The bullying argument against gay adoption...
Scroll to see replies
I'll post what I posted in the other thread:
If a kid gets bullied for having gay parents, it isn't their parents fault. The fault is with the parents of the bully who despite being straight (and therefore parentally perfect), are raising little bastards.
Your problem should be with straight people who raise little bastards.
If a kid gets bullied for having gay parents, it isn't their parents fault. The fault is with the parents of the bully who despite being straight (and therefore parentally perfect), are raising little bastards.
Your problem should be with straight people who raise little bastards.
Original post by EggmanD
gay adoption will never come through because most people tolerate it and do not accept it.
You do realise gay adoption is perfectly legal and there are many many gay couples in this country who have adopted children.True, but i don't think this argument is as popular now as it used to be.
As I think several people on this thread, as have others on similar threads have pointed out is that a child being bullied for having gay parents shows the ills of the bullies, not of the parents of the bullied child.
Bottom line: if you don't want gay adoption, then don't have one. There are many children that do want parents.
Bottom line: if you don't want gay adoption, then don't have one. There are many children that do want parents.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by EggmanD
i believe most people who fight for 'equality' are hypocrites as that equality is bigoted based on personal moral value and not general acceptance.
i believe most people who fight for 'equality' are hypocrites as that equality is bigoted based on personal moral value and not general acceptance.
You.make.no.sense.
A bigot is someone who forms a view and then sticks to it blindly despite there being no good reasoning behind their opinions.
There is poor reasoning behind unfair discrimination. That is why it is unfair.
For example, the reasoning behind "A woman cannot do maths" is poor, because many women are very good at maths. So a person who holds this view very strongly and will not budge, despite contrary evidence is said to be a bigot.
A person who believes "A black person and a white person should not marry" is a BIGOT. Because when asked why that should be the case, there is no good reason why black and white people should not marry. It boils down to unsubstantiated discriminatory beliefs.
A person who says "It isn't safe for a blind person to be a bus driver" is discriminating, but their discrimination isn't unfair, there's a good reasoning behind their view. They are not a bigot.
That's what the argument here is about gay adoption. Is there a good reasoning behind not letting gay people adopt, or is there no good reason?
The people saying "yay gay adoption or thereabouts (or at least me) are saying they can't find an ethical follow-through that leads to the conclusion gay adoption is wrong or shouldn't be allowed.
I have yet to see a reasoning against gay adoption that follows through well enough to lead me to the conclusion that gays shouldn't adopt.
The majority of evidence that I have come across, the majority as well of reasoning that I have come across suggests there is no reason why gays can't parent as well as straights.
So.. that would make me not a bigot, because my views are you know BASED ON SOMETHING, unlike (certainly at least in my opinion) those who put forward weak arguments about how "gays this gays that" which fall apart readily upon close inspection to reveal someone that actually just holds an unsubstantiated discriminatory belief, aka a bigoted one.
Original post by Jmzie-Coupe
Gays should not adopt. End of story.
Erm, some actual reasons why would be nice.
Just a little tip, but "Because it is" isn't a valid reason for anything...
Original post by DiZZeeKiD
Ahhh, OK - this is just my opinion, you can think I'm wrong, thas cool. It's not even about the bullying thing, I just think its wrong for a child to be bought up by homosexual parents. I'm sorry but thats just the way I feel...
So that's your sooper-dooper argument for it? It's wrong? Well that's the most convincing reason I've heard so far, let's stop the gays adopting RIGHT NOW!
I don't know about you, but I happen to think that it's wrong for a child to have to stay in care when they could otherwise have a loving family because some people happen to think that their sexuality is incompatible with raising children.
Seriously, come up with a better reason for holding your view or just GTFO.
Original post by Anonymous
Only reason i'm against MOST gay adoption is the parents tend to be very sexually permiscuous and very irritating.
*promiscuous
And where's the evidence for them being promiscuous whilst in a relationship and raising a child? Or is this just something you think is true because you've heard other people say it or you've seen it on tv?
And you think they shouldn't be able to adopt because they're irritating???? I'm sorry but WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. ****???? Just because someone's irritating doesn't mean they won't make a good parent, you fool.
Original post by JW92 You do realise gay adoption is perfectly legal and there are many many gay couples in this country who have adopted children.
You do realise gay adoption is perfectly legal and there are many many gay couples in this country who have adopted children.Really?
Have i been living under a rock..........well.. i have been living under a rock lol
Then i will change my point to 'will never become as accepted as man/women adopting' rather than 'no way no way manumanmum'
Original post by DiZZeeKiD
Woah, don't cry.
Firstly, you seem to think that the only alternative to a child who doesn't get adopted by homosexual parents is living in an orphanage. You're wrong. Homosexual couples can have their own children by using a surrogate, for example, therefore creating a child as opposed to giving one a better life who otherwise may not have had the opportunity.
Also, I don't think the law is necessarily going to be changed because of my opinions so actually I'm not going to "deny these kids the chance of a better life".
As I said before, call me as homophobic as you like, I have friends that are gay, so your words dont effect me, I just categorically disagree with homosexual couples being allowed to raise children. End of.
Firstly, you seem to think that the only alternative to a child who doesn't get adopted by homosexual parents is living in an orphanage. You're wrong. Homosexual couples can have their own children by using a surrogate, for example, therefore creating a child as opposed to giving one a better life who otherwise may not have had the opportunity.
Also, I don't think the law is necessarily going to be changed because of my opinions so actually I'm not going to "deny these kids the chance of a better life".
As I said before, call me as homophobic as you like, I have friends that are gay, so your words dont effect me, I just categorically disagree with homosexual couples being allowed to raise children. End of.
That's not an example of an alternative to a child who doesn't get a adopted by homosexual parents living in an orphanage.. so care to give an actual example? The child gets a say in the matter, they're not forced to be adopted by the parents if they don't want to so they can wait for a hetrosexual couple if they wish.
Also, give more reasons for why they shouldn't be allowed to raise children.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by BeanofJelly
You.make.no.sense.
A bigot is someone who forms a view and then sticks to it blindly despite there being no good reasoning behind their opinions.
There is poor reasoning behind unfair discrimination. That is why it is unfair.
For example, the reasoning behind "A woman cannot do maths" is poor, because many women are very good at maths. So a person who holds this view very strongly and will not budge, despite contrary evidence is said to be a bigot.
A person who believes "A black person and a white person should not marry" is a BIGOT. Because when asked why that should be the case, there is no good reason why black and white people should not marry. It boils down to unsubstantiated discriminatory beliefs.
A person who says "It isn't safe for a blind person to be a bus driver" is discriminating, but their discrimination isn't unfair, there's a good reasoning behind their view. They are not a bigot.
That's what the argument here is about gay adoption. Is there a good reasoning behind not letting gay people adopt, or is there no good reason?
The people saying "yay gay adoption or thereabouts (or at least me) are saying they can't find an ethical follow-through that leads to the conclusion gay adoption is wrong or shouldn't be allowed.
I have yet to see a reasoning against gay adoption that follows through well enough to lead me to the conclusion that gays shouldn't adopt.
The majority of evidence that I have come across, the majority as well of reasoning that I have come across suggests there is no reason why gays can't parent as well as straights.
So.. that would make me not a bigot, because my views are you know BASED ON SOMETHING, unlike (certainly at least in my opinion) those who put forward weak arguments about how "gays this gays that" which fall apart readily upon close inspection to reveal someone that actually just holds an unsubstantiated discriminatory belief, aka a bigoted one.
A bigot is someone who forms a view and then sticks to it blindly despite there being no good reasoning behind their opinions.
There is poor reasoning behind unfair discrimination. That is why it is unfair.
For example, the reasoning behind "A woman cannot do maths" is poor, because many women are very good at maths. So a person who holds this view very strongly and will not budge, despite contrary evidence is said to be a bigot.
A person who believes "A black person and a white person should not marry" is a BIGOT. Because when asked why that should be the case, there is no good reason why black and white people should not marry. It boils down to unsubstantiated discriminatory beliefs.
A person who says "It isn't safe for a blind person to be a bus driver" is discriminating, but their discrimination isn't unfair, there's a good reasoning behind their view. They are not a bigot.
That's what the argument here is about gay adoption. Is there a good reasoning behind not letting gay people adopt, or is there no good reason?
The people saying "yay gay adoption or thereabouts (or at least me) are saying they can't find an ethical follow-through that leads to the conclusion gay adoption is wrong or shouldn't be allowed.
I have yet to see a reasoning against gay adoption that follows through well enough to lead me to the conclusion that gays shouldn't adopt.
The majority of evidence that I have come across, the majority as well of reasoning that I have come across suggests there is no reason why gays can't parent as well as straights.
So.. that would make me not a bigot, because my views are you know BASED ON SOMETHING, unlike (certainly at least in my opinion) those who put forward weak arguments about how "gays this gays that" which fall apart readily upon close inspection to reveal someone that actually just holds an unsubstantiated discriminatory belief, aka a bigoted one.
Well, apart from your blurred Daily Mail definition of bigoted i agree.
The 'despite there being no good reasoning behind their opinion' add on is not what the word means by definition and it just added on due to certain groups, like the BNP, who have been branded it leading to word association of being ignorant and stupid and fact-less etc
Its about perceived superiority of opinion and intolerance of those against you... you could have all the facts in the world and still be called a Bigot..
Example, theres a lot of evidence for legalisation/criminalisation of certain substances.. ive been called a bigot for refusing to bow down... am i a bigot because i have an unconventional and controversial set of facts that go against the grain of society? Not in that case but according some peoples moral compass based on legal issues and propagated 'facts' i could well be..
In this case yes because i was doing it on purpose to prove a point and now im just in a hole because i cba to read over what ive said already..
People blurring the line between acceptance and intolerance and using ad hominem style arguments are, IMO, on the same level as the bigots you mentioned and thats what i tried pointing out in this thread and thats what my whole angle is
This whole debate is mostly pointless anyway, as gay adoption is legal and has been for several years. None of the three main parties have any plans to repeal it, so its here to stay.
However don't let that stop you
It is worth nothing though as a lot of people seem to be under the impression that gay people can't adopt.
However don't let that stop you
It is worth nothing though as a lot of people seem to be under the impression that gay people can't adopt.(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by EggmanD
Well, apart from your blurred Daily Mail definition of bigoted i agree.
The 'despite there being no good reasoning behind their opinion' add on is not what the word means by definition and it just added on due to certain groups, like the BNP, who have been branded it leading to word association of being ignorant and stupid and fact-less etc
The 'despite there being no good reasoning behind their opinion' add on is not what the word means by definition and it just added on due to certain groups, like the BNP, who have been branded it leading to word association of being ignorant and stupid and fact-less etc
Daily mail definition? I don't even read the daily mail.
By the literal definition a bigot is essentially inflexible in their opinion no matter how flawed it is. So only a bigot can really hold a view despite overwhelming contrary evidence and reasoning.
I guess you could have "secret" bigots who are just lucky enough to be right, but being very solid in your supported convictions does not make you bigoted. Only if they become unsupported and you still cling onto them.
For example, if it turned out that loads of people adopted by gay couples killed themselves on their 21st birthday or something, I'd probably change my view and think "hey maybe gay adoption isn't so great". So in that way I am flexible.
But actually nothing like that is actually true. Current reasoning/evidence favours the idea that gays are just as good at parenting. So that's the view I hold. My security in that conviction doesn't make me a bigot, because it is a logic and evidence based conviction.
"Despite their being no good reasoning behind their opinion" therefore isn't just some inaccurate add-on, it is actually explanatory in that way.
Original post by EggmanD
Example, theres a lot of evidence for legalisation/criminalisation of certain substances.. ive been called a bigot for refusing to bow down... am i a bigot because i have an unconventional and controversial set of facts that go against the grain of society? Not in that case but according some peoples moral compass based on legal issues and propagated 'facts' i could well be..
Example, theres a lot of evidence for legalisation/criminalisation of certain substances.. ive been called a bigot for refusing to bow down... am i a bigot because i have an unconventional and controversial set of facts that go against the grain of society? Not in that case but according some peoples moral compass based on legal issues and propagated 'facts' i could well be..
Yes but if someone came up with a good argument, and you won't listen to that - instead sticking with a pre-held view no matter how wrong it is shown to be (with no good argument), then yes that is almost the definition of a bigot isn't it?
Of course there must be some kind of bigotry spectrum
. Based on exactly how unreasonable you are being. But some of the people on here who say "I just think gay adoption is wrong lalalala sorry wont listen to any argument" they are bigots. They have a prejudice against gay people that won't listen to reason or evidence. "I'm not a homophobe but.." is almost a classic identifier lol.EDIT: Why are we even having this bizarre rambly argument about the definition of a bigot anyway? I want out.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by py0alb
Look, you're entitled to your opinions but you are a homophobe. Your second statement fit the definition of what the word "homophobe" means. Presuming that you are in favour of white heterosexual adoption:
If you are against mixed race adoption, you are discriminating based on race, and therefore a racist.
If you are against homosexual adoption, you are you are discriminating based on sexuality, and therefore a homophobe.
If you are against mixed race adoption, you are discriminating based on race, and therefore a racist.
If you are against homosexual adoption, you are you are discriminating based on sexuality, and therefore a homophobe.
I just want to pull you up on this: discriminating on grounds of race isn't racist per se. If Birmingham City Council offer special services for Bangladeshi immigrants, is that racist? If a Protestant Church won't allow a Sunni Muslim to join the congregation unless they become a Christian, is that Islamaphobic? If disabled people can't be sent to the front line in combat, is that prejudiced against the disabled?
It could be said that failing to recognise the differences between races, religions, disabilities, sexes etc and treating everyone EXACTLY the same is actually discriminatory because you inherently deny certain people the opportunity to participate. For instance, if a company strictly enforces shift patterns on Fridays and Religious Holidays and will only give time off on a Tuesday, that could discriminate against people of certain religions, people with disabilities (what if their consultant doesn't work Tuesdays and they can't get a hospital appointment?) etc.
To my mind, and without being over-scientific, 'racism' is about possessing a belief which is based on a prejudice. A person can be 'racist' without actively discriminating against a race. The view you quoted wasn't based on a prejudice (in my view), it was a view based on the basic premise that children of gay parents will be bullied. It was then supposed that bullying is a bad thing and should be avoided and therefore the view was put forward that gay people should not be allowed to have children because doing so may expose them to bullying.
What about ginger children, with a disability, from a 'gay household'?
If it makes a difference, I'm gay btw.
Original post by Entangled
I think that people not subscribing to the traditional gender roles may give an unbalanced preparation for life to their kids. It's perfectly work-around-able but I feel that it's not quite the genuine article. Secondly, that 'ridiculous' that you've highlighted happens to be my personal truth, so I'd welcome you to view yourself from the outside in - namely defending the upbringing of kids in certain households while attempting a put-down of my own situation.
I have no idea what world you live in but this just isn't what life is like, and your "personal truth" is- yes- ridiculous.
Saying 'men act like this and women act like this' is not only false, it's oppressive and offensive. People shouldn't be told to act a certain way because of something as arbitrary as their gender, and there's absolutely nothing to say that society is better when women act feminine (a gender role which is, by the way, deeply oppressive) and men act masculine (a role which can be equally oppressive). And it's simply unrealistic- it doesn't happen like that anymore in this society. As oppression is lifted more and more people are breaking out of gender roles, and it's a bloody good thing too.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by BeanofJelly
But some of the people on here who say "I just think gay adoption is wrong lalalala sorry wont listen to any argument" they are bigots. They have a prejudice against gay people that won't listen to reason or evidence. "I'm not a homophobe but.." is almost a classic identifier lol.
Lol well I'm gay but I tend to agree with the text in bold -how the hell does that work? I suspect it's to do with some inherent prejudice I have based on my conception of society.
My argument always leads me back to the fact that being gay is the problem -i.e. there is something morally or socially unacceptable about being gay. Maybe there is, but that's the way I am.
As we all know, the only family background in which a child can be conceived without medical assistance is to a heterosexual couple.
It is also widely accepted that the average same-sex relationship lasts a far shorter time than the average opposite-sex relationship and also that children flourish when raised in a nuclear family type.
So, is the argument that gay adoption is right down to the belief that to not permit it would be considered 'homophobic?' Surely, the paramount purpose for adoption is the child's welfare, and not the perceived 'rights' of the adopters.
In the same way, I would not argue that a couple (whether straight or gay) in their 80s should be allowed to adopt. This is not down to 'ageist' views, solely practicality and the rights of the adoptive child and I'm sure many of you would agree with this.
And, if we permit two men/women to adopt, why not permit three men or three women (or even two men and a woman,) as not doing so is technically speaking triphobic! Maybe, in 20/30 years time, we will have the Peter Tatchell equivalents arguing for 'trisexual adoption' in order to comply with future equality legislation!
What a world that would be!
It is also widely accepted that the average same-sex relationship lasts a far shorter time than the average opposite-sex relationship and also that children flourish when raised in a nuclear family type.
So, is the argument that gay adoption is right down to the belief that to not permit it would be considered 'homophobic?' Surely, the paramount purpose for adoption is the child's welfare, and not the perceived 'rights' of the adopters.
In the same way, I would not argue that a couple (whether straight or gay) in their 80s should be allowed to adopt. This is not down to 'ageist' views, solely practicality and the rights of the adoptive child and I'm sure many of you would agree with this.
And, if we permit two men/women to adopt, why not permit three men or three women (or even two men and a woman,) as not doing so is technically speaking triphobic! Maybe, in 20/30 years time, we will have the Peter Tatchell equivalents arguing for 'trisexual adoption' in order to comply with future equality legislation!
What a world that would be!
Original post by Converse
Why give a bully more ammunition?
These kids need a stable home. Just because they could get bullied anyway, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can to try and prevent them from being targets.
Children of single parents? I think not..
These kids need a stable home. Just because they could get bullied anyway, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can to try and prevent them from being targets.
Children of single parents? I think not..
So ginger parents shouldn't have kids then, cos they know their children will be an easy target for bullies.
Btw inb4 some troll says "ACTUALLY NO DEY SHULDNT CUZ GINGERS R EVIL LOL U MAD?" no you're not funny.
Original post by BeanofJelly
EDIT: Why are we even having this bizarre rambly argument about the definition of a bigot anyway? I want out.
Same.. the point has long gone lol
because under the guise of "protecting the children" a lot of BS has passed that would not have ordinarily.
because homophobes are using kids and bullying as shields to hold on to their bigoted ways.
bullying is the problem, instead of trying to stop giving bullies targets why not stop the bullying?
gay parents are just as good as straight ones, all a family needs is love
because homophobes are using kids and bullying as shields to hold on to their bigoted ways.
bullying is the problem, instead of trying to stop giving bullies targets why not stop the bullying?
gay parents are just as good as straight ones, all a family needs is love
Original post by Converse
Why give a bully more ammunition?
These kids need a stable home. Just because they could get bullied anyway, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can to try and prevent them from being targets.
Children of single parents? I think not..
These kids need a stable home. Just because they could get bullied anyway, doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can to try and prevent them from being targets.
Children of single parents? I think not..
Yup. Before it was so common there was a stigma with not having two parents. This could be tough on a child. The fact you don't believe it could even be a problem (unless I misunderstand you) shows that society moves on and gets over it.
I have ginger hair, I got teased for it at school way more than my friend did about her mum being gay, but nobody (except for jokes) says you shouldn't reproduce with someone with a redhair gene if you yourself have one (even recessive) in case they are ginger and teased. You know, it might be a joke but not one with any legislation behind it. Why is this any different?
I would imagine someone who themselves might have been teased/minority would be better able to cope with it and help their kid, not to mention that by the time the kids grow up it will not be such a big deal anyways.
Of course you should not purposely do anything stupid to make it more likely your kid is teased like give them a stupid haircut, name etc etc something silly, but being who you are and having kids is not one of these things. There are a million things a parent can be which might make the child more likely to be bullied and yet we don't think twice about those people not having children because of it... I would say yeah, maybe choose not to live in a homophobic area when raising the child if you are gay and have children, don't make it harder on purpose, but don't feel it is wrong to have kids.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- is it normal for your mum to ignore you when shes mad?
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- Durham Law
- Should XL bully dogs be banned?
- Motivation needed
- Dodgy p.e. Teachers
- Need advice on Law essay-writing. First year
- rumours and bullying
- Being gay at Loughborough University
- Tiffin Girls 2023 Sixth Form Entry
- I am the end of my family.
- Did anyone find that people your age don't like you but teachers do?
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- Why girls bully guys
- my boyfriend is never happy in any occasion
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Funny leaving/yearbook awards??? e.g. most likely to...
- 18 and living in a Toxic Household am i the only one?
- how to deal with these ppl?
- Primary Education (QTS) math
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 5 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 5 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
