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

The bullying argument against gay adoption... Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This thread has shown me how many people really take it up the arse on this forum. Amen to you brothers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone gets bullied over SOMETHING. This argument doesn't have any weight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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...
    • Offline

      14
      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 *******s.

      Your problem should be with straight people who raise little *******s.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by EggmanD)
      gay adoption will never come through because most people tolerate it and do not accept it.
      :confused: You do realise gay adoption is perfectly legal and there are many many gay couples in this country who have adopted children.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      True, but i don't think this argument is as popular now as it used to be.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I somehow doubt that the bullying from having gay parents would be all that significant in the UK these days.
      Bullies don't bully because of things like that, they bully people anyway and just use things like that as material. If it wasn't gay parents, it be something else.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      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.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (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! :rolleyes:

      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.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by JW92)
      :confused: 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'
      Offline

      2
      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.
      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.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      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
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      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.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (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
      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..
      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.
      Offline

      9
      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.
      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.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      9
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      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!
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.