The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Yeah, ok. You win.
I think ill make a habit of getting involved in threads in which the argument involves one side calling anyone who disagrees ignorant. Demonstrate some ways to argue their corner that dont come across as quite so ignorant. :smile:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by green.tea
I think ill make a habit of getting involved in threads in which the argument involves one side calling anyone who disagrees ignorant. Demonstrate some ways to argue their corner that dont come across as quite so ignorant. :smile:


Thing is sweetheart, what you say and suggest, it doesn't affect you, you can post those things, and feel nothing.

However, you are telling someone they are not good enough to be a parent based on their sexuality. How do you think that makes them feel?

They're not exactly going to be thrilled with it, and to be honest, your posts have come from a position of ignorance. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Those with a vested interest will obviously dedicate more time to reading around the subject.

Child development is my academic area of interest, I can safely say that role models of both genders are very important. However, and this is the important bit, those role models DO NOT have to be the primary care givers...

I really wish people thought more about the impact of their posts on subjects like these, especially when we're in a time where lgbt teens are 40% more likely to commit suicide then their heterosexual peers.

It can be extremely hurtful when someone says you don't have the right to be a parent simply because you are homosexual.

This is going to sound big headed, and it's not intended to be, but really, if I wasn't allowed to adopt, I think a child would really be missing out.

I've volunteered for years with kids of all ages, I look after my niece and nephew, when I'm at work the kids love me, I'm caring, compassionate, but I also believe in discipline, I've studied child development, when I lived in London, I was a trusted part of the community, I've always had an involvement at school with the younger and older kids, and I love kids, all kids, you know?

Nothing you say to me can or will convince me that I'd be a bad parent.
Original post by WantCakeGetCake
Thing is sweetheart, what you say and suggest, it doesn't affect you, you can post those things, and feel nothing.

However, you are telling someone they are not good enough to be a parent based on their sexuality. How do you think that makes them feel?

They're not exactly going to be thrilled with it, and to be honest, your posts have come from a position of ignorance. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Those with a vested interest will obviously dedicate more time to reading around the subject.

Child development is my academic area of interest, I can safely say that role models of both genders are very important. However, and this is the important bit, those role models DO NOT have to be the primary care givers...

I really wish people thought more about the impact of their posts on subjects like these, especially when we're in a time where lgbt teens are 40% more likely to commit suicide then their heterosexual peers.

It can be extremely hurtful when someone says you don't have the right to be a parent simply because you are homosexual.

This is going to sound big headed, and it's not intended to be, but really, if I wasn't allowed to adopt, I think a child would really be missing out.

I've volunteered for years with kids of all ages, I look after my niece and nephew, when I'm at work the kids love me, I'm caring, compassionate, but I also believe in discipline, I've studied child development, when I lived in London, I was a trusted part of the community, I've always had an involvement at school with the younger and older kids, and I love kids, all kids, you know?

Nothing you say to me can or will convince me that I'd be a bad parent.


But I can look back and see that I missed out on a lot due to an absent father. In some ways mother x2 wouldve been worse. Particularly as my sister and the mother daughter bond that I didnt have. Therefore I believe that the same gender parent bond is important and your not going to convince me otherwise any more than my finding some research would convince you that you'd be a bad parent.

If I say there needs to be provision in gay adoption to ensure such thngs are provided the response i get is "so long as its the same for everyone". But its not the same is it? There are issues unique to this. Thats nonsense attitude. Presumably it follows that one guy in a gay couple should be allowed to use the ladies loos cos they gotta be treated exactly the same. People in this thread are unwilling to compromise one bit to allay perfectly valid reservations while hurling insults at anyone that doesnt accept 100% their view.
Original post by green.tea
But I can look back and see that I missed out on a lot due to an absent father. In some ways mother x2 wouldve been worse. Particularly as my sister and the mother daughter bond that I didnt have. Therefore I believe that the same gender parent bond is important and your not going to convince me otherwise any more than my finding some research would convince you that you'd be a bad parent.


It seems a shame to me that families are so fragmented these days. I hardly saw my dad either, not because he was asbsent, but because he worked as many hours as he could to provide for us.

In his absence, I had my brother, my uncles, my granddad, family friends and so on who gave me that male role model.

I never felt like I missed out, and I would make sure that if I adopted a child there'd be plenty of female influences in his or her life.

I'm sorry you had a tough time, but actually, you'll probably find that little girls bond with daddy, and little boys bond with mummy, it's only as they get older that this changes..

Also, a child can't just be adopted, his or her interests are what is important, a child wouldn't be placed if they felt it wasn't the right environment...so a couple or single lgbt person, who secludes themselves, and wouldn't have much support, may not be considered...

Original post by green.tea

If I say there needs to be provision in gay adoption to ensure such thngs are provided the response i get is "so long as its the same for everyone". But its not the same is it? There are issues unique to this. Thats nonsense attitude. Presumably it follows that one guy in a gay couple should be allowed to use the ladies loos cos they gotta be treated exactly the same. People in this thread are unwilling to compromise one bit to allay perfectly valid reservations while hurling insults at anyone that doesnt accept 100% their view.


Well do share why it is any different from a single person adopting then?

And no that doesn't follow, because sexuality and gender are different..plus it's not even relevant.

You say there are unique issues, and although I wouldn't necessarily disagree, you haven't even gone on to outline what they are!

I need to get ready for work, I'll be back later x
Original post by Earl Nuce
The sexual orientation of parents (single or partnered) has no negative impact on the personal and social developments of children. In fact, sometimes it is argued that it can have a positive effect. There are child development studies which highlight and support this (see two below).

As I said before, it does not logically follow that because it takes a woman and a man to concieve a child, then the child should not be raised by a man and a man. There is no reason behind this argument.
It would be like me saying '[1.] more people drown when ice cream sales rise, [2.] therefore the rise in ice cream sales cause people to drown.' Whilst the first part of the statement is true, there is no reason following on to the second part. The same goes for your statement. There is no reason connecting the first and the second part.

Please let me know if there is any reason that I have not seen.



http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/Stacey_Biblarz.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00823.x/full


Ok im starting to understand a bit about what you are saying, though i still feel as if my question is unawnsered. If a man and man were not created, or didnot evolve ( and im talking in general), To concieve children, why should they raise children? I look at it the same way as ' can a cow raise a duck'. Probably,( i mean one would have to watch/read junglebook to know) But it is not 'ideal'. Just as it is not ideal for a man and a man, in my opinion, to raise a child.
Im starting to understand though, i suppose if in any case an ideal couple (being a man or woman) were not availible and a gay couple were the only alternative, it would be better than being raised by no parent atall (but wouldnt be ideal). However it now leads me onto my next question, which you've awnsered to some extent, Can it be garunteed that allowing gay couple to adopt children will have 'no negative impact on the social development of children', soley due to the fact that the couple is gay?
Original post by WantCakeGetCake
It seems a shame to me that families are so fragmented these days. I hardly saw my dad either, not because he was asbsent, but because he worked as many hours as he could to provide for us.

In his absence, I had my brother, my uncles, my granddad, family friends and so on who gave me that male role model.

I never felt like I missed out, and I would make sure that if I adopted a child there'd be plenty of female influences in his or her life.

I'm sorry you had a tough time, but actually, you'll probably find that little girls bond with daddy, and little boys bond with mummy, it's only as they get older that this changes..

Also, a child can't just be adopted, his or her interests are what is important, a child wouldn't be placed if they felt it wasn't the right environment...so a couple or single lgbt person, who secludes themselves, and wouldn't have much support, may not be considered...


I kinda like the slightly warped person ive become. Although im a difficult person to be, i like my style. Id have achieved more tho. In my experience kids like I was become the attention seeking class clowns and grow into witty interesting sorts. And so are likable to others and to themselves. But difficult to be. I guess such things are the reason people who seem brilliant sometimes implode in one way or another.

Well do share why it is any different from a single person adopting then?

And no that doesn't follow, because sexuality and gender are different..plus it's not even relevant.

You say there are unique issues, and although I wouldn't necessarily disagree, you haven't even gone on to outline what they are!

I need to get ready for work, I'll be back later x


A mixed gender couple wouldnt have to show they could provide opposite gender role models.


Having thought about the suicide thing i think it largely down to the "gotta be one of the lads. what are you doing with those flowers, thats gay." kinda attitude which obviously I have experienced, and completely ignored if im honest. Class clowning earns leeway. But a couple of high profile openly gay footballers is the thing i think would change that the most. You'd be right to take issue with the sort of cretin that runs that game.
Reply 747
kasme!!!!!

me and lebanese wrote our whole fking story on the other thread abour straight and gays..... basicallly we have been together for about 18 years, and our age in 19!!!! time has flown and this love is still shiny.....

basically, we have 8 children, 4 of them are monkies and the other 4 are kanjars......we re very proud of them, they are beautiful straight forward creatures....




kasme......lebanese is wanting another but Ive told him, that he's gona have to have IVF.....


pathina....straightforward business
Reply 748
kasme!!!! me and taunt wrote our whole fkin story on the other thread about straight and gays...... basically we have been together for about 18years and our age is 19!!!

time has flown and this love is still shinning like a shooting star.............

basically, we have 8 children 4 of them are monkies and the other for are kanjars......... we are very proud of them they are very beautiful striaghtforward creatures..................

kasme..... taunt is wanting another but i've told him, that hes gonna have to have IVF......

pathaina....... straightforward business
Original post by green.tea
But I can look back and see that I missed out on a lot due to an absent father. In some ways mother x2 wouldve been worse. Particularly as my sister and the mother daughter bond that I didnt have. Therefore I believe that the same gender parent bond is important and your not going to convince me otherwise any more than my finding some research would convince you that you'd be a bad parent.


What did you miss out on that was essential for you to become a decent human being? Having a father is in no way necessary to a child's development. Role models for sure. But role models can be found in any number of places. You can find your mother a great role model, a friends dad a great role model, a teacher, pastor, uncle, cousin, celebrity, etc. The list goes on and on.

To the bolded: That is just unreasonable. You won't listen to the evidence if it doesn't support your position? And we have asked for you to show evidence and research that homosexuals would be 'bad' parents, but you haven't provided anything. We unlike you are open to evidence. I have read every 'source' you have posted, and none have really supported your position at all.

If I say there needs to be provision in gay adoption to ensure such thngs are provided the response i get is "so long as its the same for everyone". But its not the same is it? There are issues unique to this. Thats nonsense attitude. Presumably it follows that one guy in a gay couple should be allowed to use the ladies loos cos they gotta be treated exactly the same. People in this thread are unwilling to compromise one bit to allay perfectly valid reservations while hurling insults at anyone that doesnt accept 100% their view.


1. Why shouldn't the standards be the same for everyone? You say that homosexuals should be held liable to prove they can provide good role models, why shouldn't heterosexual parents be held to the same standard then? :confused:
2. It does not follow that a gay man should be allowed in the women's loo because that is not his gender. It also has nothing to do with his sexual orientation. :facepalm:
3. I am willing to compromise when you can show me valid research to back up your claims. Thus far you haven't done so. You have also demonstrated a significant lack in knowledge on the subject, which is called ignorance. I'm not trying to be insulting, but its true. You don't know the information relevant to the discussion and that makes you ignorant. Simple as that.
Original post by green.tea
Just saying that an argument I can see is that if somethings intricacy is beyond our understanding tampering with it may have unforeseen consequences.

For example. I lacked a male role model growing up. I latched onto the character of william brown. A troublesome and articulate young boy often able to befuddle adults with logic that they found to be unanswerable. If more people did that just imagine all the pesky me's arguing about things like this and driving people like you to wanting to "bang your head on the desk till your brains pour out" or whatever it is one of you said. That would be one hell of an unforeseen consequence. :wink: Food for thought.

Laters.


But the logic that you are using is wrong and lacks reason. So the only answer it requires from anyone is to acknowledge that it is incorrect.

Are you just trolling very intricately or do you really have an opinion to argue? This is the problem with debating on the internet...
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I didn't say we know everything. I said we know a lot which is extremely true and not at all arrogant.


I said tampering with something the intricacy of which we dont understand could have unforeseeable consequences. You said we understand it. I pointed out that we dont. You respond that we understand some of it. So my point stands.

The Princes Trust research did not support what you said. It supported me. Saying that having a role model was important regardless of their gender. PLEASE LEARN TO READ


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342299/Teens-parent-role-model-67-cent-likely-job.html As i said before the research was done by yougov so no point bashing the mail.

Considering you have admitted that because of you don't really make logical arguments I would say thats 'bad'.


:rolleyes:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Earl Nuce
But the logic that you are using is wrong and lacks reason. So the only answer it requires from anyone is to acknowledge that it is incorrect.

Are you just trolling very intricately or do you really have an opinion to argue? This is the problem with debating on the internet...


Well what can i say. I guess your all just too bright for me. :rolleyes:

Original post by RandZul'Zorander
What did you miss out on that was essential for you to become a decent human being? Having a father is in no way necessary to a child's development. Role models for sure. But role models can be found in any number of places. You can find your mother a great role model, a friends dad a great role model, a teacher, pastor, uncle, cousin, celebrity, etc. The list goes on and on.


So because I still became a relatively decent person boys should miss out on father son stuff because gay rights is more important?

To the bolded: That is just unreasonable. You won't listen to the evidence if it doesn't support your position? And we have asked for you to show evidence and research that homosexuals would be 'bad' parents, but you haven't provided anything. We unlike you are open to evidence. I have read every 'source' you have posted, and none have really supported your position at all.


When i post evidence you dismiss it as irrelevant without providing logical reason why.

1. Why shouldn't the standards be the same for everyone? You say that homosexuals should be held liable to prove they can provide good role models, why shouldn't heterosexual parents be held to the same standard then? :confused:


Because there needs to be no extra role model in m/f couples.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by green.tea
I said tampering with something the intricacy of which we dont understand could have unforeseeable consequences. You said we understand it. I pointed out that we dont. You respond that we understand some of it. So my point stands.


No it doesn't. I said we undertand how families work. I didn't say we know everything. However we do understand how homosexual parents affect outcomes of children. They don't. Studies have this over and over again. We understand and know this. And then of course it has been observed that same-sex adoption happens in nature so we aren't really tampering with anything.





Martina Milburn, chief executive of The Prince’s Trust, which helps disadvantaged young people into work, said: ‘It is nothing less than a tragedy that so many young people feel they don’t have a role model.
‘We should not underestimate the impact a positive adult influence can have on a young person.
‘At The Prince’s Trust, we give vulnerable young people the support they may have lacked earlier in life, helping to build self-belief and, in turn, develop skills for work.’


That is what The Prince's Trust says. The rest was all interpretation by the Daily Mail which is not a very reliable or credible source is it? :rolleyes: Show me where she says children need male or female role models. She didn't? Hm..what did she say? ‘It is nothing less than a tragedy that so many young people feel they don’t have a role model.
‘We should not underestimate the impact a positive adult influence can have on a young person.
....so....adult influence. Gender neutral. A role model. Non specified gender...Show me where The Prince's Trust says you need a male or female role model again? :rolleyes: We went over this already.

EDIT: Just to clarify, nowhere in the article did it state the role models had to be a parent either. Merely that there should be one. :smile: So again saying that homosexuals don't fill the role model is irrelevant as it doesn't have to be the parents.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by green.tea
So because I still became a relatively decent person boys should miss out on father son stuff because gay rights is more important?


Because there is no 'need' for a father. You don't need a father and mother to grow up well adjusted. It isn't needed at all. What father son stuff can't be done with a mother? Hm? Please oh please enlighten me.

When i post evidence you dismiss it as irrelevant without providing logical reason why.


You mean like that Daily Mail article? Which didn't support you because it drew false conclusions? Not to mention that the person speaking on behalf of The Prince's Trust didn't support you? I think thats a safe dismissal. Now if you have others, because I honestly don't remember any, you can link me to them and I can explain why they are invalid.


Because there needs to be no extra role model in m/f couples.


There doesn't in m/m or f/f couples either :rolleyes: You have deemed that a female cannot fulfill the male role model, but I have shown that they can, and vice-versa. So...this is still false. :smile:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by green.tea
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342299/Teens-parent-role-model-67-cent-likely-job.html As i said before the research was done by yougov so no point bashing the mail.


None of the quotes from the Prince's Trust or YouGov actually say 'Parental role model', it is only the mail that say that. Therefore, I can 'bash the mail' for misleading you, because that is exactly what they are doing. Having had an entire seminar on the differences between journal articles and newspaper articles reporting journal articles, I know that you can't even trust the quotes sometimes, they're taken wildly out of context and often manipulated into 'sound-bytes' in order to sell papers.
This research supports us, not you.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 757
Of course they should. The criteria for adoption should be wether they can be loving parents, who will be able to support and care for the child.

There are cases of heterosexual couples who have abused their children, so why should they be allowed to adopt, yet a gay couple who are better prepared to look after children be denied the same opportunity?
Reply 758
I, myself, am more than happy for gay/lesbian couples to adopt. However, in the current climate, I would have to say no. This is because until it's socially acceptable (which it may just be in the future) the child in question will be open to a lot of serious bullying and unhappiness, and at the end of the day, that's what's important, the child.
Yes.
Statistics show homosexual parents tend to make better parents to.
This is because you don't accidentally adopt a child.

Also got to be better than care homes and stuff.

Latest