Should Gay People Be Allowed To Adopt?

blacklilly

If you had two couples, one a male gay couple for instance and one a male and female married couple and both couples were similar in financial situation, security etc, who would you choose?

Corkfeen

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Add in Bi and Trans* to that number too.

Indeed, think my figure is slightly off actually. But basically, the figure remains fairly similar all the time. :pac:

hooradiation

cast_iron wrote: »

That fact that is has been coined into a phrase does not validate it in my eyes.

It must be so much fun to be able to dismiss gaping flaws in your reasoning like that.

"your argument is built on several fallacies and you should really re-evaluate it"
"LOL, don't care!"

conor.hogan.2

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

Look up what the suffix "phobia" means.

1 - Mostly heterosexual couples produce gay kids. So neither straight people nor gay people make uniformly straight or gay babies.

2 - You are homophobic you are "not afraid of them" and the them are the "gays" as you refer to them. Saying you are not afraid of them is similar to "I am not X but…" you feel the need to validate not being afraid of "them"/"gays".

Daith

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

What behaviour is not a good example for the children?

conor.hogan.2

blacklilly wrote: »

If you had two couples, one a male gay couple for instance and one a male and female married couple and both couples were similar in financial situation, security etc, who would you choose?

Each couple are different and will be a different match to the child. Even if they lived next door in exact same houses and worked the exact same jobs.

It comes down to each individual case. There is no "all things equal" something will always distinguish which candidate is better for the child in question.

oldrnwisr

blacklilly wrote: »

As I have already mentioned there are no serious studies on the specific question of gay parenting. Studies either are self-electing (open to manipulation), involve too small a sample (like 25 kids), or too short of time period. This is exactly what the Irish High Court found three years ago when examining the evidence in Zappone v. Revenue Commissioners.

The basic point is that kids have a right to a mum and dad and that anyone who denies this is placing gay rights ahead of children's rights. The basic premise behind the push for gay adoption is that children are being used as a status symbol to indicate the equality for gay people.

If you were given the choice would you place a child with two men ahead of a married man and woman?

As I have already pointed out there are many studies on gay parenting but you clearly haven't bothered to read any of them.

If you want you can read through them. I have a short list here and a longer one here.

Furthermore, not only have there been many studies on gay parenting, the body of research conducted on gay parenting has formed the basis of consensus positions being adopted by professional organisations such as the American Psychiatric Association which you can find in the second link.


If you want to bring court judgements into this fine, but it's not going to help your case. The Florida State Court of Appeals also examined the issue of homosexual adoption and in examining the evidence concluded:

"The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. Many well renowned, regarded and respected professionals have [produced] methodologically sound longitudinal and cross-sectional studies into hundreds of reports. Some of the longitudinal studies have tracked children for six, ten and fourteen years. The starting ages of the children in the longitudinal studies has varied from birth, six to ten years old and followed them throughout childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. The studies and reports are published in many well respected peer reviewed journals including the Journal of Child Development, the Journal of Family Psychology, the Journal of Child Psychology, and the Journal of Child Psychiatry. Each of the studies and hundreds of reports also withstood the rigorous peer review process and were tested statistically, rationally and methodologically by seasoned professionals prior to publication. In addition to the volume, the body of research is broad; comparing children raised by lesbian couples to children raised by married heterosexual couples; children raised by lesbian parents from birth to children raised by heterosexual married couples from birth; children raised by single homosexuals to children raised by single heterosexuals; and children adopted by homosexual parents to those raised by homosexual biological parents, to name a few. These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."


Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, Docket No. 3D08-3044


To answer your question I would place the more suitable couple in front regardless of whether they were gay or straight.

Corkfeen

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

See a tolerant person would argue that you should not be trying to shape your child's sexual orientation. You just seem to believe that being around homosexuals will somehow pass on the dreaded 'gay'. It's as if this viewpoint has been shaped by fifties warning videos....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcy_6anmVUc

blacklilly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, I know of a girl - she's now 14 - whose birth parents chose a lesbian couple as her adoptive parents. The parent's believed that due to the biological mother having serious mental health issues which tended to be triggered by post-natal depression, plus the fact that they already had 3 children under the age of 4 (devout Catholics so contraception was out of the question for them) that they would be unable to give their (unborn) daughter the care and attention she would need.

They were given a list of prospective heterosexual adoptive parents but were so unimpressed with the choices given them that they considered keeping the child even though they knew from experience that they would not be able to properly care for her.

However, the child's aunt worked with one of a lesbian couple who had been trying unsuccessfully to conceive and asked if she and her partner would be interested in adopting.

The biological parent's jumped at the chance - why? Because they had both grown up in abusive mammy/daddy (you know - the 'norm') household and firmly believed that 2 women would provide a more secure and loving home.

Of course - in the end they were not allowed to adopt as a couple so the child ended up in a legally defined 'single-parent' household despite the fact that both women were present when she was born, both women cared for her equally, both women were there when she took her first step, spoke her first word, first day at school, made her communion and first day at secondary school. One of those women is still legally a stranger to her 'daughter' - she cannot even sign a note to give permission for a school trip never mind give permission for medical treatment should it be required. She cannot leave her daughter any bequests in her will (like the house she owns!) without her 'daughter' being taxed up the wazoo for inheriting from a 'stranger'. Should anything happen the adoptive (i.e. legal) mother, the 'unlegal' mother would be just one of many people (uncles, aunts etc) deemed to have an 'interest' in the child and would need to go to court.

How can that be just?

Firstly I find your statement of an abusive mammy daddy household being the norm, highly offensive.

Are you suggesting that gay relationships are never abusive etc. Your own personal unbringing doesn't automatically create a norm because I can assure you my upbringing although not perfect (because simply, none are) was loving and certaintly noty abussive.

Also your story is an individual story, the thread is not concentrating on individual stories and instead is questioning the whether gay couple should be allowed adopt.

My personal belief is no as I do not believe the childs best interests are put at the heart of this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blacklilly wrote: »

As I have already mentioned there are no serious studies on the specific question of gay parenting. Studies either are self-electing (open to manipulation), involve too small a sample (like 25 kids), or too short of time period. This is exactly what the Irish High Court found three years ago when examining the evidence in Zappone v. Revenue Commissioners.

Welcoem to the thread. I posted one, spannign 22 years and 23 coutnries. Pales into insignificance when you click on the following though.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

Bannasidhe

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.



:rolleyes:



Look up what the suffix "phobia" means.

What the hell is a 'pro-heterosexual' environment exactly?

My parent's were (still are) heterosexual - I'm not but my brother and sister are. My brother is heterosexual - he has one lesbian daughter and 2 straight daughters.

Despite my son growing up in a 'pro-homosexual' (as you would no doubt define it) he is so heterosexual that he has produced two children - so my genes are safely carried into the immediate future - which is nice :cool:.

conor.hogan.2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Welcoem to the thread. I posted one, spannign 22 years and 23 coutnries. Pales into insignificance when you click on the following though.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

Stop with your "facts".

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are talking about?

I literally have no fúcking clue what nonsense you are sprouting now.

Bannasidhe

blacklilly wrote: »

Firstly I find your statement of an abusive mammy daddy household being the norm, highly offensive.

Are you suggesting that gay relationships are never abusive etc. Your own personal unbringing doesn't automatically create a norm because I can assure you my upbringing although not perfect (because simply, none are) was loving and certaintly noty abussive.

Also your story is an individual story, the thread is not concentrating on individual stories and instead is questioning the whether gay couple should be allowed adopt.

My personal belief is no as I do not believe the childs best interests are put at the heart of this.

You asked a question. I responded by demonstrating that some people, when given a choice, will indeed choose a gay couple. I gave the reason they made that choice.

I never even said abuse was the norm in any kind of relationship - I said that was this particular couples experience of growing up in what you would define as a normal family environment - i.e. a heterosexual married couple.

It's also a bit rich for someone who feels free to define what is and is not natural and normal to claim someone else is being offensive IMHO.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.



:rolleyes:



Look up what the suffix "phobia" means.

Go on. Enlighten me. What beahaviour are we talkign about?

As regards the phobia thing, the defiintion also reads "reactions typically disproportional to the actual danger posed". If anything, your reactions to gay people adopting kids fit the definition perfectly.

If you are not scared, though, why are yosu till persisting with this opinion despite massive factual ecidence to the contrary and scareongering (i.e. - kids won't have a typical hetrosexual upbringing (oh no!) and gay people behave in some way inappropriate in front of children (do they?))

You are most certainly scared, my friend. It's either fear or bigotry, and you're already dismissed bigotry.

Pushtrak

blacklilly wrote: »

If you had two couples, one a male gay couple for instance and one a male and female married couple and both couples were similar in financial situation, security etc, who would you choose?

With this amount of information, no choice could be made definitively. So, as with any other choice, say an employer looking at two candidates that the employer thinks will both be as good as the other, they have to suck it up and choose.

conor.hogan.2

Pushtrak wrote: »

they have to suck it up and choose.

Well interview both sides.

Bannasidhe

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Well interview both sides.

Oh stop it with your logic conor.hogan.

Sure what it there was a choice between 2 married heterosexual couples both with mammies who are experienced primary teachers but have elected to stay at home to mind the children and bake cakes and do arts and crafts and the daddies like gardening, earn 70k a year, are diy GODS and do not play golf or go to the pub ever. How do they choose??????

bb1234567

Interesting,I never actually believed that figure that 10 percent of people were gay/lesbian but the poll sort of proves it.11+91 =102 people for the first two poll options....703+325=1028 people for the 3rd and 4th poll options.
102 divided by 1028 x 100 =10.0194553 % so just over 10%. Hmm just found it interesting...and that 10% doesnt even include bisexuals,transgenedered,asexuals etc

Babybuff

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

no prons on the internet today? you must be bored. Here have a thread about gay rights to play with.

bodice ripper

Babybuff wrote: »

no prons on the internet today? you must be bored. Here have a thread about gay rights to play with.

****, I forgot that. what the hell am I doing here?

tbh

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Go on. Enlighten me. What beahaviour are we talkign about?

You know how the gays are, mincing around the place with their high lispy voices and their little moustaches, taking litres of poppers and sucking off every man in sight 24/7. That can't be good for kids.

dogyworld1

no they shouldnt be
unless their the gay couple from modern family

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What the hell is a 'pro-heterosexual' environment exactly?

I think it's where they get paid for heterosexual acts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tbh wrote: »

You know how the gays are, mincing around the place with their high lispy voices and their little moustaches, taking litres of poppers and sucking off every man in sight 24/7. That can't be good for kids.

You know, I was about to reply ot that, before I realised you weren't him. Bravo, tbh, bravo!

AnonoBoy

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True.
I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

It took me a while but I've just realised that you're a parody account..... right?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It took me a while but I've just realised that you're a parody account..... right?

With 3,124 posts, that is one hell of a dedicated parody account!

WolfgangWeisen

CreepingDeath on gay people

deconduo

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It took me a while but I've just realised that you're a parody account..... right?

Given that he was practically advocating eugenics I sincerely hope so.

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

True, if your siblings procreate, but the more children the more successful your genes are.

Actually that is also entirely false in many cases. Sometimes having fewer children makes your genes more successful. It is not just about having more children, it is about making them survive until they too can procreate, and them after that, and them after that.... There was a great study recently on the subject showing that families from the 19th century who had less children at the time have more surviving descendants today than those who had more children at the time.

Counter Intuitive I agree, but much of evolution is and if something in evolution seems common sense and straight forward to you.... such as "More children = more successful" or "Not reproducing = Genetic dead end" then you are most likely wrong and should probably check your facts before you speak.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Very true, you got me there. I have no knowledge of the "sterile bald mole rat"... killer argument there.

As above you should be wary when quoting Evolution to support a moral view.
Not only because evolution does not dictate morality anyway.. but also because most people are wrong in what they think they know about the subject and what constitutes "success" in evolutionary terms.

I am not trying to "get you" at all. This is not a competition or a fight. Its a discussion to find out what is true, what is useful and what is moral. Your evolution comment simply was not true, so I corrected it, now perhaps you can rethink your position to account for this new information.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

In effect, homosexuality could be classed as "virtual sterility" for the sake of evolution. If you aren't attracted to the opposite sex and don't wish to procreate with them, then for an intents purposes your particular set of genes ends with you.

"Your particular set" of genes ALWAYS ends with you. You only input half of your genes into each child. However evolution does not really work by fighting to pass on your set of genes. The way it more works is that each gene tries to pass on itself. It cares not at all for the genes around it.

Let us imagine a gene for being prone to adopt for example... that gene in me would successfully pass itself into the next generation even if I never procreate.... if the expression of that gene caused me to care for the well being and eventual reproductive fitness of another person who has it.

Many species have non reproducing elements and the genes of those elements do not "die out". They are passed on in the rest of the species. HOW those species evolve a non reproducing element varies from species to species. Some are sterile, some do not respond to the stimulus to mate, some are killed if they try... there's lots of ways..... who is to say that the direction of the reproductive instinct into homosexuality is not just another of the already wonderfully varied ways in which evolution achieves this? As such Evolution argues in support of Homosexuality, not against it like so many wish to pretend.

AND all those species would celebrate those elements if they had the concept for doing so because all those species benefit from their existence. They help the species, improve it, strengthen in, and increase the reproductive fitness of the reproducing elements by caring for them and nursing them and protecting them.

Our species is the only one who rejects them and demeans them and attacks them and for reasons that so far are opaque to me and when I discuss it either seem to reduce to "Its bad because god says it is bad" or "it is bad because its not what I want to do so they shouldnt be doing it either".

So while I agree that it was poor form for the other user to call you an idiot for your misunderstanding of evolutionary concepts... I would consider it good form to ask you to actually delve a LOT deeper into the subject before trying to wield it again.

nozzferrahhtoo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'm not saying gays couldn't raise a child, I'm saying their behaviour is not a good example for children. The children should be raised in a pro-heterosexual environment.

Why? Unless you have an argument that somehow homosexuality is bad then there is no argument for suggesting children should not be around it.

However your comment is even worse than this and I can see why someone would level the accusation of "homophobia" at you. What "behaviour" are you talking about exactly? Exactly what behaviour do you think differs between a gay couple and a straight couple that has anything to do with child rearing or childhood experience.

The only behaviour I can think if different is what they do in the bedroom and even then there are not all that many differences and I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that any child's upbringing should be inclusive of exposure to what their parents do in the bedroom behind closed doors in private?

Every other behaviour I can think of is identical after that. They get up, they eat, they work, they provide for and love the children in their care, they watch soap operas.... so on so on. Where is the difference in behaviour you are imagining exactly?

Pushtrak

This is about gay marriage, but I think the point has merit in terms of the abortion debate. In general, people are getting more tolerant. Honestly, I didn't expect the votes to go the way it is going. Far more people voting in favour of same sex adoption? Ireland is doing better than I'd have figured prior to this thread.

I do wish more of the people who'd voted against, though, would try and offer some argument for their position. Or if not that, I hope they are following this thread and at least attempting an open mind. It shouldn't be so hard for a person to consider a perspective they hold in the light of facts which counter a prejudice. So, while I say we have come a long way, we clearly still have a long way to go.

corktina

the way I look at it, a person with two loving PArents of opposite sexes can manage to rear a child who turns out to be Gay, why should anyone think that a Gay couple couldn't raise a Child who is straight? I can't see there is any danger or problem associated with Gay adoption that isn't outweighed by the huge advantage of having two loving caring commited parents of whatever gender. Has to be better than having just one parent of either gender surely.ANd if that child should end up Gay, who cares so long as they are happy?

bb1234567

corktina wrote: »

the way I look at it, a person with two loving PArents of opposite sexes can manage to rear a child who turns out to be Gay, why should anyone think that a Gay couple couldn't raise a Child who is straight? I can't see there is any danger or problem associated with Gay adoption that isn't outweighed by the huge advantage of having two loving caring commited parents of whatever gender. Has to be better than having just one parent of either gender surely.ANd if that child should end up Gay, who cares so long as they are happy?

You make a good point, just the bit I highlighted ,well its not true for me anyway. I'd prefer have just one parent than gay parents, well thats just me,everyones different I suppose.

ToddyDoody

Ideally gay people would adopt gay children

Bannasidhe

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Ideally gay people would adopt gay children

Why?
How exactly would that work?

Pushtrak

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Ideally gay people would adopt gay children

So, what do you propose? A gay test?

Bannasidhe

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, what do you propose? A gay test?

Perhaps all the gheys and the ghey children could go and live in the Ghey-tto

Sir Gallagher

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Ideally gay people would adopt gay children

Hahahahahaha brilliant.

Davidson2k9

No they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, for the child's sake.

Sir Gallagher

Davidson2k9 wrote: »

No they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, for the child's sake.

Yeah better off being an orphan.

Bannasidhe

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Yeah better off being an orphan.

or in HSE care

The Irish Times - Wednesday, October 19, 2011

35 children in contact with HSE died over last 18 months

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1019/1224306075192.html

CreepingDeath

deconduo wrote: »

Given that he was practically advocating eugenics I sincerely hope so.

It was only a matter of time before the eugenics/Nazi card was going to be played.... how utterly predictable in this type of AH thread.

If only you realised that you have been conditioned to respond like that, much like a guard dog trained to bark at strangers.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually that is also entirely false in many cases. Sometimes having fewer children makes your genes more successful.

Many cases... sometimes ?
Hiding behind the vague there aren't you?

Having fewer children is typically more successful if you have limited resources to begin with. If you're rich or like that fertility/sperm bank doctor in the States who impregnated 600+ women with his seed and got them to raise his children for free, then you're laughing from an evolutionary point of view.

In some ways, I actually think that getting gay couples to raise and fund the offspring of other couples is a brilliant strategy.
Just like the cuckoo who lays it's eggs in other birds nests and lets them work hard to raise their children it delegates the work and the cost to a more gullible couple.

Imagine if you were forced to bring up someone elses child, the uproar of it.
No, even if the gays win the "I want to bring up someone elses child" it will be a shallow victory in genetic terms.

NuMarvel

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No, even if the gays win the "I want to bring up someone elses child" it will be a shallow victory in genetic terms.

Oh noes, what will happen then? :eek::eek:

Oh yeah, we won't give a toss. :rolleyes:

In genetic terms, ANY adoption is a "shallow victory" (as you would understand it). Tell you what though, why don't you head over to this forum and impart your genetic wisdom there?

blacklilly

CreepingDeath wrote: »

deconduo wrote: »

Given that he was practically advocating eugenics I sincerely hope so.

It was only a matter of time before the eugenics/Nazi card was going to be played.... how utterly predictable in this type of AH thread.

If only you realised that you have been conditioned to respond like that, much like a guard dog trained to bark at strangers.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually that is also entirely false in many cases. Sometimes having fewer children makes your genes more successful.

Many cases... sometimes ?
Hiding behind the vague there aren't you?

Having fewer children is typically more successful if you have limited resources to begin with. If you're rich or like that fertility/sperm bank doctor in the States who impregnated 600+ women with his seed and got them to raise his children for free, then you're laughing from an evolutionary point of view.

In some ways, I actually think that getting gay couples to raise and fund the offspring of other couples is a brilliant strategy.
Just like the cuckoo who lays it's eggs in other birds nests and lets them work hard to raise their children it delegates the work and the cost to a more gullible couple.

Imagine if you were forced to bring up someone elses child, the uproar of it.
No, even if the gays win the "I want to bring up someone elses child" it will be a shallow victory in genetic terms.

"the gays" sounds well awful tbh.
I think the question this thread poses should be phrased in another way.
The right of the child should be at the center of this, not the right of the adult.

My opinion is that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman as opposed to a single man or woman or a gay couple.

This is the ideal and I really can't seem to understand the argument against this.

However I do have respect for others opinions and im not going to involve myself in a argument as my opinion will not change.

B0jangles

blacklilly wrote: »

My opinion is that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman as opposed to a single man or woman or a gay couple.

And the fact that your opinion is flatly contradicted by numerous heavily researched studies has no effect whatsoever on your belief?

Dave!

Gays should be considered with any heterosexual couple as long as they can offer a loving and secure home for the child. The welfare of the child should be paramount, and it seems to me that having a greater selection of loving couples to choose from is pretty sensible.

There may be circumstances where no suitable couple can be found who are willing to look after e.g. a particularly troubled child. To exclude an otherwise qualified and suitable couple from even being considered purely on the basis of their sexuality is not sensible in any way.

CreepingDeath

B0jangles wrote: »

And the fact that your opinion is flatly contradicted by numerous heavily researched studies has no effect whatsoever on your belief?

They're not studies, they're questionnaires sent out to teenagers who are generally not very self aware to start with.

Anyway, since everyone is individual how can you subjectively compare how their current life is, without comparing how their life could have been with heterosexual parents ?
If someone doesn't know any differently, then how can they comment?

It's like asking boardsies how happy they are living in Ireland, and asking English people how happy they are living in England.
There's no real comparison between them, it's all subjective.

It's not science it's an aggregation of opinions.

NuMarvel

blacklilly wrote: »

The right of the child should be at the center of this, not the right of the adult.

My opinion is that a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman as opposed to a single man or woman or a gay couple.

This is the ideal and I really can't seem to understand the argument against this.

However I do have respect for others opinions and im not going to involve myself in a argument as my opinion will not change.

I, and presumably everyone else, will completely agree that the welfare of the child is paramount.

With that in mind, prove your assertion that a child being raised by a heterosexual couple is better than being raised by a gay couple. Because so far, no one on the No side has been able to provide any evidence, let alone anything half way convincing.

The welfare of a child being adopted is too important to leave to chance. If studies show that gay couples make just as good parents as heterosexual couples, then they should be considered on an equal basis. Anyone who disagrees needs to prove what they're saying, otherwise they're more concerned with winning an argument on the Internet than actually making sure an adopted child has the best upbringing available.

Sonics2k

CreepingDeath wrote: »

They're not studies, they're questionnaires sent out to teenagers who are generally not very self aware to start with.

I see you ignored this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348