The Student Room Group

The bullying argument against gay adoption...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
This argument is stupid. Yes if a gay couple adopt a child they could get bullied by a few silly immature children, but there are ways to deal with that sort of thing, plus a child could get bullied for a number of things.
I think its a stupid argument against gay adoption, I was bullied as a child and it really helped to have a family who loved and supported me.
Reply 61
Original post by gildartz
The focus of this thread is if gay adoption is right. One of the arguments against it is an unstable family life, and one can argue that couples who have kids accidentally often don't have a financial or social plan in place for that child thus making their life potentially unstable, so it's a valid point.

No it isn't. Two separate matters. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should just go to bed now.
Reply 62
everyone is ignoring the possibility the child could catch gay! that isn't fair.

why condemn an innocent child to hell like that
Reply 63
Original post by py0alb
I have to say, this is probably the most rambling, incoherent and completely nonsensical reply I have ever received on TSR. You think its bigoted to propose that people have equal rights regardless of sexuality? :confused:

Btw:

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.[1][2][3] Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2].


What i really wanted to ask you (and everyone) was..

The arguments you and everyone else use are all based on simple rights as humans, regardless of sexual orientation/race/creed etc etc etc..

What would you do if we saw an increase in Mexican immigrants, who after a lot of sexual 'assaults' on children, demanded the age of consent be lowered to 12 (not in every part of Mexico but a lot) based on morality and human rights, along with sufficient evidence that it did no harm to children and was perfectly ok?

Would you agree with this? If yes please look at your argument again and put it in perspective, if no please read on...

So then, you have made distinctions based on other countries laws rather than a base human morality.. what about Qatar where homosexuality is illegal let alone having right to partnership or perhaps adoption. Are the people of the middle east where this law exists wrong?

If so... why?

I put it to you, that you will base your answer on your own moral compass, defining right or wrong by man made law and
implied acceptance rather than human nature and most important morality making you a complete and utter hypocrite and be in no fit state to judge anyones opi.


Thoughts?


(like i said before i am not strongly against homosexual adoption and i am not strongly for it, im in the middle)
(edited 13 years ago)
You mess with mother nature , and the tables will turn on you.
Original post by bmt
everyone is ignoring the possibility the child could catch gay! that isn't fair.

why condemn an innocent child to hell like that



fail troll is fail.
Reply 66
Original post by EggmanD
x


If I saw sufficient evidence that lowering the age of consent was harmless and perfectly okay, then so be it. I can't see that happening any time soon, however.

Individual rights are based on the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they like so long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.

Yes, the people in Qatar are wrong. Homosexuality is innate and need not cause harm to anybody.
Reply 67
Original post by EggmanD
What i really wanted to ask you (and everyone) was..

The arguments you and everyone else use are all based on simple rights as humans, regardless of sexual orientation/race/creed etc etc etc..

What would you do if we saw an increase in Mexican immigrants, who after a lot of sexual 'assaults' on children, demanded the age of consent be lowered to 12 (not in every part of Mexico but a lot) based on morality and human rights, along with sufficient evidence that it did no harm to children and was perfectly ok?

Would you agree with this? If yes please look at your argument again and put it in perspective, if no please read on...



Obviously, I would be opposed to this, as I consider 12 year olds too young to be able to consent. I would hope and expect that the UK government took the same view.



So then, you have made distinctions based on other countries laws rather than a base human morality.. what about Qatar where homosexuality is illegal let alone having right to partnership or perhaps adoption. Are the people of the middle east where this law exists wrong?



No, I haven't. I have expressed my opinion based upon my understanding of morality. You seem to have confused yourself here...

Are the people of Qatar wrong to discriminate agaisnt people based on sexuality? In my opinion, yes they are. My opinion isn't going to change just because they live in a different country is it?




I put it to you, that you will base your answer on your own moral compass, defining right or wrong by man made law and
implied acceptance rather than human nature and most important morality making you a complete and utter hypocrite and be in no fit state to judge anyones opi.

Thoughts?



My main thought is that you have just completely contradicted yourself in that sentence. I don't know which of the two views you are putting forward as hypocritical. Try and figure out what it is you are trying to say.
Original post by EggmanD
I would just like to ask all those who are strongly for gay adoption and equality..

The arguments you used are all based on simple rights as humans, regardless of sexual orientation/race/creed etc etc etc..

What would you do if we saw an increase in Mexican immigrants, who after a lot of sexual 'assaults' on children, demanded the age of consent be lowered to 12 (not in every part of Mexico but a lot) based on morality and human rights, along with sufficient evidence that it did no harm to children and was perfectly ok?

Would you agree with this? If yes please look at your argument again and put it in perspective, if no please read on...


What? What has that got to do with anything?

Do mean to say "if there was no moral objection to lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, would you object morally?"
Well no, obviously. Because there would be no moral objection, you said it yourself as the terms of your extremely poor analogy.

Outside of your attempt at an analogy however, it is obvious that a 12 year old (or at least the vast majority) is not in a position to consent to sex, and that as it stands the law protects such individuals from being taken advantage of.

There is no such ethical/humanist objection in existence to gays adopting children. There is no evidence (in fact considerable evidence to the contrary) that they cannot raise children as well as a heterosexual couple.

So basically, gay adoption is in no way comparable to child molestation.
You're just revealing your own bigotry in trying to make that comparison.

Original post by EggmanD

So then, you have made distinctions based on other countries laws rather than a base human morality.. what about Qatar where homosexuality is illegal let alone having right to partnership or perhaps adoption. Are the people of the middle east where this law exists wrong?


What? No, in your "analogy" the whole point was that reducing the age of sexual consent to 12 didn't raise any moral objection. Or at least that's the impression I get from:
"based on morality and human rights, along with sufficient evidence that it did no harm to children and was perfectly ok?"

So the jump from "would you object morally to X if there was no moral objection" to "aha so you agree with anything so long as it is written in law" is totally nonsensical.


Original post by EggmanD
I put it to you, that you will base your answer on your own moral compass, defining right or wrong by man made law and
implied acceptance
rather than human nature and most important morality making you a complete and utter hypocrite.


WHAT? That boldened part contradicts itself. If you're basing your response on your "own moral compass" your hardly "defining right and wrong by man made law".


Original post by EggmanD
Thoughts?


My thoughts are that you have nothing viable to say, so your throwing out gibberish and hoping people will buy it.

Also, that quoting you was almost pointless as you'll undoubtedly just come back with more nonsense that has nothing to do with what I just said :rolleyes:
I have a gay mum. I can honestly say that neither I nor my 22, 13, 5 and 3 year old sisters have really had any trouble with bullies before due to this. I believe there was an incident with my 13 yea old sis once, but that was nipped in the bud very quickly and hasn't been a problem since.
Reply 70
Original post by Converse
No it isn't. Two separate matters. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should just go to bed now.


So the stability of family life has nothing to do with gay adoption whatsoever? Right...
Reply 71
Original post by py0alb
Obviously, I would be opposed to this, as I consider 12 year olds too young to be able to consent. I would hope and expect that the UK government took the same view.


My point was, who are you to say what is right or wrong... also saying 'took the same view' could be bigoted :colone:

AGREE WITH ME I AM ALWAYS RIGHT.

Original post by py0alb
No, I haven't. I have expressed my opinion based upon my understanding of morality. You seem to have confused yourself here...


I havent confused myself at all. The Mexicans would believe that, on a moral level, having consensual sex with a 12 year old is fine. People in California would believe that, on a moral level, smoking cannabis is a perfectly fine medicinal practice.

Your understanding of morality is not the same as someone elses.

Original post by py0alb
Are the people of Qatar wrong to discriminate agaisnt people based on sexuality? In my opinion, yes they are. My opinion isn't going to change just because they live in a different country is it?


No and i dont expect it to lol


Original post by py0alb
My main thought is that you have just completely contradicted yourself in that sentence. I don't know which of the two views you are putting forward as hypocritical. Try and figure out what it is you are trying to say.


lol i typed it wrong. I was meant to say 'your moral compass based on mans laws and implied acceptance rather than a standard human race wide morality' etc etc

I only replied to you because you responded to someone who merely expressed a dislike to this ideal branding them bigoted and ignorant and other melodramatic rubbish and i believe most people who fight for 'equality' are hypocrites as that equality is bigoted based on personal moral value and not general acceptance.

Like i said, the issue doesn't bother me at all but i dont see why you can call someone this and that because you are the same.
Reply 72
Original post by gildartz
So the stability of family life has nothing to do with gay adoption whatsoever? Right...


Not when it stems from an idiot talking about a family accidentally having kids. Nice try at manipulating the thread, but you have failed.
Original post by Lewroll
Dont act like we are on the same side:mad:

I havent been negged because i havent offended anyone :u:


You have now, and it wasn't me before you say it.
I would love to have 2 gay dads
Reply 75
Original post by Converse
Not when it stems from an idiot talking about a family accidentally having kids. Nice try at manipulating the thread, but you have failed.


I've already highlighted the links so there's no point arguing further with someone who doesn't want to listen to reason.
This thread has shown me how many people really take it up the arse on this forum. Amen to you brothers.
Reply 77
Original post by BeanofJelly
So basically, gay adoption is in no way comparable to child molestation.
You're just revealing your own bigotry in trying to make that comparison.


I was actually trying to justify immoral acts in a direct conflict with whom i quoted as i believe morality is subjective and is far more than a black and white system which is what the jist of most posts in this thread are.

If anything you helped me on my way calling me a nonsensical bigot as thats what the idea of equality is, nonsensical.


Back on topic.. IMO gay adoption will never come through because most people tolerate it and do not accept it. Most people talk about it want to make themselves look like caring individuals will talk about equal this and equal that when the reality is far from the truth, they are just scared to be different and fall into this implied acceptance trap i was trying to get across combined with man made laws (for example cannibis = perfectly safe but it is 'immoral' because of the paper vs hemp industry feud and is legal USING A man made law which i was trying to get across as detached from logic and morality)

Oh ill join a facebook group, oh ll thumbs up a youtube video etc.. that will save the children. Armchair activists are everywhere...

off topic again..
Reply 78
Everyone gets bullied over SOMETHING. This argument doesn't have any weight.
Reply 79
Original post by gildartz
I've already highlighted the links so there's no point arguing further with someone who doesn't want to listen to reason.


Which were wrong...

Quick Reply

Latest