Equality of marriage and love

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Where would the data come from?
Which countries have been rearing kids within homosexual marriages over a statistically significant period of time? Bearing in mind the human lifespan of 90 years or so.

we have had at least one generation of kids raised by homosexual couples. Is that not enough?

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.
Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents. It is also important that they receive a broader education at school, in addition to the cultural values of their own family unit.

So should gay children be taken off of heterosexual parents in that case?
:rolleyes:

I know of plenty of heterosexual parents that have gay children, are you somehow suggesting that parents failed to raise their kids right and this is why they turned out gay?
Are you really going to go down that ignorant, stupid, bigoted rabbit hole?

Pherekydes

When you lose your spouse (death, separation) should your kids be taken into care?

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Unique is the word I used.

Ah...
Separate but equal?

recedite wrote: »

Eh... no.

Um, yes.
Many options are available to same sex couples to produce children as they are to hetero couples.
Many hetero couples use surrogates or IVF or adoption. Some even choose not to have children. (gasp!) Do you argue that these couples should also not use the same definition of marriage? If not, why not?
If so, then your argument is plainly silly.

recedite wrote: »

No type of relationship guarantees full stability.

Do you have any evidence that shows same sex parents provide less stability?
If not (as you've pretty much already admitted) on what basis are you using to reach that conclusion?

recedite wrote: »

You mention hate a lot.

A lot of hate around.

recedite wrote: »

Where would the data come from?

Same place as studies like this:
https://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2016/04000/Same_Sex_and_Different_Sex_Parent_Households_and.1.aspx

Conclusion: Children with female same-sex parents and different-sex parents demonstrated no differences in outcomes, despite female same-sex parents reporting more parenting stress. Future studies may reveal the sources of this parenting stress.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6

We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x

Strengths typically associated with married mother‐father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers. Average differences favor women over men, but parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive. The gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parent‐child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1353%2Fdem.0.0112?LI=true

The results show that children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures. Heterosexual married couples are the family type whose children have the lowest rates of grade retention, but the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status.

And I like this one in particular.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jpc.13171

Conclusions
Stable dual parent families offer good outcomes for children with same‐sex attracted parents. Family processes are most important. This study does not support the assertion that children require both male and female parents, nor that biological relationships are essential to health and wellbeing. This study provides scientific data from a cross‐sectional Australian‐based study to describe and understand health determinants for children in family contexts that comprise same‐sex parent and all family contexts. It recommends equitable, stigma‐free family support.

And for extra bonus research:
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.
...
Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children.

So again, what are you using to reach your conclusions?

Bannasidhe

Did I accidentally wake up in April 2015? :eek:

Huge smell of deja poo around here... :rolleyes:

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

And what evidence do you have that the former is less ideal, i.e. that it leads to poorer outcomes for the children than the latter?

Its not all about money either. Gay couples typically have more money than straight ones, but money doesn't buy what a stable traditional family unit provides for kids.

Again do you have any references to support that assertion or is it is simply your own unsupported opinion?

King Mob

So what's the bets?

"blah blah blah... Sinister Gay Liberal conspiracy controls all research"

Or

"My opinion is so infallible that it doesn't require evidence and outweighs the work of hundreds of dedicated researchers and their peer reviewed papers."

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

I know we are all trying to rewrite the rules these days but there is still a lot of stigma...

I am not so sure there is any more. Certainly not in our country. Perhaps in the US and Russia and so on? I think it varies massively from country to country so you might be better being specific.

stefanovich wrote: »

Child is deprived of one or both of their biological parents.

Again specifics here would be useful. What are you actually talking about? Many children who are up for adoption have ALREADY been removed from one or both biological parents. So homosexual marriage has nothing at all to do with that.

So how specifically are you seeing them being deprived here that is actually an affect of SSM and not something that occurred anyway?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there.

Any evidence for that? All the studies I have seen show that homosexual couples do so just as well, and in some studies they even have slightly better results, than any other configuration. Studies showing the opposite seem to be very thin on the ground. I think I recall seeing ONE ever and the differences were minute to say the least.

recedite wrote: »

You can pretend to yourself that they are all equally good, but they are not. For example, single parents make the best of what they have. That is not a criticism of them, or a hateful comment against them.

Single parents have unique issues that I think makes it an unfair comparison, and an irrelevant one given the topic of this thread. I think we are more than aware children being brought up by a single parent have unique disadvantages that makes their situation less than ideal.

However the claim that children with 2 or more parents are somehow significantly better off if one is male and one is female and there is exactly 2 of them is pretty much entirely unsubstantiated. The "ideal" here is purely imaginary. We have a user on boards.ie for example who is in an MFF relationship and has two children and a third on the way. To say their situation is "ideal" is an understatement. They are amazing kids, hyper intelligent, much loved, deeply cared for, and ahead of the game by any measure I would use. Why is their situation less ideal in your imagination because they have three parents rather than two?

Not only is it imaginary I think it is entirely the wrong approach to evaluate the situation at all. Looking at it from the perspective of who the parents are or what the sexual contents of their underwear is, simply strikes me as the wrong narrative to be operating under.

recedite wrote: »

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

You are begging/dodging the question. You were asked "Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation" and all you did was describe what a same sex marriage is. That does not answer the question at all. It rather contrives to dodge it.

That would be like me asking something such as "Why is a diet of almost exclusively vegetables better than a diet of almost exclusively fruit" and you just answering "because carrots".

recedite wrote: »

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.

Why? That is an assertion with absolutely no substance validating or substantiating it.

Also how much, and what specifically, do you think parents play a role in the development of their child's sexuality? And then even more specifically what aspects of that interaction do you think are somehow specifically facilitated by the parents having the same sexuality as their child, and why?

recedite wrote: »

Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents.

Which is not even remotely precluded in a same-sex scenario. Even a little bit.

Especially as, which you acknowledge yourself, parents are not the sole or even majority source of this in our society. Values are distilled by children from multiple sources as children grow. The classroom, extended family, siblings, peers, literature, media, direct experience and much more.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Also: Same-sex couples can and do bring children into the world...
Doesn't sound like you stance is all that well supported and based on something other than facts.
Hate perhaps?

King Mob wrote: »

Um, yes.
Many options are available to same sex couples to produce children as they are to hetero couples.
Many hetero couples use surrogates or IVF or adoption...
So again, what are you using to reach your conclusions?

Lets look at your examples given here, and fact-check them.


Adoption - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". No.
requires a biological male and a biological female? No.


IVF - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.


Surrogacy - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.


Factcheck Result; The gay couple can purchase a child, but cannot produce a child by themselves.
They can adopt a baby, but as most unwanted pregnancies are nowadays aborted, they will need to displace some other couple from the waiting list.


Which takes us back to another point raised. One that was neatly glossed over and ignored...

recedite wrote: »

Similar issues can arise when white parents adopt black kids, or vice versa. Its not always ideal, as this guy with first hand experience can explain.

He also touches on another interesting issue - what happens if a wealthy white homosexual couple are considered first rate candidates to adopt an ethnic minority child, but a childless heterosexual couple from the same ethnic minority are downgraded because they have some of the "homophobic" views typical of the culture of the ethnic minority concerned?

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at your examples given here, and fact-check them.

Ok, it doesn't meet your personal definition. Bully for you.

So are hetero couples who choose or require these options excluded from your definition of marriage?
If not, why not and how does that not invalidate your definition.

recedite wrote: »

They can adopt a baby, but as most unwanted pregnancies are nowadays aborted, they will need to displace some other couple from the waiting list.

What do you mean by displace?
Why are gay couples less worthy of consideration as adoption candidates than any other married couple?

recedite wrote: »

Which takes us back to another point raised. One that was neatly glossed over and ignored...

Lol. You ignore the vast majority of my post, particularly the requests for you to explain why you believe gay couples to be less than ideal and to provide evidence for your claim.
Also, a long string of peer reviewed studies that refute the idea.

Maybe go back and try that again before whining about your points being ignored?

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at your examples given here, and fact-check them.


Adoption - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". No.
requires a biological male and a biological female? No.


IVF - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.


Surrogacy - brings a child into the world or "produces a child". Yes.
requires a biological male and a biological female? Yes.


Factcheck Result; The gay couple can purchase a child, but cannot produce a child by themselves.
They can adopt a baby, but as most unwanted pregnancies are nowadays aborted, they will need to displace some other couple from the waiting list.


Which takes us back to another point raised. One that was neatly glossed over and ignored...

The ability to "produce a child" as you so prosaically put it is no indication of ability to raise a child.

If it were there would be no need for child protection services.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

What do you mean by displace?
Why are gay couples less worthy of consideration as adoption candidates than any other married couple?

My meaning is fairly basic; In most countries (certainly in western countries) there are fewer babies available for adoption than there are prospective couples and single parents wanting to adopt them. Somebody has to go lower down on the list, whether that be due to socio-economic situation, age, ethnicity, sexuality, singleness, or whatever.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The ability to "produce a child" as you so prosaically put it is no indication of ability to raise a child.
If it were there would be no need for child protection services.

Indeed, and I never said otherwise.


But here's a question for you; Which set of parents should get priority for the adoption of a baby of African ethnicity, in this country. A wealthy white gay couple, or a poorer African couple who have expressed mildly homophobic views in the presence of the social worker? Which pair would you put higher on the waiting list?

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

My meaning is fairly basic; In most countries (certainly in western countries) there are fewer babies available for adoption than there are prospective couples and single parents wanting to adopt them. Somebody has to go lower down on the list, whether that be due to socio-economic situation, age, ethnicity, sexuality, singleness, or whatever.

Ok, you are once again ignoring several points I made in my previous points.
This is a silly tactic and serves to only make your position seem all the weaker.

It's baffling you think it does otherwise.

But to address the above, I repeat the question you didn't answer:
In what way does a new gay married couple displace other potential adopters any more than a new hetero couple does?

Do you have any evidence that such a thing happens to an extent that is an issue or to an extent that necessitates denying gay couples equal rights?
Do you have any evidence that such a situation leads to bad outcomes?
Or are you just plucking it out of your head?

Are you going to go back and address the points you missed previously?
I can repeat them if you like.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

My meaning is fairly basic; In most countries (certainly in western countries) there are fewer babies available for adoption than there are prospective couples and single parents wanting to adopt them. Somebody has to go lower down on the list, whether that be due to socio-economic situation, age, ethnicity, sexuality, singleness, or whatever.

asa you seem to have ignored the question that was asked i will ask it again.

Why are gay couples less worthy of consideration as adoption candidates than any other married couple?

.......

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did I accidentally wake up in April 2015? :eek:

Huge smell of deja poo around here... :rolleyes:

Where have you parked the Delorean?? Time to get Back to the Future!

.......

recedite wrote: »

Indeed, and I never said otherwise.


But here's a question for you; Which set of parents should get priority for the adoption of a baby of African ethnicity, in this country. A wealthy white gay couple, or a poorer African couple who have expressed mildly homophobic views in the presence of the social worker? Which pair would you put higher on the waiting list?

The wealthy ones because studies show that the single biggest factor influencing outcomes for children is economic status of the parents.

Ethnicity - irrelevant.
Sexuality - irrelevant.
Economic status - relevant.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did I accidentally wake up in April 2015? :eek:

Huge smell of deja poo around here... :rolleyes:

Some of the comments are more reminiscent of 1955.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Indeed, and I never said otherwise.


But here's a question for you; Which set of parents should get priority for the adoption of a baby of African ethnicity, in this country. A wealthy white gay couple, or a poorer African couple who have expressed mildly homophobic views in the presence of the social worker? Which pair would you put higher on the waiting list?

That is exactly what you are saying. You are using ability to reproduce as your benchmark to determine an 'ideal'.

Strangely enough their ethnicity wouldn't be the deciding factor for me as I also don't believe the colour of a person's skin determines their ability to parent.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Which set of parents should get priority for the adoption of a baby of African ethnicity, in this country. A wealthy white gay couple, or a poorer African couple who have expressed mildly homophobic views in the presence of the social worker? Which pair would you put higher on the waiting list?

Why does the ethnicity of the baby, the ethnicity of the adoptive parents or the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents even figure in this question?

When adopting children, you first of all get thoroughly screened to see if you're suitable, where provision of a nurturing stable home environment for the child is the primary criterion. Parent ethnicity or sexual orientation is not one, nor should it be. Nor is there any attempt to match racial ethnicity of parents and children. Being openly homophobic could well be a rejection criteria as it is not something that is socially acceptable nor considered healthy for raising kids. Even the very traditional religious schools are on-board with this in today's Ireland. Homophobia is a rather dingy and unpleasant aspect of our recent history, which like racism still lingers to some extent in some elderly and more hard line conservative types but is thankfully in rapid decline.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

My meaning is fairly basic; In most countries (certainly in western countries) there are fewer babies available for adoption than there are prospective couples and single parents wanting to adopt them.

And I would absolutely advocate for SSM couples to be given priority over single parents.

It is pretty clear you have ZERO evidence to offer that specifically 2 parents and specifically one of each gender is actually an "ideal". The evidence and studies actually go exactly against you on this fantasy.

But the evidence that children of SINGLE parents fare worse is much more robust. And absolutely against your narrative would an SSM couple be much more ideal than a single parent for adoption in general.

recedite wrote: »

Somebody has to go lower down on the list, whether that be due to socio-economic situation, age, ethnicity, sexuality, singleness, or whatever.

When placing a child these agencies should be considering all candidates for their SPECIFIC ability to be the best ones to take that child. They should not be pushed up or down any list solely because of their gender or sexuality. They should be evaluated solely on their ability to care for that child.

So lets place them on their list by actually relevant criteria shall we, and leave the irrelevancy of their gender and sexuality entirely out of it and these nonsense assumptions that one man and one woman specifically is going to be the better choice for no reason other than fantasy.

recedite wrote: »

Which pair would you put higher on the waiting list?

Not a question we should answer as put before us in your contrived example. Much more than the paltry quantity of information should be evaluated. MUCH more. And of all the information I would want to see evaluated in doing this the fact one couple is gay and the other hetero should be at the bottom of the list if even there on such a list at all. Unless you can show, as you have consistently failed to do at this point, that it actually a relevant measure in the success outcome of that childs upbringing it should be treated as the irrelevancy it is.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Strangely enough their ethnicity wouldn't be the deciding factor for me as I also don't believe the colour of a person's skin determines their ability to parent.

smacl wrote: »

Why does the ethnicity of the baby, the ethnicity of the adoptive parents or the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents even figure in this question?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not a question we should answer as put before us in your contrived example.

As expected, you would all take the politically correct option, disregarding ethnicity and sexual preferences, as indeed would most social workers because it covers their own ass.


But by maintaining blindness towards colour and sexuality, while downgrading suitability of the African couple on the basis of socio-economic status and "homophobic" attitudes, you would effectively be giving preference to the wealthy gay couple.



Yet this is exactly what the black guy in the link was complaining about, because it results in the child being disconnected from their natural heritage, and possibly experiencing some confusion around their own identity growing up. As he says, they may not even realise what they have missed out on until much later in life.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

As expected, you would all take the politically correct option, disregarding ethnicity and sexual preferences, as indeed would most social workers because it covers their own ass.


But by maintaining blindness towards colour and sexuality, while downgrading suitability of the African couple on the basis of socio-economic status and "homophobic" attitudes, you would effectively be giving preference to the wealthy gay couple.



Yet this is exactly what the black guy in the link was complaining about, because it results in the child being disconnected from their natural heritage, and possibly experiencing some confusion around their own identity growing up. As he says, they may not even realise what they have missed out on until much later in life.

The consideration when placing a child with adoptive parents is the best interests of the child. The interests of the prospective adopters are secondary, as they should be.

So now that you are back can you explain why ssm are less than ideal for raising children? You have provided with studies that show this is not the case so presumably you have some actual facts to back up your point?

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Yet this is exactly what the black guy in the link was complaining about, because it results in the child being disconnected from their natural heritage, and possibly experiencing some confusion around their own identity growing up. As he says, they may not even realise what they have missed out on until much later in life.

So any evidence that this happens? That this happens at a rate that's an issue? That this results in a bad upbringing?

And how exactly is this relevant to gay marriage?

By your own argument, you should object to interracial marriage as well.

You are still dodging questions, so your silly little gotcha moment isn't as impressive as you think.

Are you going to be addressing my previous points? If not, please at least say so and perhaps explain why. Ignoring them doesn't reflect well on you or your position.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

As expected, you would all take the politically correct option, disregarding ethnicity and sexual preferences, as indeed would most social workers because it covers their own ass.


But by maintaining blindness towards colour and sexuality, while downgrading suitability of the African couple on the basis of socio-economic status and "homophobic" attitudes, you would effectively be giving preference to the wealthy gay couple.

Absolute rubbish. None of what you quoted suggests downgrading anyone on the basis of their socio-economic status or ethnicity, merely their homophobia. Being openly homophobic is generally considered to be hateful in Western Europe, and in turn would go against any would be adoptive parents. Similarly to openly discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity or indeed religious beliefs. Tradition is no excuse for bigotry either and attitudes to race, religion and sexual orientation in our recent history are nothing to be proud of.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

As expected, you would all take the politically correct option

You can keep your words out of my mouth thanks. I never said which option I would pick. What I said was that WHATEVER option I would pick, it would not be on the basis of the information you have so far supplied.

Are you so desperate to push your narrative here that you will wholesale pretend I say something I did not even remotely say??? For shame sir, for shame. Says a lot.

Thanks for generally ignoring my posts though, real big of you. Says a lot too.

And no nothing about my position is because it is "politically correct" as what you ignored and edited out of my post is that....

recedite wrote: »

disregarding ethnicity and sexual preferences

.... political correctness has NOTHING to do with my position. What I said, and you ignored, was that in adoption we should place the children using measures that are actually relevant. I do not care if relevant measures are politically correct or MASSIVELY politically incorrect. If data shows them to be RELEVANT measures, then bloody well use them no matter who it pisses off. If they are not relevant at all, such as the sexual preferences of the parent, then leave them out entirely. Again regardless of who it pisses off.

So you can pretend, to suit your contrived little narrative, which couple I would "give preference to" in your scenario. But the fact is I gave preference to NEITHER. What I said was that whichever couple should be given preference, and it could be either of the two, would be something I would evaluate on information you simply did not supply.

Which I am sure everyone except you will notice is MUCH different to what you are shoving into my mouth on my behalf.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. None of what you quoted suggests downgrading anyone on the basis of their socio-economic status or ethnicity, merely their homophobia. Being openly homophobic is generally considered to be hateful in Western Europe, and in turn would go against any would be adoptive parents..

Maybe you don't know many Africans, but they are generally in the range of "mildly homophobic" to "vehemently homophobic".

Financial ability to pay for a child also comes into these things, both directly and indirectly (as in, general situation and ability to provide child with their own bedroom)
So while ostensibly being the great egalitarian, you have actually discriminated against one ethnic group and "stolen" a baby from that ethnic group.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can keep your words out of my mouth thanks. I never said which option I would pick. What I said was that WHATEVER option I would pick, it would not be on the basis of the information you have so far supplied.

Are you so desperate to push your narrative here that you will wholesale pretend I say something I did not even remotely say??? For shame sir, for shame. Says a lot.

Thanks for generally ignoring my posts though, real big of you. Says a lot too.

I'm not ignoring you, its just that I'm struggling to pin down anything definite from anything you have said. Therefore I can't respond.

.......

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you don't know many Africans, but they are generally in the range of "mildly homophobic" to "vehemently homophobic".

Financial ability to pay for a child also comes into these things, both directly and indirectly (as in, general situation and ability to provide child with their own bedroom)
So while ostensibly being the great egalitarian, you have actually discriminated against one ethnic group and "stolen" a baby from that ethnic group.

Gordon Bennett - do you have to practice hard for these kinds of mental gymnastics?

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you don't know many Africans, but they are generally in the range of "mildly homophobic" to "vehemently homophobic".

This is a pretty racist statement that we can assume you're not going to back up with anything besides your own authority.

Like I said, and you never responded to... Lot of hate around.

recedite wrote: »

So while ostensibly being the great egalitarian, you have actually discriminated against one ethnic group and "stolen" a baby from that ethnic group.

Lol, the gays are stealing babies!:rolleyes:

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The consideration when placing a child with adoptive parents is the best interests of the child. The interests of the prospective adopters are secondary, as they should be.

I agree.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So now that you are back can you explain why ssm are less than ideal for raising children?

Well no, I didn't say that. The logical implication of what I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, it is slightly better to raise hetero children in a hetero family, African children in an African family (even if homophobic)


The flip side of that is that a homosexual would have been better off in a gay family, although their sexuality can only be determined in hindsight as an adult. I'm not in favour of promoting homosexuality to children, and I am vehemently against any kind of surgical/chemical gender reassignment in anyone before adulthood.

recedite

....... wrote: »

Gordon Bennett - do you have to practice hard for these kinds of mental gymnastics?

I'm not the one doing the mental gymnastics here. If you know Africans, you know I am right.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

The logical implication of what I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, it is slightly better to raise hetero children in a hetero family, African children in an African family (even if homophobic)

...

The flip side of that is that a homosexual would have been better off in a gay family, although their sexuality can only be determined in hindsight as an adult.

Except, you have ZERO evidence for this. You have been shown a pile of evidence that proves your claim incorrect.
You ignored this evidence.
You have no basis for your claims beyond your own faulty, clearly ill-informed and biased "logic."

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Like I said, and you never responded to... Lot of hate around.

Lol, the gays are stealing babies!:rolleyes:

I'm alluding to the "stolen" generations of Native Americans and Australians, who were adopted out to parents who could provide better and more "correct" homes to them than their own ethnic group. At least, that was the theory anyway.
Of course, correctness in those days was slightly different to correctness these days, but the arrogance was the same.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I'm not ignoring you, its just that I'm struggling to pin down anything definite from anything you have said. Therefore I can't respond.

Your failing not mine. Though I made some very DEFINITE requests for substantiation to your claims which I am sure were perfectly understandable to you.

So I somewhat suspect that is a dodge and you do not actually mean it. Though maybe if you were spending more time reading what I wrote instead of inventing things I never said to put into my mouth, you would do better.

I can dumb it down for you though in bite size point format:

1) When comparing "ideal" parenting configurations there is good reason to not compare single parenting with any other configuration being discussed here.
2) I think the measures we should use to evaluate adoption should be relevant, whether they are politically correct or not.
3) There is nothing supporting your nonsense claims that:

A) the parents sexuality or gender is relevant. You just imagine it is.
one male and one female is the optimal or "ideal" configuration. You just imagine it is.
C) specifically two parents is an "ideal" configuration. You just imagine it is.
D) children "need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents". That is just one of a numerous POSSIBLE sources. Any combination of which will do.
E) children how are heterosexual "are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit". You just imagine they are.

4) I believe looking at what parents are actually doing the rearing is from the outset the exact wrong approach anyway. So the reason you fail so bad, is you are starting from a bad foundation.

Any of that you needed dumbed down further, or you have any questions about, just ask rather than dodge. This being, you know, a conversation and all.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

I'm alluding to the "stolen" generations of Native Americans and Australians, who were adopted out to parents who could provide better and more "correct" homes to them than their own ethnic group. At least, that was the theory anyway.
Of course, correctness in those days was slightly different to correctness these days, but the arrogance was the same.

Lol, what a ridiculous strawman.

Gay marriage is the same as forced adoptions of native peoples.
FFS.

Any evidence to back up your racist comment?
Any evidence for any of your claims?

Why do you constantly ignore requests for such and think no one will notice?

.......

recedite wrote: »

I'm not the one doing the mental gymnastics here. If you know Africans, you know I am right.

I know a racist stereotype when I see one.

And I know an unsubstantiated claim when I see one too.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Well no, I didn't say that.

Well yes, frankly you did. Your exact words were "The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there."

You very much DID say what you are now pretending you did not. You claimed one was the "most ideal" and others are "less ideal". So why deny it now just because you have failed to substantiate it when called on it???

recedite wrote: »

The logical implication of what I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, it is slightly better to raise hetero children in a hetero family

THAT you are saying that is not in question. It is the BASIS for asserting it that is being called into question by other users. There is absolutely no reason to think this is the "ideal" at all. Even "slightly" so. But even if it was it must be so "slightly" that it is very much irrelevant because "all other things being equal" is something not something that ever happens.

So in some weird fantasy world existing in YOUR head perhaps there is an "ideal" in play. But certainly in the real one the rest of us are living in, your narrative is the stuff of fantasy only.

recedite wrote: »

The flip side of that is that a homosexual would have been better off in a gay family

Again, why? you keep saying this stuff but have yet to offer, despite being asked NUMEROUS times now, a single reason why you are saying it.

recedite wrote: »

I'm not in favour of promoting homosexuality to children

What does that even mean exactly? Both in general and specifically in the context of the topic we are currently discussing. What does "promoting" it actually consist of in your mind? Is being brought up by gay parents somehow "promoting" homosexuality to your mind? When I hear this oft thrown around phrase "promoting homosexuality" I get visions of people going around trying to turn straight people gay somehow. What is it you think they are promoting exactly and to what end???

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

I agree.
Well no, I didn't say that. The logical implication of what I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, it is slightly better to raise hetero children in a hetero family, African children in an African family (even if homophobic)

and what do you have to support that? That is what you have been asked for now several times. All you are doing now is soapboxing.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you don't know many Africans, but they are generally in the range of "mildly homophobic" to "vehemently homophobic".

Financial ability to pay for a child also comes into these things, both directly and indirectly (as in, general situation and ability to provide child with their own bedroom)
So while ostensibly being the great egalitarian, you have actually discriminated against one ethnic group and "stolen" a baby from that ethnic group.

recedite wrote: »

I'm alluding to the "stolen" generations of Native Americans and Australians, who were adopted out to parents who could provide better and more "correct" homes to them than their own ethnic group.

Remind us again which part of Africa these Native American and Australian babies were stolen from :pac:

Seriously, this is one of the most confused, ill-informed and unsupported rants I've seen on the A&A since the creationists and various other flat earthers abandoned this remote corner of boards.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Blah blah blah I'm not in favour of homosexuality blah blah blah.

So you prefer a segregated world then?

Only straight white babies for straight white people.
Only straight black African babies for straight black Africans.

Who can Mixed Race couples adopt?
What about white Africans? Can they adopt black Africans???

Does my Korean friend have to go back to Korea now as she was adopted by a white couple and raised in Ireland?? That's going to be some culture shock for her as she was only 2 months old and now she's 50

oscarBravo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who can Mixed Race couples adopt?

What makes you think he's OK with mixed race couples in the first place?

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about white Africans? Can they adopt black Africans???

What about gay African kids, they clearly need to be taken from their "vehemently homophobic" parents and placed with gay couples. But then those gay couples wouldn't be African so that wouldn't work. Also it would be stealing children, so we don't want that either. Problems, problems... :pac:

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

What about gay African kids, they clearly need to be taken from their "vehemently homophobic" parents and placed with gay couples. But then those gay couples wouldn't be African so that wouldn't work. Also it would be stealing children, so we don't want that either. Problems, problems... :pac:

I know many gay Africans.
They encompass a wide variety of skin tones from Doris Day White to Bessie Smith Black.

Perhaps some sort of skin tone chart should be drawn up so gay African children and be matched to the correctly hued adoptive gay parents.

What if they were born in Africa but grew up in Ireland?!?!? :eek:
What if they were born in Ireland to African parents??!! :eek:

WHAT IF THEY ARE AFRO-CARIBBEAN?!?!?!?! :eek::eek::eek:

It's a minefield.

Bannasidhe

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you think he's OK with mixed race couples in the first place?

Which, do you think, he would find more ideal?

A mixed race Hetero couple or a white Gay couple?

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

I agree.
Well no, I didn't say that. The logical implication of what I'm saying is that, all other things being equal, it is slightly better to raise hetero children in a hetero family, African children in an African family (even if homophobic)


The flip side of that is that a homosexual would have been better off in a gay family, although their sexuality can only be determined in hindsight as an adult. I'm not in favour of promoting homosexuality to children, and I am vehemently against any kind of surgical/chemical gender reassignment in anyone before adulthood.

So applying your nonsense logic that has nothing to back it up,
A gay child should be raised by a gay family.

So, in the interest of the child being better off (using your baseless claim). Would you propose gay children are taken off of heterosexual couples? After all, its in the interest of the child right?
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

pauldla

Cabaal wrote: »

So applying your nonsense logic that has nothing to back it up,
A gay child should be raised by a gay family.

So, in the interest of the child being better off (using your baseless claim). Would you propose gay children are taken off of heterosexual couples? After all, its in the interest of the child right?
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

And what if one of the partners isn't gay but did kinda experiment once for a little while in their early twenties and kinda liked it but didn't really pursue it after that...?

Asking for a friend.

smacl

pauldla wrote: »

And what if one of the partners isn't gay but did kinda experiment once for a little while in their early twenties and kinda liked it but didn't really pursue it after that...?

Asking for a friend.

Ten hail Marys and a cold shower for you(r friend) to purge this taint

.......

pauldla wrote: »

And what if one of the partners isn't gay but did kinda experiment once for a little while in their early twenties and kinda liked it but didn't really pursue it after that...?

Asking for a friend.

Depends, a male or female friend? Is there pics?