Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    a mother is worth more than a million fathers
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Last Day Lepers)
    The guy on the left has some serious gyno.
    It's the nipple from the guy in the back essentially dangling that gets me. Put it away man.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gay marriage goes hand in hand with gay adoption, but not necessarily in all cases.


    • An astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

    http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...-marriage.html

    I've taken this example as a non-religious case against gay marriage.

    I don't need, or want anyone to start bringing up the oh-so-common excuse that "not all heterosexual couples look after their children the right way" ... This arguably a tiny proportion on global scale - the fact that being a child in a gay or lesbian couple increases your chance of sexual abuse by tenfold is quite alarming to say the least.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swan stardust)
    Aww these are very sweet pictures
    They are so moved and touched and delighted :heart:
    The baby will be so lucky to have such a supportive and loving family :heart:
    I'm so happy for them,they became parents and you can see their happiness and affection shining through
    This picture is like any other picture of any other loving family, straight or homosexual ...

    Seeing them happy now doesn't mean they'll be happy a week later for example; neither does it mean they'll be a "loving" family in the future ...


    It's nice to see, don't get me wrong, but don't you think families should be surveyed more?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    Gay marriage goes hand in hand with gay adoption, but not necessarily in all cases.


    • An astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

    http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...-marriage.html

    I've taken this example as a non-religious case against gay marriage.

    I don't need, or want anyone to start bringing up the oh-so-common excuse that "not all heterosexual couples look after their children the right way" ... This arguably a tiny proportion on global scale - the fact that being a child in a gay or lesbian couple increases your chance of sexual abuse by tenfold is quite alarming to say the least.
    That article is such bull****. It's a right wing website, with no unbiased references to back up the points made. Actual studies have shown that children of homosexual parents do just as well, if not better, than children of heterosexual parents.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thenumber2goose)
    That article is such bull****. It's a right wing website, with no unbiased references to back up the points made. Actual studies have shown that children of homosexual parents do just as well, if not better, than children of heterosexual parents.
    Having two fathers is effectively putting a child into an environment with no female figure ... same goes the other way.

    Ever dated a girl, or a guy (depending on which way you swing), who's parents were divorced since a young age, or something similar? Ever noticed how different they are to children who have been brought up by 2 loving parents - their parents being a man and a woman?

    Well there's the fact right there ... this child will grow up differently to how it would have grown up in a straight household - denying this is delusion ... I'm not saying it'll be a bad up bringing, it could be perfectly fine for all I know, but it'll be different.

    If I was brought up in a gay household rather than a straight one that I have been, there's a high probability that I would be different - same goes for you.

    We could compare this whole instance with religion: why should an innocent child be brought up in a household and forced to follow it? Why should he have to believe there is a God, that he needs to pray all the time and go to church?! He's his own individual mind who should be able to make decisions by his own ... this is why I'm against gay adoption from such an age ... this kid is born into a world, into a family he might not want to be part of. Abortion is another example I could bring up ... but I wont go into detail about that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    adjective
    1. conforming to the standard or the common type

    A gay couple is not a normal couple. This is a fact. The issue isn't over normal but over whether this is good. This is not the normal way to raise a child, doesn't mean it can't be good.
    Well, if I will ask for a definition, olols.

    (Original post by limetang)
    Then you're lying. It isn't normal... Good? Yeh probably, the child looks like it'll be brought up in a loving home. Normal? Not at all.
    I can assure you I'm not lying. I don't see how that's any more 'abnormal' than if we were to remove the other man from the picture and assume the child belonged to a heterosexual couple. What isn't 'normal' about a father holding their newborn baby? 'Cause that's all I see in the picture.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    Having two fathers is effectively putting a child into an environment with no female figure ... same goes the other way.

    Ever dated a girl, or a guy (depending on which way you swing), who's parents were divorced since a young age, or something similar? Ever noticed how different they are to children who have been brought up by 2 loving parents - their parents being a man and a woman?

    Well there's the fact right there ... this child will grow up differently to how it would have grown up in a straight household - denying this is delusion ... I'm not saying it'll be a bad up bringing, it could be perfectly fine for all I know, but it'll be different.

    If I was brought up in a gay household rather than a straight one that I have been, there's a high probability that I would be different - same goes for you.

    We could compare this whole instance with religion: why should an innocent child be brought up in a household and forced to follow it? Why should he have to believe there is a God, that he needs to pray all the time and go to church?! He's his own individual mind who should be able to make decisions by his own ... this is why I'm against gay adoption from such an age ... this kid is born into a world, into a family he might not want to be part of. Abortion is another example I could bring up ... but I wont go into detail about that.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2013-0377

    "Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents."

    So you'll admit you're talking bull now?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swan stardust)
    My reaction would be the same whether the couple was a man with a woman,a woman with a woman or a man with a man.
    Of course i don't know how things will be in the future,i just felt the need to write how delighted and touched they look in these pictures
    What exactly do you mean when writing families should be surveyed more?
    I'm passive when I see pictures like this ... I'm neither happy nor am angry - to be honest, I couldn't care less.

    I wrote it upon the assumption that these parents won't be monitored for a short amount of time. I mean you get it in adoption: you go through a long process where social workers will "study" you and check that the child will be "suitable" for your world ... I'm just wondering if gay parents will be monitored the same way, before and after.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    Having two fathers is effectively putting a child into an environment with no female figure ... same goes the other way.

    Ever dated a girl, or a guy (depending on which way you swing), who's parents were divorced since a young age, or something similar? Ever noticed how different they are to children who have been brought up by 2 loving parents - their parents being a man and a woman?

    Well there's the fact right there ... this child will grow up differently to how it would have grown up in a straight household - denying this is delusion ... I'm not saying it'll be a bad up bringing, it could be perfectly fine for all I know, but it'll be different.

    If I was brought up in a gay household rather than a straight one that I have been, there's a high probability that I would be different - same goes for you.

    We could compare this whole instance with religion: why should an innocent child be brought up in a household and forced to follow it? Why should he have to believe there is a God, that he needs to pray all the time and go to church?! He's his own individual mind who should be able to make decisions by his own ... this is why I'm against gay adoption from such an age ... this kid is born into a world, into a family he might not want to be part of. Abortion is another example I could bring up ... but I wont go into detail about that.
    I'll also just leave this here.

    http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/arti...ticleID=156530

    "The author reports on 37 children who are being raised by female homosexuals or by parents who have changed sex (transsexuals): 21 by female homosexuals, 7 by male-to-female transsexuals, and 9 by female- to-male transsexuals. The children range in age from 3 to 20 years (mean = 9.3) and have lived in the sexually atypical households for 1- 16 years (mean = 4.9). Thirty-six of the children report or recall childhood toy, game, clothing, and peer group preferences that are typical for their sex. The 13 older children who report erotic fantasies or overt sexual behaviors are all heterosexually oriented."

    It's much easier (and more logical) to form an opinion based on fact that blind conjecture darling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thenumber2goose)
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2013-0377

    "Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents."

    So you'll admit you're talking bull now?

    Your link didn't work.

    It's not "bull" ... it's what I believe to be true - and I'm surely not the only person to believe this either.

    Well-being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.

    I don't think you quite understood my paragraph ...

    By me saying it'll "change" the way they are is NOTHING bad.

    Adopting a child from Africa and bringing them to Western Civilization will change then, but in a good way - this is roughly what I'm getting at.

    Taking a child of 10, who hasn't fully mentally "figured him/herself out", and moving him into a gay household WILL change him for the worse, or for the best.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    Gay marriage goes hand in hand with gay adoption, but not necessarily in all cases.


    • An astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

    http://www.theimaginativeconservativ...-marriage.html

    I've taken this example as a non-religious case against gay marriage.

    I don't need, or want anyone to start bringing up the oh-so-common excuse that "not all heterosexual couples look after their children the right way" ... This arguably a tiny proportion on global scale - the fact that being a child in a gay or lesbian couple increases your chance of sexual abuse by tenfold is quite alarming to say the least.
    How awkward that you a) thought anyone would consider that a credible source and b) didn't think anyone would actually look where you got the statistic from - it is a claim about children of lesbian mothers, not all homosexual parents. Don't tell me you missed that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thenumber2goose)
    I'll also just leave this here.

    http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/arti...ticleID=156530

    "The author reports on 37 children who are being raised by female homosexuals or by parents who have changed sex (transsexuals): 21 by female homosexuals, 7 by male-to-female transsexuals, and 9 by female- to-male transsexuals. The children range in age from 3 to 20 years (mean = 9.3) and have lived in the sexually atypical households for 1- 16 years (mean = 4.9). Thirty-six of the children report or recall childhood toy, game, clothing, and peer group preferences that are typical for their sex. The 13 older children who report erotic fantasies or overt sexual behaviors are all heterosexually oriented."

    It's much easier (and more logical) to form an opinion based on fact that blind conjecture darling.

    You haven't understood my point 'darling'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Ohhh lets see, the fact that I've not seen any evidence that those who have grown up without a mother but with adoptive parents are as a result of that disadvantaged in some way.
    Who said they were disadvantaged? Nobody. My main argument is no newborn should be denied by their maternal love of their biological mother unless extenuating circumstances

    So your high moral stance on saying that one should not support the meat industry is to eat chicken. Nice try. Calling bull**** (once more).
    Calling bull**** on what exactly? I'm against the actions of the meat industry yes. However I'm not stupid and know even if I didn't eat it the industry would still exist. Therefore I will eat it because until attitudes as a whole change the industry continues. Yes I'm a pollotarian and have been for quite a while now.

    So, you're continuing to accept a premise that those who grow up without their biological mothers are inherently ****ed.
    No you assumed that by going on an idiotic and overly emotional tirade against a point you quite evidently didn't grasp.



    Here's some food for thought:
    I went to school with someone who lost their mother very early on. They had their brothers and father take care of them and bring them up. At no point did this child stand out. Good grades, mature when they needed to be. Whilst I didn't get on with them they were pretty popular.

    At no point did they seem to be at a disadvantage as a result.
    So because they have the same opportunities later on and aren't disadvantaged its fine to deny them their maternal bond? Wow just wow.

    But don't worry, I'll send them a facebook message correcting them, and tell them that they are inherent disadvantaged and that they are not the same as me.
    Nobody said such. You assumed such. I'm saying it is wrong to deny a child its natural maternal bond with its biological mother by allowing adoption by anyone so early. I stand by that statement. Does that mean its life is going to be ****ed? No as variable factors will decide that. Still doesn't mean its fine to deny a child that maternal bond with its biological mother early on. Those precious moments and that precious bond is exactly that, precious.


    (Original post by redferry)
    So my brother being taken from his biological parents with learning difficulties who couldn't even look after themselves, lived in squalour and had already had three kids removed and been prosecuted for animal neglect was disgusting was it? Riiiiight.

    By the way, he isn't damaged, before you ask.
    When was he taken? Straight from birth? Also, the circumstances you've put forward are extreme. Nowhere did I suggest it would lead to someone being damaged either. Yet more sensationalism. You do this constantly with every argument you try and put forward. Please don't quote me anymore. You made it evidently clear previously you didn't wish to engage in discussion with me yet you have done here. Why have you gone back on that?


    (Original post by Freudian Slip)
    I never said 'nature intended it', I just don't see why people are so keen to slam same-sex couples for wanting to become parents. I have a heterosexual friend with a young daughter and she's a terrible mother. She takes barely any responsibility for her child and openly admits she was an 'accident' (although she'll prefix that with 'happy' as an afterthought, if you push her on the issue). She's been the same way since her daughter was a babe in arms, so I will have to respectfully disagree with you, I'm afraid.
    Slammed them? I've done nothing of the sort. I am pro nature and nurture. You on the other hand think only nurture is important. I am not ignorant and value both. Even if a mother doesn't want the child she should not deny the child early on. Of course extenuating circumstances can change that.

    Data from early tests of 'maternal deprivation' are, at best, correlational and widely criticised. There are no reasons two men or women could not fulfil the role of providing support and stimulation for a child that a mother or heterosexual couple could.
    Many studies have shown how important it is. For the matter as well I don't think single heterosexual men should be allowed to adopt so soon either because again it deprives the child of a natural maternal bond.


    (Original post by joey11223)
    So you think the meat industry is wrong, but support probably the most intensive and cruel area of it (poultry production), you think supermarket chains are wrong, but will shop at them anyway. You think puppies being taken early are wrong...but guess you'd take one for the right price? So really...you stand for nothing? Words..but no action.
    Are you a vegan? If we all had that attitude nobody would do anything. I don't support it at all. If I did I would be out with a sign supporting it. The industry would still exist even if I stopped eating chicken.

    Maybe you will let a child stay with an manically depressive drug addict who will probably starve the baby, so y'know it can bond with its biological mother, because clearly there's no way a child can survive without being able to do that.
    No I wouldn't. You have used an extreme example to try and argue your point. Its like me trying to use an example of a mother of 10 from a daily mail article to try and bash benefits claimants. It's a wishy washy argument.

    I imagine you'll stand by your convictions when it suits, which I imagine is when it involves homosexuals wanting a child.
    No. That's an assumption you have made. I don't agree with a child being denied the love of their biological mother early on even if the child is going to a single person or heterosexual couple. My argument has more to do with the child and nature/nurture as opposed to who the adoptees are.

    EDIT: Oh hey quoted you twice, didn't realise lol. Don't take it personally bro, I'd hug you if you were within reach (no homo of course).
    Well I'm not. I have no issue whatsoever with homosexual people or them adopting. I have no issue with any decent people adopting. What I do have issue with is the people who think that it is fine to deny a child that early maternal bond with its biological mother. This is a living thing and not a gift that can just exchange hands just like that.

    I despair with people in Britain at times - so focused on money, materialism, celebrity culture, being right and trying to enforce equality through hypocritically illiberal measures that some forget how to even be human anymore.

    Even this woman who has worked in the industry and knows vehemently more than you on the subject agrees.

    http://m.golocalprov.com/news/julia-...ent-their-kids
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    How awkward that you a) thought anyone would consider that a credible source and b) didn't think anyone would actually look where you got the statistic from - it is a claim about children of lesbian mothers, not all homosexual parents. Don't tell me you missed that.

    So what? My point still stands.

    Even if there were a fully credible source out there with actual scientific studies, NO ONE here would pay attention to it - fact.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Illogical statement. Did you not sit GCSE biology in school? You're essentially denying biological norms to try and carry your argument. Same sex couples can't have children. Women have children. These sane sex couples adopt like many different sex couples do.
    Stop being so patronising. Times have changed, gay couples can have a child. It's time you accept that fact.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    You haven't understood my point 'darling'
    Your point, as I understand it, was that children brought up with homosexual parents will be different in some way.

    Your point was based on nothing more than opinion and an incredibly biased right-wing website.

    I have provided unbiased evidence that completely disproves your point.

    So...yeah.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    ...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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

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