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

The bullying argument against gay adoption... Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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..
    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. :yawn:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    EDIT: Why are we even having this bizarre rambly argument about the definition of a bigot anyway? I want out.
    :bubbles: Same.. the point has long gone lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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..
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I fully support gay option, but this reminded me of a classic from sickipedia:

    Why does everyone think my Dads are gay?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    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
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :yawn:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Many fag hags ITT
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with adoption anyway. You're lying to a child about his or her lineage.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.