there opposition to the integration of black and white children in the Boston area for the purpose of equal unsegregated education under the law, regardless of the presence of the Klan? What reason do you believe that those opposing the busing-in of black american children had, if there was no racial connection to the opposition and protests?

Re this quote used by you... (Note: Aloysius says that gay COUPLES CANNOT HAVE OR PARENT CHILDREN) I think people understand that I meant via the means usually used by heterosexual couples with the intent of "fathering/mothering" children, due to the need for male or female homosexual couples to involve a third (opposite-sex) person for the purpose of impregnation. There's no getting away from the fact that storks don't deliver babies, lol.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this was my response in full.

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

And I've repeatedly pointed out that this isn't true unless you laboriously narrow down the definition of "having" children until it makes your point true, and that the only reason I can think of for insisting on such a narrow definition is dickishness and a lack of empathy.

If there's a reason for narrowing down the definition of having children in such a way as to be able to claim that adoptive parents don't have children other than dickishness and a lack of empathy, I'll give you yet another opportunity to fail to provide it.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Brown Bomber wrote:

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

Then by that definition, NO man can "have" a child. Gay or Straight.

Or is that not your definition of "have"? Maybe you can define it.

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

side-stepping again from the thread's original topic: was the busing brought in because it was seen to be the only way for Black Americans to get safely and successfully from their home/assembly point to their "integrated by order" schools/colleges & houses of learning (and back home again at the end of lessons)? Re Boston, was there opposition to the integration of black and white children in the Boston area for the purpose of equal unsegregated education under the law, regardless of the presence of the Klan? What reason do you believe that those opposing the busing-in of black american children had, if there was no racial connection to the opposition and protests?

Undoubtedly racists or racialists were part of the opposition. Think it through though and in the context of working class, community orientated neigbourhoods. Children would have their community school across the street from their home, that their parents went to, that their elder siblings went to and that all their friends go to. The next day they get a letter in the post telling them they have been selected for a social experiment, based on the colour of their skin that means they are forbidden from going to the school in their own community with their friends and instead will be forced onto a bus and taken to another town and another school. Resistance to this is natural and has nothing to do with racism.

Like I said before good intentions can't make bad policy work. Busing severely increased racial tensions and it was the pawns in this experiment that suffered.

Racial tensions that had smoldered for a week at South Boston High School erupted yesterday into a rock-throwing, window-smashing melee that involved more than 200 teen-agers and sent two students, two police officers and Mayor Flynn to the hospital.
The early afternoon brawl, which pitted whites against blacks and all the youths against the police, raged for about 10 minutes around the school,

The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) See all results for this publication
Browse back issues of this publication by date



May 7, 1993 | Patricia Nealon and John Ellement, Globe Staff | Copyright

On the Tuesday before Christmas, Billy Niedzwiecki was jumped by three schoolmates in a bathroom at South Boston High School. They stomped on him, broke his glasses, ripped a gold chain from his neck, and stabbed him five times. So severe was the attack that Billy had to undergo surgery twice at Boston Medical Center.


Police were quick to deny that race played a role in the stabbing -- even though Billy, a South Boston native, is white and his attackers, who come from other neighborhoods, are black. Maybe the police are right, but no one would be surprised to learn otherwise. South Boston High has simmered with violence and racial uneasiness ever since 1974

aloyisious wrote: »

Re this quote used by you... (Note: Aloysius says that gay COUPLES CANNOT HAVE OR PARENT CHILDREN) I think people understand that I meant via the means usually used by heterosexual couples with the intent of "fathering/mothering" children, due to the need for male or female homosexual couples to involve a third (opposite-sex) person for the purpose of impregnation. There's no getting away from the fact that storks don't deliver babies, lol.

Sorry, I messed up that comment. I had meant to say that you had claimed that gay couples can have children. In fairness, I did leave myself open to correction on the basis that I had misunderstood your intentions.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

And I've repeatedly pointed out that this isn't true unless you laboriously narrow down the definition of "having" children until it makes your point true, and that the only reason I can think of for insisting on such a narrow definition is dickishness and a lack of empathy.

If there's a reason for narrowing down the definition of having children in such a way as to be able to claim that adoptive parents don't have children other than dickishness and a lack of empathy, I'll give you yet another opportunity to fail to provide it.

I honestly haven't got it in me to keep re-explaining your misunderstanding ("seeing things") so I will direct you to this post instead.

Originally Posted by Deleted User
Apologies, I have read back and I must be seeing things. I have no idea how it's managed to take up so many pages in that case.

I retract the above.

NuMarvel

Nodin wrote: »

From april. There was at least one other.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89944148&postcount=557

I see from the post following that one that I was raising the same points with BB back in April as I am now. How many times do we have to tell him adoption by gay people is already legal before it sinks in?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

From april. There was at least one other.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89944148&postcount=557

One other what???

_Redzer_

I really don't know why you're bitching so much about gay parenting. There's no law stopping it, it's already happening -only one parent isn't recognised as the parent.

So all your worrying -and I use the word "worry" very lightly, are in vain. It's already happening and you can't stop it.

Furthermore, there's nothing to fear anyway going by hundreds of studies over many decades of research in this area.

Give up, the ship has already long since sailed, and you're still fighting to keep it docked.

Brown Bomber

jill_valentine wrote: »

You're still babbling on about something which may or may not actually happen because you really want to find some downside to being adopted by gay parents. People are so blue in the face telling you - spelling out - to you that the outcomes are the same that it's become a thread in joke.

Let's run through this once more for the craic - what "the outcomes are the same" means is that the end result of a child being raised by a gay couple are at least the same as that of a child being raised by a heterosexual couple. What this means is that even if the invisible hypothetical potential bullying you're itching for is landing uniquely on gay couples, evidently some other positive advantages would seem to be compensating for it. Because, ultimately the outcomes are the same.

You want to deny these kids demonstrably appropriate and best selection families over a theoretical risk of something, versus the known problems associated in growing up without a family at all. You can't possibly reason your priority is the child's best interest when the consensus at much more involved and informed tiers than you is quite clear where that interest lies.

Neither plugging your fingers in your ears or swimming around the fishbowl a few times makes dismantled arguments suddenly more worthwhile. What your posting amounts to is that there "must be something wrong with it" and then frantic flailing to find something - anything - to that end. Why you've lighted on angle so feeble is beyond me. The outcomes are the same - so even if bullying is even happening to this uniquely elevated degree, it's either so negligible in effect as to be ultimately indetectable, or something else is comfortably compensating for it.

The reason people keep pointing out those same outcomes, over and over again, is because it's a self contained rebuttal to your vague concern troll style agenda. It speaks for itself.

What can I say? You've convinced me. I've been such a fool to think that consequences and risk should be considered in making decisions for our most vulnerable citizens . Who cares if kids will be bullied because of their parents? Who cares if one in five victims of homophobic bullying will try to kill themselves? The world won't stop spinning if some kids kill themselves to escape the living hell they have been placed in.

In fact, I'm going to apply your philosophy to my own life too. So it's speeding whilst drunk without a seatbelt on my way to pick up a prostitute with aids that I can have unprotected sex with and then share needles. Your laissez faire approach to life is really liberating.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fact, I'm going to apply your philosophy to my own life too. So it's speeding whilst drunk without a seatbelt on my way to pick up a prostitute with aids that I can have unprotected sex with and then share needles.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to cite the peer-reviewed study that shows that speeding whilst drunk without a seatbelt on your way to pick up a prostitute with aids that you can have unprotected sex with and then share needles has equal outcomes to not doing those things.

Oh, I forgot - you don't believe in peer review when it doesn't support your argument. Silly me. Carry on. You were busy making perfect sense.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Perhaps you'd be so good as to cite the peer-reviewed study that shows that speeding whilst drunk without a seatbelt on your way to pick up a prostitute with aids that you can have unprotected sex with and then share needles has equal outcomes to not doing those things.

Oh, I forgot - you don't believe in peer review when it doesn't support your argument. Silly me. Carry on. You were busy making perfect sense.

1. Could you please confirm if in your opinion if you agree with Jill Valentine that any and all "theoretical risk" should be ignored when deciding policy relating to out most vulnerable victims?

2. I would bite your hand off for you to provide a single, comprehensive and conclusive study that proves beyond all doubt that children in Ireland won't be placed at a disadvantage if they are raised outside the traditional, normative family.

This supposed study hasn't been presented yet and seems to exist only in the minds of the faithful.

Funnily enough I am in agreement with the expert who was put forward by one of the faithful who I was introduced to somehow magically in one of the studies I have ignored :rolleyes: Who in 2010 referring to the research into gay parenting said: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0831091240.htm

"Sometimes we have to throw up our hands and admit that something is unknowable. But in this case, we could bring some real hard data to bear on an area that was otherwise really in the dark."

And what did this "real hard data" tell us?

Using the same data as Rosenfeld but utilising the full sample it shows that children with heterosexual and married parents are 35% better off.

Outcomes are the same, except when they are not and then we don't talk about that.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. Could you please confirm if in your opinion if you agree with Jill Valentine that any and all "theoretical risk" should be ignored when deciding policy relating to out most vulnerable victims?

Is that the same "theoretical risk" that says we shouldn't be using electricity because some people believe there's a "theoretical risk" that electricity lines cause cancer?

I believe that policy should be decided on the basis of the best available evidence, as determined by peer-reviewed research.

2. I would bite your hand off for you to provide a single, comprehensive and conclusive study that proves beyond all doubt that children in Ireland won't be placed at a disadvantage if they are raised outside the traditional, normative family.

This supposed study hasn't been presented yet and seems to exist only in the minds of the faithful.

You've ignored all the evidence presented to you. When someone ignores evidence that's been presented to them because it disagrees with their preconceived ideas, and then continues to demand evidence, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they're merely soapboxing, which is the antithesis of discussion.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. Could you please confirm if in your opinion if you agree with Jill Valentine that any and all "theoretical risk" should be ignored when deciding policy relating to out most vulnerable victims?

2. I would bite your hand off for you to provide a single, comprehensive and conclusive study that proves beyond all doubt that children in Ireland won't be placed at a disadvantage if they are raised outside the traditional, normative family.

This supposed study hasn't been presented yet and seems to exist only in the minds of the faithful.

Funnily enough I am in agreement with the expert who was put forward by one of the faithful who I was introduced to somehow magically in one of the studies I have ignored :rolleyes: Who in 2010 referring to the research into gay parenting said: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0831091240.htm


And what did this "real hard data" tell us?

Using the same data as Rosenfeld but utilising the full sample it shows that children with heterosexual and married parents are 35% better off.

Outcomes are the same, except when they are not and then we don't talk about that.

actually, this was discussed on this thread 2 months ago.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. Could you please confirm if in your opinion if you agree with Jill Valentine that any and all "theoretical risk" should be ignored when deciding policy relating to out most vulnerable victims?

2. I would bite your hand off for you to provide a single, comprehensive and conclusive study that proves beyond all doubt that children in Ireland won't be placed at a disadvantage if they are raised outside the traditional, normative family.

This supposed study hasn't been presented yet and seems to exist only in the minds of the faithful.

Funnily enough I am in agreement with the expert who was put forward by one of the faithful who I was introduced to somehow magically in one of the studies I have ignored :rolleyes: Who in 2010 referring to the research into gay parenting said: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0831091240.htm


And what did this "real hard data" tell us?

Using the same data as Rosenfeld but utilising the full sample it shows that children with heterosexual and married parents are 35% better off.

Outcomes are the same, except when they are not and then we don't talk about that.

Your point falls down due to inconsistency, if you really believed what you say you should be arguing that the same criteria apply to other categories such as mixed race adoptions etc.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

One other what???

One other incident where you reject the studies. At least one.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

One other incident where you reject the studies. At least one.

I haven't "rejected" outright any of the studies and have read many of them that have been linked, despite this being inconvenient for you. They are flawed but still illustrative but not definitive nor proof of anything at all.

I can easily demonstrate to you. Let's take the most recent study posted in this forum and the one billed as the largest of it's kind. I will bold and then count up each of it's failings.

Background

It has been suggested that children with same-sex attracted parents score well in psychosocial aspects of their health, however questions remain about the impact of stigma on these children. Research to date has focused on lesbian parents and has been limited by small sample sizes. This study aims to describe the physical, mental and social wellbeing of Australian children with same-sex attracted parents, and the impact that stigma has on them.
Methods

A1 cross-sectional survey, the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, was distributed in 2012 to 2a convenience sample of 390 parentsfrom 3Australia who self-identified as same-sex attracted and had children 4aged 0-17 years. // 5Parent-reported, multidimensional measures of child health and wellbeing and the relationship to perceived stigma were measured.
Results

6315 parents completed the survey (completion rate = 81%) representing 500 children. 780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent. Children in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data

So that is 7 problems there that I count that make this study less than conclusive. How many do you count?

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can easily demonstrate to you.

Speaking of demonstrating, how are you getting on with finding a comprehensive, long term study to justify your assertion that the adoption process and/or laws should be changed? I first asked 3 months ago, so you surely have one by now, yes?

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is that the same "theoretical risk" that says we shouldn't be using electricity because some people believe there's a "theoretical risk" that electricity lines cause cancer?

I believe that policy should be decided on the basis of the best available evidence, as determined by peer-reviewed research.

It was a simple question. I asked you if in your own opinion ALL "theoretical risk" should be IGNORED as Jill Valentine alluded to.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've ignored all the evidence presented to you. When someone ignores evidence that's been presented to them because it disagrees with their preconceived ideas, and then continues to demand evidence, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they're merely soapboxing, which is the antithesis of discussion.

So no study then?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I haven't "rejected" outright any of the studies and have read many of them that have been linked, despite this being inconvenient for you.

Really?

Brownbomber wrote:

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

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90943918&postcount=1273

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Really?


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90943918&postcount=1273

Yes. Really. I said I have read many, not all.

How are you getting on counting up the failings in methodology of the Australian survey?

King Mob

So BB, you're not rejecting the papers, but you're rejecting them?
Kind of contradicting yourself there.

I'm not sure who you think you're going to fool by pretending you haven't been provided with reams of studies.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89946445&postcount=562
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89961707&postcount=595
Here are two great summaries.
You thanked the posts so you clearly saw these things, yet you still pretend that the subject is completely unstudied.

But it doesn't matter how many studies we can post, because you've arbitrarily decided on limits and caveats that you are going to impose.
Any study we provide is never going to be big enough or long enough because you can't or won't detail what would fit your definition or long or big enough.
And even then if we could find an overwhelming massive study, you can ignore it by saying it's not in the Irish context.
You're not going to read any of the studies and you're going to pretend the trend and cumulative weight of them doesn't exist or doesn't count.

However on the other side you keep claiming that 20% of children adopted by gay couple will kill themselves.
This is based on one book ("Something to tell you" (Trenchard and Warren)) not a study, and that book does not actually say that.
http://bama.ua.edu/~jpetrovi/BEF534/readings/Ellis.pdf
The book surveyed only 416 people and it was self reported, things you have decided are big enough flaws to reject a different study.
And of course it didn't deal with people in Ireland. (also it's from 1989.)

You accept that study without question, yet reject dozens of others for petty reasons.
Why is that? Is it just for the fun, accusatory and inflammatory sound bite?

So lets set aside these issues for a moment and pretend that your claim that 20% of the children of gay couples will attempt suicide is true.

The fact is that these children exist today in Ireland and these children are also being harmed by the fact they are not allowed to have two parents.
You agree that normalising homosexuality will reduce homophobic bullying.
Gay marriage would normalise homosexuality.
Gay marriage with full adoption rights would normalise homosexuality even more and would remove the harmful constraints imposed on the children of gay parents.

What you are suggesting is that we allow homophobic bullying to continue, slow the normalisation of homosexuality thus dooming 20% of the children already being raised by gay people (as well as the 20% of other victims of homophobic bullying) until homophobia just goes away.

If your position was honest and consistant, you should still support gay marriage and adoption.

The only other way you can do that is if perhaps you are suggesting that we take away the right for single gay people in Ireland to adopt and to take away their children before they try to kill themselves.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So BB, you're not rejecting the papers,

Correct

King Mob wrote: »

but you're rejecting them?

Incorrect

King Mob wrote: »

Kind of contradicting yourself there.

No. See above.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure who you think you're going to fool by pretending you haven't been provided with reams of studies.

Not once have I said that there haven't been a reasonable amount of studies provided. However, it is quality not quantity as I'm sure you would agree.

King Mob wrote: »

Here are two great summaries.
You thanked the posts so you clearly saw these things, yet you still pretend that the subject is completely unstudied.

Again, not once have I said that "the subject is completely unstudied".

King Mob wrote: »

But it doesn't matter how many studies we can post, because you've arbitrarily decided on limits and caveats that you are going to impose.
Any study we provide is never going to be big enough or long enough because you can't or won't detail what would fit your definition or long or big enough.

Incorrect. Not doing very well so far are you? I have set out the requirements of a definitive study.

King Mob wrote: »

And even then if we could find an overwhelming massive study, you can ignore it by saying it's not in the Irish context.

You are deluding yourself if you think I have ignored anything. I am taking everything on board.

You are confusing legitimate criticism with ignoring. Unless you can explain to me why an Irish study on Irish children wouldn't improve our knowledge vs studies from different cultures and continents?

King Mob wrote: »

You're not going to read any of the studies

Rubbish. I have read many.

King Mob wrote: »

and you're going to pretend the trend and cumulative weight of them doesn't exist or doesn't count.

Of course it exists and counts. Each individual study is another brick in the wall and are indicators individually and more importantly collectively. However, none of them are a single comprehensive and definitive study that actually prove anything.

However on the other side you keep claiming that 20% of children adopted by gay couple will kill themselves.[/QUOTE]
I am not claiming this.

King Mob wrote: »

This is based on one book

Eh...no it's not.

King Mob wrote: »

You agree that normalising homosexuality will reduce homophobic bullying.

I do.

King Mob wrote: »

Gay marriage would normalise homosexuality.

True.

King Mob wrote: »

Gay marriage with full adoption rights would normalise homosexuality even more and would remove the harmful constraints imposed on the children of gay parents.

True again.

King Mob wrote: »

What you are suggesting is that we allow homophobic bullying to continue, slow the normalisation of homosexuality thus dooming 20% of the children already being raised by gay people (as well as the 20% of other victims of homophobic bullying) until homophobia just goes away.

This is complete nonsense. What I am suggesting is not placing children in avoidable harm but excercise patience and caution and and first work towards creating an environment where these children won't be stigmatised and victimised.

King Mob wrote: »

If your position was honest and consistant, you should still support gay marriage and adoption.

I do. However, my primary concern is for the children who need parents and not the parents who don't need children.

Have I made myself clear?

King Mob wrote: »

The only other way you can do that is if perhaps you are suggesting that we take away the right for single gay people in Ireland to adopt and to take away their children before they try to kill themselves.

How fitting that you sign on off on a post replete with misrepresentations and utter nonsense with th biggest whopper of them all.

Nodin seems to have disappeared

I counted 7 failings in the Melbourne study - This is the legitimate criticism I spoke of above. How many can you count?

Brown Bomber

For your convenience:

Background

It has been suggested that children with same-sex attracted parents score well in psychosocial aspects of their health, however questions remain about the impact of stigma on these children. Research to date has focused on lesbian parents and has been limited by small sample sizes. This study aims to describe the physical, mental and social wellbeing of Australian children with same-sex attracted parents, and the impact that stigma has on them.

Methods

A1 cross-sectional survey, the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, was distributed in 2012 to 2a convenience sample of 390 parentsfrom 3Australia who self-identified as same-sex attracted and had children 4aged 0-17 years. // 5Parent-reported, multidimensional measures of child health and wellbeing and the relationship to perceived stigma were measured.
Results

6315 parents completed the survey (completion rate = 81%) representing 500 children. 780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent. Children in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For your convenience:

Can you expand on your issues with the study? Why is Australia an issue? Why is same-sex couples having children younger than 18 an isssue?

@BB

@BB, could you describe (using the template above in Methods) a study that would be acceptable to you?

e.g

change 5 to "Indpendent health professional assessed"

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Correct Incorrect
No. See above.
Not once have I said that there haven't been a reasonable amount of studies provided. However, it is quality not quantity as I'm sure you would agree.
Again, not once have I said that "the subject is completely unstudied".

Incorrect. Not doing very well so far are you? I have set out the requirements of a definitive study.

You are confusing legitimate criticism with ignoring. Unless you can explain to me why an Irish study on Irish children wouldn't improve our knowledge vs studies from different cultures and continents?
Rubbish. I have read many.

Of course it exists and counts. Each individual study is another brick in the wall and are indicators individually and more importantly collectively.

However, none of them are a single comprehensive and definitive study that actually prove anything.

So you aren't rejecting them, you're just not accepting all of their conclusions based on your untrained opinion of some of them?
You believe that the weigh of evidence points in one direction, but you are going to pretend that the question is still up in the air?

So what type of study would you accept as definitive?
Please out line sample size and duration.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not claiming this.

Yes, you are:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who cares if kids will be bullied because of their parents? Who cares if one in five victims of homophobic bullying will try to kill themselves? The world won't stop spinning if some kids kill themselves to escape the living hell they have been placed in.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Eh...no it's not.

Yes it is.
The source for this number is given in the article you quoted.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91173108&postcount=1316

That's the only source for the "one in five" number you are quoting.
And it doesn't say anything about this being the children of gay people.

If this isn't the source for your claim that one in five people affect by homophobic bullying, please point to the other one you are using.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is complete nonsense. What I am suggesting is not placing children in avoidable harm but excercise patience and caution and and first work towards creating an environment where these children won't be stigmatised and victimised.

But this has several flaws.
First you seem to be only concerned with the "avoidable harm"caused by one group, not others.
Second, you claim to want to work towards creating a better environment, but you want to do so that would let the worse environment last for longer for the people who are also effected by it.
Third you haven't actually shown that placing children with gay parents actually causes any more harm than with children being placed with any other parent. You have been shown evidence to the contrary.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I do. However, my primary concern is for the children who need parents and not the parents who don't need children.

Have I made myself clear?

No you haven't. You haven't explained why this issue is exclusively unique to gay parents and not other adoptive parents that could make their children targets for bullying.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How fitting that you sign on off on a post replete with misrepresentations and utter nonsense with th biggest whopper of them all.

I suppose it's a bit like accusing people of pretending that homophobic bullying doesn't exist or that people are fine with children killing themselves.

But it's a flaw in your position.
Single gay people are able to adopt in Ireland.
You believe that this results in children being placed in avoidable harm.

Do you think that this should continue unabated? If so, why be opposed to gay adoption when you are actually fine with children being placed in avoidable harm.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I counted 7 failings in the Melbourne study - This is the legitimate criticism I spoke of above. How many can you count?

as SW pointed out, we're having trouble seeing why some of these things are failings, and what you are basing this conclusion on.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

@BB, could you describe (using the template above in Methods) a study that would be acceptable to you?

e.g

change 5 to "Indpendent health professional assessed"

You're naive if you think bb would accept something.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You're naive if you think bb would accept something.

They accepted my apology yesterday!

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So no study then?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How are you getting on counting up the failings in methodology of the Australian survey?

In fairness, we've been waiting since April for you to provide an adequate and relevant study to support your claims. You're the one who wants the adoption process to change; the onus is on you to prove the change is required and won't be detrimental to the welfare and upbringing of innocent, vulnerable orphans.