The bullying argument against gay adoption...
Scroll to see replies
Original post by johnbc
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.
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.
It is widely accepted that gay relationships don't last as long as there is very rarely children involved. The amount of marriages that stay together for the sake of the children is unreal, but obviously that element isn't there with the majority of gay couples. When a child is involved though, clearly the situation is the same as that of a straight couple.
As for your second point, it has been proven that there is no emotional, academic or social difference between children raised by gay couples and children raised by straight couples i.e the nuclear family. Children flourish equally as much in a family headed by a lesbian/gay couple as they would in a nuclear family.
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!
Firstly we already do allow two men/women to adopt. Secondly your tri-adoption point is a tad void, as the government doesn't currently recognize polygamous relationships, so that's not going to happen anytime soon. Even if they did, why would it be a problem? There's no logical reason why it be a negative thing for a child, and many children are raised by several parents at the moment anyway. Children whose aunts or uncles play a large part in their lives are essentially in that situation, or grandparents etc you get the gist.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by johnbc
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.
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.
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!
1, something being natural does not make it best. Face it it isn't natural for any couple that can't produce their own children to raise children. If that doesn't stop infertile couples from adopting why should it stop homosexual couples?
2, Children flourish when raised in a nuclear family type? Children also flourish in the kibbutz do they not?
To think that our current cultural norm is the only acceptable way of raising children is blind imo.
Your average gay couple seem to do a better job of parenting than your average straight couple (when you attempt to measure parental success empirically at the least). That's more likely to be because they have to work so hard to get a child relative to someone who can have a kid by accident, rather than directly because of their gayness.. but when you have evidence like that how you can claim that children from gay families aren't going to fare as well as those from heterosexual families? It's just not true.
3, I don't see why a group of more than 2 people can't raise a child effectively. I refer again to the kibbutz.
Don't attempt to brush off justified equality measures as the so-called "PC brigade". The reason an 80-year-old couple would be unable to adopt a child is because they are likely to suffer health problems/death that are going to make them unable to provide for that child. If that were not true, they wouldn't be discriminated against. It's an example of justified discrimination, based on solid reasoning, not prejudice.
What people are saying about anti-gay-adoption is that the view is not based on reasoning, but on prejudice. Kind of like your example with multiple parents. What makes you think that isn't a perfectly good way to raise a child? Evidence or prejudice? I think you haven't really thought about it.
Just because people may raise a child differently does not make that child's experience inferior. Even so would having two mums or two dads really vary a child's upbringing more from the "normal" than one "normal" child's might vary from another "normal" child's anyway - given the massive range of parenting that is out there anyway (I'm hoping that will make sense). I think it probably won't*.
In my anecdotal experience at least, children from gay parents don't have anything particularly in common with each other other than that gay parentage (and of course being very tolerant of gays). This suggests to me that parent style is more significant than parent sexuality or even parent gender.
*EDIT: Lol double meaning
(edited 13 years ago)
My only main concern with gays adopting is that gays are not known to have very stable or long-term relationships. Straight couples are more likely to stay with each other until the end, however gays change partners a lot more often so in a way that's not fair on the kid.
But I guess in England it doesn't matter seeing as many straight couples also don't stick with each other for long (although still a bit longer than gay couples). I think there would be a problem in cultures such as Italy or Argentina where people are more committed to marriage and relationships, because then obviously a straight couple is clearly a lot better suited for raising children.
But I guess in England it doesn't matter seeing as many straight couples also don't stick with each other for long (although still a bit longer than gay couples). I think there would be a problem in cultures such as Italy or Argentina where people are more committed to marriage and relationships, because then obviously a straight couple is clearly a lot better suited for raising children.
Original post by CharlieBee_90
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.
Btw inb4 some troll says "ACTUALLY NO DEY SHULDNT CUZ GINGERS R EVIL LOL U MAD?" no you're not funny.
For the fifth millionth time, you complete and utter lower colon, this is about adopting kids not having them.
I hope the visual aids helped.
Original post by iamorgan
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.
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.
In a lot of these examples, you're confusing discriminating with differentiating.
The view I quoted claimed that her opposition to homosexual was due to this ridiculous bullying hypothesis. But no-one smart enough to use a keyboard is actually that stupid. She just doesn't want homosexual people to be able to adopt because, either consciously or unconsciously, she doesn't see homosexuals as being equal to heterosexuals, and this is the best reason she can think of to support her prejudice.
Many fag hags ITT
Original post by Converse
For the fifth millionth time, you complete and utter lower colon, this is about adopting kids not having them.
I hope the visual aids helped.
I hope the visual aids helped.
Don't call me a lower colon you gallbladder.
Whether the child is adopted or biological is irrelevant. A ginger child is still going to get teased. So by your logic ginger parents, who know that they are going to have a ginger child and who know very well that ginger children are almost always subject to teasing, should not have a child. I really don't see what being adopted has to do with anything.
Original post by CharlieBee_90
Don't call me a lower colon you gallbladder.
Whether the child is adopted or biological is irrelevant. A ginger child is still going to get teased. So by your logic ginger parents, who know that they are going to have a ginger child and who know very well that ginger children are almost always subject to teasing, should not have a child. I really don't see what being adopted has to do with anything.
Whether the child is adopted or biological is irrelevant. A ginger child is still going to get teased. So by your logic ginger parents, who know that they are going to have a ginger child and who know very well that ginger children are almost always subject to teasing, should not have a child. I really don't see what being adopted has to do with anything.
Jesus Christ! The thread is about gay couples adopting children, so yes I would say that the fact that the child is adopted is highly relevant. Don't try to twist my logic unless you can do it correctly...
Also, do you have a learning difficulty? If so then I don't mean to be patronising with the visual aids and such.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Converse
Jesus Christ! The thread is about gay couples adopting children, so yes I would say that the fact that the child is adopted is highly relevant. Don't try to twist my logic unless you can do it correctly...
Also, do you have a learning difficulty? If so then I don't mean to be patronising with the visual aids and such.
Also, do you have a learning difficulty? If so then I don't mean to be patronising with the visual aids and such.
Well as far as I am aware I am as you have so far failed to provide me with a good reason as to how two ginger parents having a ginger child whilst fully aware of the bullying he or she may face in the future is any different to a gay couple adopting a child who are aware of the bullying that child may face. 'They're adopted' doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid. The outcomes are the same.
EDIT: Don't be such a douche. If you are going to resort to childish insults instead of providing me with a stronger argument it says more about you than it does me. What exactly are these visual aids you speak of?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by CharlieBee_90
Well as far as I am aware I am as you have so far failed to provide me with a good reason as to how two ginger parents having a ginger child whilst fully aware of the bullying he or she may face in the future is any different to a gay couple adopting a child who are aware of the bullying that child may face. 'They're adopted' doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid. The outcomes are the same.
EDIT: Don't be such a douche. If you are going to resort to childish insults instead of providing me with a stronger argument it says more about you than it does me. What exactly are these visual aids you speak of?
EDIT: Don't be such a douche. If you are going to resort to childish insults instead of providing me with a stronger argument it says more about you than it does me. What exactly are these visual aids you speak of?
If you can't distinguish the difference for yourself, then I suggest you just leave the country.
And whose being a douche? You couldn't understand something as simple as how a thread about adoption could be related in any way to... adoption. Therefore I concluded that you had a learning difficulty. Now you don't even know what the visual aids are. Christ.. Just get tested, please.
Original post by Converse
If you can't distinguish the difference for yourself, then I suggest you just leave the country.
And whose being a douche? You couldn't understand something as simple as how a thread about adoption could be related in any way to... adoption. Therefore I concluded that you had a learning difficulty. Now you don't even know what the visual aids are. Christ.. Just get tested, please.
And whose being a douche? You couldn't understand something as simple as how a thread about adoption could be related in any way to... adoption. Therefore I concluded that you had a learning difficulty. Now you don't even know what the visual aids are. Christ.. Just get tested, please.
Really, judging by the utter idiocy highlighted in bold, it is clear I am not the one with a learning difficulty. I know how to contribute to a debate in a mature manner for one, all you can do is resort to idiocy such as this. Take a good long look at yourself before you get the utter nerve to call someone else stupid. I have not once attempted to insult you, but the very fact that you have acted so childish only suggests that you are not as confident as you like to think you are. Simply replying to my argument with 'you're stupid' is not sufficient I'm afraid
Yes the thread is about adoption, but your reasons as to why gays cannot adopt are the same to those as to why a redheaded couple should not have kids. The last statement is utterly ridiculous - as is the first statement. And if adoption really is that bloody important, then what about gay couples who use surrogate mothers? The child will still get teased. What about a gay man who fathered a child biologically and subsequently got into a relationship with a man? The child will still get teased. Your argument is not about adoption, it is about why gay couples should not be parents, regardless of how they came to be parents.
Your message is just text, there are no visual aids.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by missygeorgia
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.
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.
Fantastic speech there, sure to snag you a few points at the Pearly Gates and suchlike. I'd just love it if you could go ahead and just sidestep the bits where I said that it was how I was raised and instead go for the non-existent jugular. Let's overlook the 'it's how I was raised' point and try, desperately, to find the bit where I said that it's absolutely how it should be - I think I went as far as to say that an upbringing in same-sex adoption could be unbalanced while acknowledging that upbringing in different-sex families could also be unbalanced.
I really don't understand how the traditional patriarch breadwinner and matriarch housekeeper could be considered 'ridiculous.' There's something clutching-at-straws non-conformist about the statement - it's still majority and it's still as 'normal' as you'll get.
For the record, men being masculine and women being feminine is what helped evolution tick over nicely. Men traditionally provide the testosterone and the muscle (for the hunting) women have a more acute sense of colour perception (for the gathering). I'd go ahead and say it's a high-powered sort of mutualism.
Original post by CharlieBee_90
Really, judging by the utter idiocy highlighted in bold, it is clear I am not the one with a learning difficulty. I know how to contribute to a debate in a mature manner for one, all you can do is resort to idiocy such as this. Take a good long look at yourself before you get the utter nerve to call someone else stupid. I have not once attempted to insult you, but the very fact that you have acted so childish only suggests that you are not as confident as you like to think you are. Simply replying to my argument with 'you're stupid' is not sufficient I'm afraid
Yes the thread is about adoption, but your reasons as to why gays cannot adopt are the same to those as to why a redheaded couple should not have kids. The last statement is utterly ridiculous - as is the first statement. And if adoption really is that bloody important, then what about gay couples who use surrogate mothers? The child will still get teased. What about a gay man who fathered a child biologically and subsequently got into a relationship with a man? The child will still get teased. Your argument is not about adoption, it is about why gay couples should not be parents, regardless of how they came to be parents.
Your message is just text, there are no visual aids.
Yes the thread is about adoption, but your reasons as to why gays cannot adopt are the same to those as to why a redheaded couple should not have kids. The last statement is utterly ridiculous - as is the first statement. And if adoption really is that bloody important, then what about gay couples who use surrogate mothers? The child will still get teased. What about a gay man who fathered a child biologically and subsequently got into a relationship with a man? The child will still get teased. Your argument is not about adoption, it is about why gay couples should not be parents, regardless of how they came to be parents.
Your message is just text, there are no visual aids.
Your bold highlight shows nothing. You are simply trying and failing at picking errors in my writing. How spiteful. I suggest you grow up. And may I ask where these random assumptions about my level of confidence have stemmed from? How are they even relevant to the topic of the thread?
And with all the issues you've raised, you must understand that the children that have been put up for adoption are going to be, in general, more 'damaged' then your average non-adopted child. I am simply saying that it would be evil to further build upon their emotional turmoil by allowing a gay couple to adopt them and thus almost guaranteeing that they will suffer from bullying. Also, the bullying for having homosexual parents is likely to be worse, more persistent and more offensive then the odd "ginner" comment.
And visual aids can come in the form of text.
I can see myself seeing slammed with negs for this, but... *shrugs*
I think that men are different from women. Modern political correctness teaches that every person is the same, but I do believe that there are differences between genders. I think women can be more openly loving and caring, and there are equivalent positive aspects of men.
It's shown by the fact that in almost all families I know of, including mine, the son is close with the mother and the daughter is close with the father, not the other way around. There must be something special.
I'm not trying to stereotype here. I believe that all men have feminine qualities in varying amounts, and vice versa. I just think that a child raised by a homosexual couple is missing out on something - or perhaps is more likely to miss out on something - crucial.
My thoughts are a bit vague. It's not that I'm a homophobic and to be honest I don't even have a solid opinion. If I was gay, I'd hate the idea of not being able to raise a child. I'm just not entirely sure.
I think that men are different from women. Modern political correctness teaches that every person is the same, but I do believe that there are differences between genders. I think women can be more openly loving and caring, and there are equivalent positive aspects of men.
It's shown by the fact that in almost all families I know of, including mine, the son is close with the mother and the daughter is close with the father, not the other way around. There must be something special.
I'm not trying to stereotype here. I believe that all men have feminine qualities in varying amounts, and vice versa. I just think that a child raised by a homosexual couple is missing out on something - or perhaps is more likely to miss out on something - crucial.
My thoughts are a bit vague. It's not that I'm a homophobic and to be honest I don't even have a solid opinion. If I was gay, I'd hate the idea of not being able to raise a child. I'm just not entirely sure.
Original post by Converse
Your bold highlight shows nothing. You are simply trying and failing at picking errors in my writing. How spiteful. I suggest you grow up. And may I ask where these random assumptions about my level of confidence have stemmed from? How are they even relevant to the topic of the thread?
Until this post, this has been the structure of your argument:I am right. I am not going to say why I'm right, I'm just going to tell you I am right and assume you will be satisfied. When you ask me to elaborate, I am going to tell you that you're stupid. All this time I will not actually answer your question.
You resorted to childish name calling instead of providing reasons why you disagree with me. This is not a mature way to approach an argument. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. Don't tell me I'm stupid, need to be tested, should leave the country etc and then have the utter nerve to tell me I need to grow up. You were the one who started with the childishness, not me. This is not adult behaviour. I would have been a lot more respectful if you had just been mature.
Original post by Converse
And with all the issues you've raised, you must understand that the children that have been put up for adoption are going to be, in general, more 'damaged' then your average non-adopted child. I am simply saying that it would be evil to further build upon their emotional turmoil by allowing a gay couple to adopt them and thus almost guaranteeing that they will suffer from bullying. Also, the bullying for having homosexual parents is likely to be worse, more persistent and more offensive then the odd "ginner" comment.
And visual aids can come in the form of text.
And visual aids can come in the form of text.
See was that so hard? If you had just said this in the first place without the attitude it would have saved so much time and respect.
I think we need to educate children more about situations like this. Sometimes, children can have two dads, and it is normal. I am confident that, if this happens, then in a few years it would not be such an issue. Why make gay people suffer because kids are dicks? If we can tackle racism in schools then we can tackle homophobia.
Original post by Koobideh
My only main concern with gays adopting is that gays are not known to have very stable or long-term relationships. Straight couples are more likely to stay with each other until the end, however gays change partners a lot more often so in a way that's not fair on the kid.
But I guess in England it doesn't matter seeing as many straight couples also don't stick with each other for long (although still a bit longer than gay couples). I think there would be a problem in cultures such as Italy or Argentina where people are more committed to marriage and relationships, because then obviously a straight couple is clearly a lot better suited for raising children.
But I guess in England it doesn't matter seeing as many straight couples also don't stick with each other for long (although still a bit longer than gay couples). I think there would be a problem in cultures such as Italy or Argentina where people are more committed to marriage and relationships, because then obviously a straight couple is clearly a lot better suited for raising children.
I would like to challenge your claim that straight relationships last longer than gay ones. Where's your proof?
And just because gay couples are "not known to have very stable or long-term relationships", it doesn't mean they do not. It just means that you are ignorant to the fact that they do.
I disagree with your blanket statement that "gays change partners a lot more often". Perhaps certain individuals, yes. But I could definitely say the same for some straight people I know.
Your final point that a straight couple is "clearly a lot better suited for raising children" is unjustified. Thankyou.
Original post by CharlieBee_90
I think we need to educate children more about situations like this. Sometimes, children can have two dads, and it is normal. I am confident that, if this happens, then in a few years it would not be such an issue. Why make gay people suffer because kids are dicks? If we can tackle racism in schools then we can tackle homophobia.
Thing is it's not 'normal', and thus will never be fully accepted (or even as accepted as race). Although I do agree that kids need to be educated about this sort of thing, as that's probably the most effective way to try and tackle it.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by hereinyourarms
I would like to challenge your claim that straight relationships last longer than gay ones. Where's your proof?
And just because gay couples are "not known to have very stable or long-term relationships", it doesn't mean they do not. It just means that you are ignorant to the fact that they do.
I disagree with your blanket statement that "gays change partners a lot more often". Perhaps certain individuals, yes. But I could definitely say the same for some straight people I know.
Your final point that a straight couple is "clearly a lot better suited for raising children" is unjustified. Thankyou.
And just because gay couples are "not known to have very stable or long-term relationships", it doesn't mean they do not. It just means that you are ignorant to the fact that they do.
I disagree with your blanket statement that "gays change partners a lot more often". Perhaps certain individuals, yes. But I could definitely say the same for some straight people I know.
Your final point that a straight couple is "clearly a lot better suited for raising children" is unjustified. Thankyou.
It's a well established fact that gay relationships don't last long. You can figure that out just by meeting gays, but now that I searched it up I found statistics proving my claims correct: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
When I said straight couples, I was referring to straight couples in conservative countries such as Italy and Argentina where the rate of divorce is low and when people get married they get married for life. Therefore, yes in a country like that straight couples would be better suited than gay couples who can't even stay in a relationship with each other. Anyway, there are certain things that children shouldn't be raised to think are acceptable, such as promiscuity and unfaithfulness, which unfortunately would be made to seem normal for a child if raised by gay parents.
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 4 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 4 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
