[Beebumble]

(Original post by RyanT)
Yes.

So...
1) Child is unhappy because they've been denied a happy home.
2) Same sex couple are unhappy because they've been denied the chance to give a loving home.
3) Tax payers are unhappy because it costs a lot of money to keep a kid in care.


Just because you (who has nothing to do with the situation) don't like it. Lovely.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Beebumble)
So...
1) Child is unhappy because they've been denied a happy home.

Interesting assumption.

(Original post by Beebumble)
2) Same sex couple are unhappy because they've been denied the chance to give a loving home.

I am only interested in the welfare of the child. I could not care less if the same sex couple committed Seppuku. Your priorities are misguided.

(Original post by Beebumble)
3) Tax payers are unhappy because it costs a lot of money to keep a kid in care.

It would be a failure of duty of care in mine, and those who agree with me, eyes. You claim that the child has missed out, yet that is a highly partisan position given the other side of the debate do not even recognise that.

A family is a social insitution. The idea of two parents caring for their child is a specific cultural idea. The idea of the nuclear family, is even more specific to our culture.

Family life is not universal. What is best within that social insitution is not necessarily politically correct either. Hetrosexual parents is, whether you like it or not, an integral part of our culture. Whilst parents who realise they are gay after they have started a family are fully entitled to keep their children, it is not the same as suggesting that the state takes a pro-active role in spawning an experimental breed of families where the traditional male/female parent roles have been abolished.

Your derring do teenage radicialism is misguided. You are little more then a cultural marxist trying to abolish a specific part of English culture under the guise of political correctness and western "universalism".

[Beebumble]

(Original post by RyanT)
x

No I just don't like the idea of people telling children they are not allowed a home they may love because of some stupid social rules that mean nothing to a child who has no parents or parents that abuse them.

I've seen for myself children thrive in gay families. Why would you want to tell them that they're family is wrong when they're are so many other children out there in such horrible situations? I have a gay Dad who I love very much and would hate for someone to tell me I should no longer see him because of his sexuality.

[Dr.Kweks waszabi]

(Original post by Zangoose)
Okay, so fair enough the gays want marriage but now they want kids too? That's absolutely appalling...

I'm cool with gays getting married and whatnot because once they are married they can do what they do behind closed doors where nobody ever has to be exposed but it's a step too far to consider gay couples having children...

Can you imagine how traumatic that would be for the child? I can think of many reasons on behalf of the kids never to allow that:

• Getting bullied at school...
• Being seen as an outcast amongst mates, possibly leading to bullying (and we all know extreme bullying can lead to suicide)...
• If it's a male + male parentage, there is a big lack of "motherly love" and the type of female nurturing that every child should experience
• If it's a female + female parentage, there is no strong masculine figure for the child to look up to. There's no dad to keep the boy in check or to keep the girl from turning into a slag, so to speak. I'm obviously not saying that fathers can't nurture well and mothers can't be looked up to but it is common knowledge that there's a [somewhat distinguished] line between parental roles with regards to bringing up children
• It's just wrong, full stop

.

(There are many more reasons which I'll mention at request)

If reincarnation is actually real, I thank the high Gods that I was never reincarnated into a family with homosexual parents

WRONG WRONG WRONG.
What you are saying is that if there is a chance a child will be bullied then the parent's should be denied of having children.
So ginger haired/black/etc parent's who will be likely to have a ginger haired/black/etc child should not have a child because potentially they could get bullied?Wrong.

If you think that "[*]Getting bullied at school...[*]Being seen as an outcast amongst mates, possibly leading to bullying (and we all know extreme bullying can lead to suicide)..." This is a real reason to ban same sex couples being parent's then something is wrong. We have to weed out the problem of bullying , that is a seperate problem.
I'm not exactly pro same sex marriages but that statement is Wrong on a lot of level's.

[Dr.Kweks waszabi]

(Original post by SilverArch)
Well done What was your argument out of interest?

I had to argue For same sex marriges.

[dmccririck]

I think that it should be all up to the child, I think that once a child is competent enough to make the decision, and they have been taken through all the implications of a same-sex marriage, then the decision is entirely upon them.

[SilverArch]

(Original post by dmccririck)
I think that it should be all up to the child, I think that once a child is competent enough to make the decision, and they have been taken through all the implications of a same-sex marriage, then the decision is entirely upon them.

What 'implications'? If you mean bullying, actually, in my experience, bullies tend to pick their victim before they choose what to bully them for. I know several children with unusual family circumstances, none of whom were bullied. And the kids I know who were bullied, often had no stand out circumstances whatsoever. It was a personality thing

When it comes to family structure, the preferences of an older child should be taken into account. But the average age for a child to be adopted is I believe, about 3yr 9months. Too young to make a decision by themself. Plenty of children that age and younger are adopted by same sex couples. Who do not have to be in a civil partnership/married fyi

[csea]

I don't see any differences between same sex and mixed sex families, as long as they love and care for their children, we're all people!

[Boom Boom Pow]

(Original post by wildcolonialboy)
That's no problem for them; like "good AIDS" and "bad AIDS", you're only a "good" single mother if you're an unmarried widow.

And what's the difference between 'good aids' and 'bad aids'?

[danny111]

I didn't know it's not allowed.

Why should it not? Is there conclusive (scientific) evidence that being raised by 2 mothers/2 fathers is harmful to the development of a child? Surely it could not be worse than being raised by a single parent?

[SilverArch]

(Original post by danny111)
I didn't know it's not allowed.

Why should it not? Is there conclusive (scientific) evidence that being raised by 2 mothers/2 fathers is harmful to the development of a child? Surely it could not be worse than being raised by a single parent?

It IS allowed. Many gay people get fertility treatment, although I'm not sure when it began happening. Many gay people have adopted (I know of a gay couple who adopted two kids at the end of the 90's) and do still. And then there's the people who have kids, then realise that they're bi/gay

All the evidence says that children of gay couples do just as well as their peers, and sometimes even better. I believe that's probably because gay parents can't just accidently get pregnant in a drunken fumble like some staright couples do, they have to actively try with fertility treatment. The adoption process usually weeds out unstable people as well, considering how in depth it is.

[karateworm]

I've not heard a single convincing argument against it.

[Jester94]

You disgust me Zangoose.

(Original post by Zangoose)
Okay, so fair enough the gays want marriage but now they want kids too? That's absolutely appalling...

Yes because gay people have never had children before this sudden demand for kids! Idiot...

I'm cool with gays getting married and whatnot because once they are married they can do what they do behind closed doors where nobody ever has to be exposed but it's a step too far to consider gay couples having children...

Why do we have to wait until we are behind closed doors to show our affection? Wow, double standard much?! There is no difference between a heterosexual couple showing affection in public and a homosexual couple showing affection in public, except in your twisted little mind.

Gay people aren't a disease, you won't get infected by seeing us. To be honest, I doubt you could even pick out half the gay people in a crowd, because I imagine you have a very rigid perception of what a gay person is. Exposure to 'the gays' (ooh, we're like a brand now guys!) won't make any difference in your life, you can continue to ignore gay people just as much.

Can you imagine how traumatic that would be for the child? I can think of many reasons on behalf of the kids never to allow that:

Gosh, well aren't you just a lovely human being, always thinking of the kids - never mind that is your homophobic, intolerant and bigoted views that are polluting the minds of the young, leading them to believe gay=bad, when it clearly doesn't, and making life difficult for those who do realise that they are gay.

• Getting bullied at school...
• Being seen as an outcast amongst mates, possibly leading to bullying (and we all know extreme bullying can lead to suicide)...

• Then the solution here is to tackle why people feel they need to bully kids with a gay couple as parents. Much of this stems from ignorance and view on what gay people are like, without ever having met a gay person in their life. You can get bullied for anything in school, anything that makes you slightly different is picked up on by kids, so we should do more to tackle the prevalence of bullying, rather than banning gay couples from starting a family.
  
  More education is needed to combat the traditional conservative view that gay=bad. That the discrimination and stigma towards the LGB community still exists today is shocking, when great leaps have already been made in other civil rights battles, so we need to do more to combat the almost commonplace homophobia we can find in society.
  
  
• If it's a male + male parentage, there is a big lack of "motherly love" and the type of female nurturing that every child should experience
• If it's a female + female parentage, there is no strong masculine figure for the child to look up to. There's no dad to keep the boy in check or to keep the girl from turning into a slag, so to speak. I'm obviously not saying that fathers can't nurture well and mothers can't be looked up to but it is common knowledge that there's a [somewhat distinguished] line between parental roles with regards to bringing up children

[Jester94]

(Original post by chefdave)
No I don't really agree with gay adoption.

Let's put it this way, if a straight couple and a gay couple were attempting to adopt and all other factors were equal I'd hand the child over the straight couple without hesitation. If a gay couple utilised a private surrogate arrangement though I wouldn't feel it necessary to stop them, I just wouldn't be in favour of such a scenario. It's unnatural.

Any explanation why you would automatically hand the child over to a straight couple?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Jester94)
Any explanation why you would automatically hand the child over to a straight couple?

Yes, I'm a bigot.

[Jester94]

(Original post by chefdave)
Yes, I'm a bigot.

Also hilarious I see...

[chefdave]

(Original post by Jester94)
Also hilarious I see...

Well it made me chuckle, I didn't expect it to raise a smile on someone as po-faced as yourself.

[Jester94]

(Original post by chefdave)
Well it made me chuckle, I didn't expect it to raise a smile on someone as po-faced as yourself.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know 'po-faced' is probably one of the least applicable words for me, but you don't so stop acting as if you do. I just don't happen to find discrimination a particularly funny subject, how incredibly boring of me.

[dmccririck]

(Original post by SilverArch)
What 'implications'? If you mean bullying, actually, in my experience, bullies tend to pick their victim before they choose what to bully them for. I know several children with unusual family circumstances, none of whom were bullied. And the kids I know who were bullied, often had no stand out circumstances whatsoever. It was a personality thing

When it comes to family structure, the preferences of an older child should be taken into account. But the average age for a child to be adopted is I believe, about 3yr 9months. Too young to make a decision by themself. Plenty of children that age and younger are adopted by same sex couples. Who do not have to be in a civil partnership/married fyi

I don't mean bullying, I mean making the child aware that the vast majority of children have a mother and a father, but in this case, the child will have two fathers.

I am aware of the age that children are usually adopted at, I am saying that the child should be deemed competent enough to make this decision, as in, at least over 6 years old.

Also, I swear that for a legal adoption the couple in question have to be married?? Why should this rule out homosexual couples?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Jester94)
If you knew anything about me, you'd know 'po-faced' is probably one of the least applicable words for me, but you don't so stop acting as if you do. I just don't happen to find discrimination a particularly funny subject, how incredibly boring of me.

Handing the child over to the straight couple rather than the gay couple is simply commonsense, it's more natural for everyone concerned and removes an unnecessary obstacle that would happily be placed there by those more concerned with trifling political matters such as discrimination rather than the child's welfare.