Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The bullying argument against gay adoption... Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, it's not a very good argument. People don't bully because someone's parents are gay. They would bully the person anyway and it's just a convenient thing to make fun of. In any case, I think it's stupid to deny children parents just because they "might be bullied". If I was in a children's home, possible bullying would be a small price to pay for having two parents and a stable home.

    I have a friend in such a situation that I've know since Primary school. I don't ever remember her being bullied for it. People were, however, bullied for their hair colour, height, choice in clothes etc.

    Whatever your opinion of homosexuality, I think anyone would agree that it's disgraceful that there are children who need parents and people perfectly willing to adopt them, yet it's not allowed because of the prospective parents' sexuality.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Not necessarily true.
    Gender is related to identity and acts.
    Sex is related to a biological distinction.

    One can be one gender whilst another sex (feeling trapped inside the wrong body etc.).
    Ok, well I meant externally x
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFlyingDutchman)
    If you're making homosexuality an excluding factor for adoption on the grounds of bullying then why not add other things people are bullied for ?

    I know a kid that was bullied for being too poor. Should poor people not be allowed to adopt ?
    Also know a kid that was bullied for being rich. So we only let middle class people adopt right ?
    I know a guy that was bullied because his mum was really hot and there was a picture of her in a bikini on her friends facebooks. He was bullied for over a year about it. It became ridiculous. Should we only let ugly people adopt ?


    You're full of **** OP the only criteria for adoption should be the capability of the parents to provide a caring and loving home as well as providing the child with anything else that they need in terms of food, clothing, school etc.
    Read the OP again, they're not full of ****, they're saying it's (no gays get to adopt because of potential bullying) a terrible argument. Which is something you appear to be agreeing with!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmm, I'll pitch in my two cents I suppose. I have the idea in my head that parenting is a training structure for life. With that in mind, I'm not sure how much same-sex parents/guardians can pass on to adopted children - bringing the argument closer to home, my dad taught me how to do the DIY stuff, my mum taught me the cooking stuff. For me, each sex is superior to the other in certain ways and I'd feel that children adopted into a same-sex parents family would be missing out on different parts of their life training.

    To call it as black and white as that is perhaps unfair. But I'd go ahead and take it in a sports direction - a footballer has a coach working on his heading and another coaching working on his tackling. He's developing a balance of play in the air and on the ground. The same player then has two heading coaches or two tackling coaches - he ends up being proficient in one aspect of his game, but neglects the other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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...
    People aren't slating you because they don't want you to have an opinion. People are slating you because you've been repeatedly asked to explain/clarify/justify your opinion and you either can't or won't do it. And that makes you look like a bigoted idiot, to be honest.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse)
    You are a complete and utter retard. The thread is not about people having kids, it's about adoption. Come back when you are able to differentiate between the two.
    Well that was unnecessarily rude, and there isn't much difference is there? If gay people could have children 'naturally' it would be no different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Read the OP again, they're not full of ****, they're saying it's (no gays get to adopt because of potential bullying) a terrible argument. Which is something you appear to be agreeing with!
    Sorry I thought I had read the OP.

    For some reason I read the one that started with ''Why give the bullies more ammunition'' as the first post.

    I have changed it now. Sorry OP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Hmmm, I'll pitch in my two cents I suppose. I have the idea in my head that parenting is a training structure for life. With that in mind, I'm not sure how much same-sex parents/guardians can pass on to adopted children - bringing the argument closer to home, my dad taught me how to do the DIY stuff, my mum taught me the cooking stuff. For me, each sex is superior to the other in certain ways and I'd feel that children adopted into a same-sex parents family would be missing out on different parts of their life training.

    To call it as black and white as that is perhaps unfair. But I'd go ahead and take it in a sports direction - a footballer has a coach working on his heading and another coaching working on his tackling. He's developing a balance of play in the air and on the ground. The same player then has two heading coaches or two tackling coaches - he ends up being proficient in one aspect of his game, but neglects the other.

    So should people who don't prescribe to regular gender roles not be allowed to procreate?

    I don't know which century you're from, but Jesus, Dad = DIY and Mum = cooking? That's ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Way to prove you're a moron.
    I don't give a flying **** how many gay friends you have. It's not a free pass to make homophobic comments.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Hmmm, I'll pitch in my two cents I suppose. I have the idea in my head that parenting is a training structure for life. With that in mind, I'm not sure how much same-sex parents/guardians can pass on to adopted children - bringing the argument closer to home, my dad taught me how to do the DIY stuff, my mum taught me the cooking stuff. For me, each sex is superior to the other in certain ways and I'd feel that children adopted into a same-sex parents family would be missing out on different parts of their life training.

    To call it as black and white as that is perhaps unfair. But I'd go ahead and take it in a sports direction - a footballer has a coach working on his heading and another coaching working on his tackling. He's developing a balance of play in the air and on the ground. The same player then has two heading coaches or two tackling coaches - he ends up being proficient in one aspect of his game, but neglects the other.
    this is the only real argument I see as valid.

    However I have 2 things to say about it:

    1) The alternative is a care home, as we are talking about adoption.
    2) Your points are personal and so shouldnt form part of any general rule. It assumes that each parent has specific things to teach, which can be true but only on an individual basis
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Hmmm, I'll pitch in my two cents I suppose. I have the idea in my head that parenting is a training structure for life. With that in mind, I'm not sure how much same-sex parents/guardians can pass on to adopted children - bringing the argument closer to home, my dad taught me how to do the DIY stuff, my mum taught me the cooking stuff. For me, each sex is superior to the other in certain ways and I'd feel that children adopted into a same-sex parents family would be missing out on different parts of their life training.

    To call it as black and white as that is perhaps unfair. But I'd go ahead and take it in a sports direction - a footballer has a coach working on his heading and another coaching working on his tackling. He's developing a balance of play in the air and on the ground. The same player then has two heading coaches or two tackling coaches - he ends up being proficient in one aspect of his game, but neglects the other.
    This argument also equally applies for single parents, and even parents in which one parents is away from home a lot. Clearly, a young person is benefitted by having a good role model in each sex, although the gender lines you identified are a little old-fashioned. Why can't dad teach you to cook? I can cook, so I see no reason why I couldn't teach my kids to cook.

    The solution is not to exclude all these parents from the adoption process altogether. The solution is for these parents to give their children sufficent access to whatever it is they are missing in their immediate family, be it a grandfather, an aunt, a close friend of the family or whatever.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jmzie-Coupe)
    I agree with you bogroll, but unfortunately the TSR homo's have come to neg rep us so we must call in the care police.
    Dont act like we are on the same side:mad:

    I havent been negged because i havent offended anyone
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    ... I don't really understand this often-used argument. Yes, there is a possibility that a child would get bullied for having gay parents, but the list of things they could get bullied for is absolutely staggering! If bullies want to target you, they find something about you to make fun of, even if it's completely fictional.

    Also, wasn't it the case not so long ago that the children of single parents and mixed race parents were susceptible to bullying? But that's not so common anymore, because we're now used to it. Why don't we do the same for LGBT parenting?

    So, what I'm asking is, why do we keep submitting bullying as a reason against gay adoption exclusively?
    Bullies dont need much to start on anyone...just if they are different in any way. Orphans need loving, stable homes of any kind after the emotional and physical abuse most suffer before they come to the orphanage and it doesnt matter who adopts as long as they love the child unconditionally for as long as they live....happiness is most important.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    You can't change the definition of a word simply to try and make yourself feel better about your unpleasant bigoted opinions.


    Honestly answer me: would you rather be raised by two loving and caring parents who happen to be both of the same sex, or would you rather grow up sleeping in an orphanage dormitory with no parents at all?

    A kid from an orphanage would jump at the chance to be adopted by a homosexual couple, and would have a far happier life as a result. Who the **** are you to deny these kids the chance of a better life just because it doesn't fit into your disgusting backward and bigoted view of the world?

    Jesus... are you real? Your black and white definitions and general ad hominem manor is completely moronic.

    You can justify anything by comparing it to the worst case scenario, the sort of awful propaganda that starts wars and feuds, you think the BNP/EDL use reason and logic to recruit? No, they say DO YOU WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO BE RUN BY MUSLIMS AND FOREIGNERS WHO WILL PISS ON YOUR FACE AND KILL YOUR CHILDREN AND DEFILE YOU PARENTS GRAVES? NO.. WELL JOIN US.

    I think you have fallen for the political correctness trap using such phrases as ' disgusting backward and bigoted view of the world' regarding everyone different as equal when there are so many obvious reasons let alone deeper ones why certain people will never be.

    Let me ask you this, what is more backwards than letting two genders who cannot give birth raise a child? What is more bigoted than demanding people have rights based on their sexuality? i see no difference between this and Muslims calling for Sharia law in trials.

    Im not a homophobe at all because i dont hate gay people and i dont fear gay people (what a homophobe is not 'someone who discriminates') I just thought i would meet your foolishness with the opposite.

    My feelings on the issue? Well, i dont really care to be honest, im not overly keen on the idea but if there is relevant evidence and it gives a child a decent up bringing regardless then im happy with that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    If they had their own child by in vitro or by a surrogate, would you still be against them raising it? Would you condone the child being take away?

    If not, what's the difference between that child and an adopted one (assuming the child agrees to the adoption/volunteers for it)? There are so many children spending their lives in care because nobody adopts them. What, pray tell, is the alternative to being adopted to get out of care?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    What difference does it make to the argument though? In fact, it makes you look worse since you're suggesting that the life of a child should be denied if the people who will bring them up are of the same sex.

    (Original post by Converse)
    Do you suffer from learning difficulties? The focus of this thread is adoption. Not having a child accidentally. Please return when you have sorted this drivel out.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EggmanD)
    Jesus...
    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].
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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].
    Where did you get that one from? I got mine from the Oxford dictionary so ill go with that one 'an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.' Aversion meaning a strong dislike which is more than a discrimination which i would think is more, 'i dont want a women driving my van because she is a women' work ethic.

    I stated that it is a twisted bigotry to give people who are not naturally equal the same rights are those who are based on loose discrimination and hypocritical moral code..

    I dont believe that, i just said it because you met someone with such utter nonsense i couldn't help myself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry dudes and dudettes, squeezing these in together to save on thread space.

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    So should people who don't prescribe to regular gender roles not be allowed to procreate?

    I don't know which century you're from, but Jesus, Dad = DIY and Mum = cooking? That's ridiculous.
    You seemed to have invented the bit where I said that it shou[dn't be allowed (or you're blowing it out of proportion to try to secure some karma and your path to a sweet afterlife or something). 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.

    (Original post by Sereni)
    this is the only real argument I see as valid.

    However I have 2 things to say about it:

    1) The alternative is a care home, as we are talking about adoption.
    2) Your points are personal and so shouldnt form part of any general rule. It assumes that each parent has specific things to teach, which can be true but only on an individual basis
    I do agree that there's a situation that children on the adoption register sit between a rock and a place that may or may not hard, depending on who you speak to. I've just mentioned above that same-sex adoption can be perfectly workable, and that I just feel that it could be slightly more skewed than a different-sex household (on the most part at least). I completely agree that drawing points from my own experience shouldn't be manipulated into steadfast rules for everyone else, but I have to start my train of thought from somewhere.

    (Original post by py0alb)
    This argument also equally applies for single parents, and even parents in which one parents is away from home a lot. Clearly, a young person is benefitted by having a good role model in each sex, although the gender lines you identified are a little old-fashioned. Why can't dad teach you to cook? I can cook, so I see no reason why I couldn't teach my kids to cook.

    The solution is not to exclude all these parents from the adoption process altogether. The solution is for these parents to give their children sufficent access to whatever it is they are missing in their immediate family, be it a grandfather, an aunt, a close friend of the family or whatever.
    Personally, dad can't teach me to cook because he only has one recipe up his sleeve (makes a lovely mushroom risotto though). But on a slightly more serious note, because gender lines are old-fashioned doesn't mean that they're not still commonplace - I'm pretty sure that you could pull one hundred people off the street and get them to describe to you a kitchen scene, and that most would place the matriarch in there. I wouldn't consider it particularly controversial for dads to pass on, for example, cookery skills to their children - I mean, I plan to some day. I'd also have to agree with you with the point of encouraging the use of other relatives such households. It would have to be produced as advice really, you could never police that sort of thing, even if you wanted to. Shifting children off the list could prove to be cost-effective also, especially in these times of austerity and such.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 28, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.