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

The bullying argument against gay adoption... Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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 point that I was clearly making, one which you are obviously far too obtuse to realise, is that a child of gay adoptive parents has the potential to have a much more 'stable' upbringing than a child born as a result of an unplanned pregnancy may do. This is because the child is actively planned for and very much wanted by the adoptive parents, due to the ability to have a child being very much more difficult in comparison to heterosexual parents.

    Thus, there are many situations which may result in an unsuitable environment to bring up a child. Having gay parents doesn't automatically result in such an environment. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, research has proved that the converse is often true.


    Merry Christmas.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellrosk)
    Can you link me to this article please?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_pa...or_of_children

    Stacey and Biblarz have found that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles. For example, male children are found to be less aggressive and more nurturing, while female children are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers and engineers. In two studies, a greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had also participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex. These studies did not find that the children were any more likely to identify as homosexual. Stacey is careful to note that "a difference is not necessarily a deficit."[35]

    http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sezy)
    The point that I was clearly making, one which you are obviously far too obtuse to realise, is that a child of gay adoptive parents has the potential to have a much more 'stable' upbringing than a child born as a result of an unplanned pregnancy may do. This is because the child is actively planned for and very much wanted by the adoptive parents, due to the ability to have a child being very much more difficult in comparison to heterosexual parents.

    Thus, there are many situations which may result in an unsuitable environment to bring up a child. Having gay parents doesn't automatically result in such an environment. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, research has proved that the converse is often true.


    Merry Christmas.
    I have explained my answer to this earlier in the thread and really can't be bothered to repeat myself or quote my response.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Koobideh)
    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.
    You didn't seriously just quote the family research council as a source of evidence? Dear god.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_pa...or_of_children

    Stacey and Biblarz have found that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles. For example, male children are found to be less aggressive and more nurturing, while female children are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers and engineers. In two studies, a greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had also participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex. These studies did not find that the children were any more likely to identify as homosexual. Stacey is careful to note that "a difference is not necessarily a deficit."[35]

    http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html
    I fail to see how this is remotely negative? Men become more nurturing and women more aspirational? This is not evidence to oppose gay adoption at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellrosk)
    I fail to see how this is remotely negative? Men become more nurturing and women more aspirational? This is not evidence to oppose gay adoption at all.
    I did't say it was?
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by Anonymous)
      Ewww two fag dads? I'd probably beat the **** out of them
      i doubt you could. fag dads work out at the gym 24/7 so they'd kick your puny little ass.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Converse)
      Not when it stems from an idiot talking about a family accidentally having kids. Nice try at manipulating the thread, but you have failed.
      As I have previously explained, I clearly used 'accidental' in reference to an unplanned pregnancy.
      It think it is you who are the idiot, if you failed to grasp that simple concept.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Koobideh)
      It's totally irrelevant because they didn't make those studies. All they did was post the statistics from other organizations who collected this data, and those organizations are fair and balanced. Everything on the page is well sourced. I personally got no problem with gays, but I can admit they do not have normal relationships by normal standards. I know many gay people, so I knew this even before reading any statistics, I even got a gay guy living in my house..
      There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

      Firstly, 'fair and balanced' depends on a societies views, science is in now way objective, the way we categorise things, decide what is or isn't important is dependent on society, culture and person.

      More than that segregating them as 'gays' is an odd divide to make. How much our sexuality is an important part of our identity beyond our careers, what TV programs we watch etc. is surely down to the individual. Yet society prescribes it as an important point to recognise.


      I wonder what Foucault and Butler would say about that.

      Then we have to ask where this generalisation comes from that "they" don't have "normal" relationships. Is that true of all 'gays'? Moreover is that necessarily true? It's very hard to make generalisations like that stick.

      I'm not sure it's possible for any study based around the way humans act to be 'fair'. For starters we have to ask how society moulds us as people, how it may effect us.
      If we take a look at the sex divide of males and females and the way they've been just accepted with ideas of female brains being smaller etc. And size being relative to body not being taken into account, we have to be very careful with studies of this sort.

      For example:
      “It had been thought that the frontal lobes were on average larger in men than in women. Later ... it was asserted that the frontal lobes were on average smaller in men than in women but that the parietal lobes (at the back of the brain) were on average larger in men than in women... many scientists immediately switched their argument to say that larger frontal lobes do not indicate superior intelligence, but that the parietal lobes were more important.”

      Assumptions like this have been made for a long time, and continue to be made in many studies. It's very dangerous to claim that studies of these kinds of things are 'fair'.

      How much assumptions are made, how much society says in moulding us are often factors that are simply overlooked. Is the cause a 'homosexual relationship' or the way society dictates how 'homosexual relationships' will be?
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Bellrosk)
      I fail to see how this is remotely negative? Men become more nurturing and women more aspirational? This is not evidence to oppose gay adoption at all.
      Careful not to be in a mood where you'll read things with too much of a tint. What you quoted seems to be making a general commentary on gender and how it is either broken or changed as a categorisation. It doesn't seem to make a link to that being negative in any way. That said this is obviously a controversial topic, I'm sure I'll do the same if I haven't already.

      At the very least it's interesting to see how gender is being viewed there.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      My opinion is that if a kid is bullied because he has two dads or two mums then the bully has the problem, not the kid or the parents. Any couple, regardless of whether they're hetero or homo should have the right to adopt because they're just as capale as loving their kid and providing a good home as any other couple. Besides, two mums is better than no mums.

      Even though I say this, if I was in a civil partnership (you never know lol) I'd be hesistant about adopting children because of the worry of bullying :\ but I still think that any couple deserve the right to.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Entangled)
      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
      ...Why would I care how you were raised? What does that have to do with anything?

      (Original post by Entangled)
      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.
      Which is based on the hugely problematic assumptions that
      a) only women can provide 'feminine' influence and only men can provide 'masculine' influence
      b) that it's necessary to have both in our lives, and without them there isn't 'balance' (what a hugely vague term)

      (Original post by Entangled)
      I really don't understand how the traditional patriarch breadwinner and matriarch housekeeper could be considered 'ridiculous.'
      I don't think it's ridiculous. What I think's ridiculous is the assumptions I listed above, and also the assumption that this is the 'norm'. How many people do you know? Do you live in a highly conservative village or something? The majority just don't prescribe to regular gender roles. EVERYONE is an exception. Every single person I know deviates from gender roles in a huge way, whether it's homosexuality, bisexuality, high sensitivity in men, women who are terrible cooks, men who are great cleaners, ambition and power in women, women who don't want to have children, men who want to be house-husbands, women having abortions, promiscuous women- these aren't the minority, this is just what people are like when the pressure of gender roles lessens as it has done in the last century.

      Yes, gender roles are a huge thing, and we are still constrained by them- but they're not the norm, and if they are then nobody is normal. If you really think they are, then you're either deluded or you know some really weird people.

      (Original post by Entangled)
      For the record, men being masculine and women being feminine is what helped evolution tick over nicely.
      ...so?
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by missygeorgia)
      ...so?
      I'm surprised that that's your reaction to that statement, what do you think of the following?

      Gender roles seem to come from how things happened to have been in some societies. The divides and importance in divides is in no way universal. Whilst evolution clearly played a large part in how humans have turned out the cultural aspects aren't a part of that (unless we start subscribing to deterministic theories, but judging from your reply and their post that seems to not be an issue so far).
      In which case the link between evolution and gender roles, being masculine and feminine seem to have a rather large gap between them.

      Obviously there are and probably always will be social divides with what jobs are given etc. However it seems to be a lot less about evolution and more about a society, or at least set of individuals (where one ends and another begins is another debate) survive. There are issues of class within that as well as sex and gender. And what those things mean within each individual society.

      That said obviously there's a danger of the genetic fallacy being used here as well; if that is where gender comes from it may not be the complete content of what it is.

      The way these social divides have occurred isn't in itself a sign that they were the best one for our survival, nor the only thing that could have happened. All it means is these social divides were made, and have manifested themselves and changed into what they are now.

      I should point out I'm not (so far in this post) disagreeing with anything you've said (that I've seen, and I've not seen the full context of the quote you were quoting in that post). I think you'll probably agree largely with what I've put (although it might be more interesting if you don't, you've clearly done a fair bit of reading on this topic), I just felt that maybe that point needed a slightly fuller answer .

      The disagreement I have with you is "the majority just don't prescribe to normal gender roles".
      To an extent that's right, the lines are now a lot more blurred it seems than 50 years ago, but gendered identity is so important now. It's "he" "she" and expectations of what those things entail. It's expected that men don't just wear dresses on an everyday basis and that the ones that do are "feminine" in some way, at least to the extent of when they wear those dresses. As almost a small escape from their gender (unless they feel they're the wrong sex). There are a few exceptions to this but we're talking about the majority view. So anything that comes across as a generalisation here isn't meant in such a context.

      How much can one escape their gender is another question, I think if people subscribe to the idea that they are 'male' or 'female' (in that binary way) then gender becomes inescapable. And if you identify people with sex or gender in mind then the line can become very blurry of which one you mean. There's an element of conformity in this, you'll fit into one gender or another. Now the categorisations obviously have issues, we both know there are exceptions to the rule and that that breaks the rules (for example intersexuals).

      But there we have a prescription that people can't escape. And don't most people find it weird if they ask "are you male or female" to a person in a dress to discover they're male.
      Maybe not where it's the norm, but is that the norm in most of the country?
      People tolerate it, see it as novel, liberating, whatever. How accepting do you think most parents will be if they discover their daughter is playing with action men and is interested in cars, if they are a complete Tomboy and don't show any signs of being feminine at all?
      How many parents do you think will just accept their son dressing up in women's clothes and have a keen interest in women's make up?

      The peer pressure from parenting is of course huge, the pressure of fitting your child in as normal is part of that. I doubt many parents would be that happy with the situations above.

      Interestingly on that front (and stop reading if I'm boring you because this is not nearly as relevant as the rest of my post) a lot of one of my lecturers feminist friends have tried to encourage their daughters to have the option of not having a gender. They've presented them with barbie dolls and action men, not pushed either gender onto them as much as possible. Yet their daughters have taken it to be offensive to be offered the action man or toy car; "why would you think I'd want that? Is there something wrong with me?" in a mixed tone of offence and anger tends to be the reactions.

      Some people on this thread will take that as evidence that gendered behaviour is innate, if anyone on this thread is doing that remember to take into account our own cultures ability to gender others, and the environmental issues instead of just the genetic ones at hand. How a culture is when you grow up will effect what gender is and how it effects different children.

      If you've somehow kept reading this little ramble then I have to say this quote of yours :
      Which is based on the hugely problematic assumptions that
      a) only women can provide 'feminine' influence and only men can provide 'masculine' influence
      b) that it's necessary to have both in our lives, and without them there isn't 'balance' (what a hugely vague term)
      Seems to very neatly get rid of the vast majority of arguments I've seen against 'homosexual couples being allowed to adopt'. It's a very good set of points very concisely put.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Koobideh)
      It's totally irrelevant because they didn't make those studies. All they did was post the statistics from other organizations who collected this data, and those organizations are fair and balanced. Everything on the page is well sourced. I personally got no problem with gays, but I can admit they do not have normal relationships by normal standards. I know many gay people, so I knew this even before reading any statistics, I even got a gay guy living in my house..
      I invite you to define a "normal relationship by normal standards".
      One that involves a male and female (probably from Italy or Argentina) that stay together forever?

      Your claim that all gay relationships don't last long and that gay people are promiscuous remains unjustified. Just because you know "many gay people" certainly does not mean you know them all. The ones you know represent only a tiny fraction of the bigger group and by no means generalise the entire community.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I'm firmly against gay adoption because bullying is almost inevitable, course you could throw in the 'it's the bullies fault' argument, but I would argue that we shouldn't make children scapegoats. Although it's the 21st century, some people still live in the dark ages, plus one common way of dealing with bullying seems to be to deny that it's even happening, 'bullying? not in my school!'.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      What if they molest the children? With gay hands?

      On a serious note, most of the arguments against gay adoption seem to boil down to the vague notion that "it's just not right"
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by anti-duck)
      I'm firmly against gay adoption because bullying is almost inevitable, course you could throw in the 'it's the bullies fault' argument, but I would argue that we shouldn't make children scapegoats. Although it's the 21st century, some people still live in the dark ages, plus one common way of dealing with bullying seems to be to deny that it's even happening, 'bullying? not in my school!'.
      And should we stop fat people, old people, disabled people having kids because those kids get bullied as well?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
      And should we stop fat people, old people, disabled people having kids because those kids get bullied as well?
      I honestly see what you're saying, but people are still very much more closed-minded to gay people than they are to fat (which is almost normal in today's world), old (the majority of the UK is actually 60+) or disabled people. I'm sure people with a sexual preference towards the same gender or even people that identify as the opposite to their birth gender can be equally good parents as any, I just know how devastating bullying can be to a child and until we learn some effective ways to deal with bullying instead of just denying that it even happens (which is my personal experience), then no to gay adoption
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by there's too much love)
      I'm surprised that that's your reaction to that statement, what do you think of the following?

      Gender roles seem to come from how things happened to have been in some societies. The divides and importance in divides is in no way universal. Whilst evolution clearly played a large part in how humans have turned out the cultural aspects aren't a part of that (unless we start subscribing to deterministic theories, but judging from your reply and their post that seems to not be an issue so far).
      In which case the link between evolution and gender roles, being masculine and feminine seem to have a rather large gap between them.

      Obviously there are and probably always will be social divides with what jobs are given etc. However it seems to be a lot less about evolution and more about a society, or at least set of individuals (where one ends and another begins is another debate) survive. There are issues of class within that as well as sex and gender. And what those things mean within each individual society.

      That said obviously there's a danger of the genetic fallacy being used here as well; if that is where gender comes from it may not be the complete content of what it is.

      The way these social divides have occurred isn't in itself a sign that they were the best one for our survival, nor the only thing that could have happened. All it means is these social divides were made, and have manifested themselves and changed into what they are now.

      I should point out I'm not (so far in this post) disagreeing with anything you've said (that I've seen, and I've not seen the full context of the quote you were quoting in that post). I think you'll probably agree largely with what I've put (although it might be more interesting if you don't, you've clearly done a fair bit of reading on this topic), I just felt that maybe that point needed a slightly fuller answer .
      Mostly I pretty much agree with you. Generally I see biological/evolutionary arguments as just a bit of a cop out of what should be a really interesting argument- such as the limp point that I responded to with 'so?' My dismissal was a reaction to the really boring (and incorrect) assumptions that gender roles are 'natural', and that this makes them morally right. Yeah, I think I generally agree with you, but honestly I don't find arguments about evolution/gender roles that relevent most of the time.

      (Original post by there's too much love)

      The disagreement I have with you is "the majority just don't prescribe to normal gender roles".
      To an extent that's right, the lines are now a lot more blurred it seems than 50 years ago, but gendered identity is so important now. It's "he" "she" and expectations of what those things entail. It's expected that men don't just wear dresses on an everyday basis and that the ones that do are "feminine" in some way, at least to the extent of when they wear those dresses. As almost a small escape from their gender (unless they feel they're the wrong sex). There are a few exceptions to this but we're talking about the majority view. So anything that comes across as a generalisation here isn't meant in such a context.

      How much can one escape their gender is another question, I think if people subscribe to the idea that they are 'male' or 'female' (in that binary way) then gender becomes inescapable. And if you identify people with sex or gender in mind then the line can become very blurry of which one you mean. There's an element of conformity in this, you'll fit into one gender or another. Now the categorisations obviously have issues, we both know there are exceptions to the rule and that that breaks the rules (for example intersexuals).

      But there we have a prescription that people can't escape. And don't most people find it weird if they ask "are you male or female" to a person in a dress to discover they're male.
      Maybe not where it's the norm, but is that the norm in most of the country?
      People tolerate it, see it as novel, liberating, whatever. How accepting do you think most parents will be if they discover their daughter is playing with action men and is interested in cars, if they are a complete Tomboy and don't show any signs of being feminine at all?
      How many parents do you think will just accept their son dressing up in women's clothes and have a keen interest in women's make up?

      The peer pressure from parenting is of course huge, the pressure of fitting your child in as normal is part of that. I doubt many parents would be that happy with the situations above.

      Interestingly on that front (and stop reading if I'm boring you because this is not nearly as relevant as the rest of my post) a lot of one of my lecturers feminist friends have tried to encourage their daughters to have the option of not having a gender. They've presented them with barbie dolls and action men, not pushed either gender onto them as much as possible. Yet their daughters have taken it to be offensive to be offered the action man or toy car; "why would you think I'd want that? Is there something wrong with me?" in a mixed tone of offence and anger tends to be the reactions.

      Some people on this thread will take that as evidence that gendered behaviour is innate, if anyone on this thread is doing that remember to take into account our own cultures ability to gender others, and the environmental issues instead of just the genetic ones at hand. How a culture is when you grow up will effect what gender is and how it effects different children.
      Wow, long post. Again, I don't disagree with you. I do think, however, that the gender roles of 'women=cooks and men=diy' that that guy was proposing are practically redundant as real descriptions of people (or at least are just vastly simplified). Gendered identity is of course incredibly important, and we can't escape it- and the stereotypical roles of women=cook men=diy do direct our society in a significant way, but not because people are actually like that. They've become archetypal, and arguably everything that we do is a response to them in some way or another- but they're not actually a reflection of what society is actually like (not any more) as that guy was claiming. They're symbols more than anything, of a 'norm' that isn't actually normal. Our whole society is queer, yet still holds up these stereotypes as some sort of truth.

      So yeah, people do act in response to these roles- girls wear dresses, boys trousers, etc. But in just as much of a widespread and significant way the reaction to stereotypical gender roles is rejection, especially as it becomes more and more socially acceptable to do so. These roles are constantly being subverted. And that's not to say we're escaping them, or that we're able to live our lives outside of gender- of course we can't- but we can and do live our lives within these boundaries whilst pushing and testing them.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by anti-duck)
      I honestly see what you're saying, but people are still very much more closed-minded to gay people than they are to fat (which is almost normal in today's world), old (the majority of the UK is actually 60+) or disabled people. I'm sure people with a sexual preference towards the same gender or even people that identify as the opposite to their birth gender can be equally good parents as any, I just know how devastating bullying can be to a child and until we learn some effective ways to deal with bullying instead of just denying that it even happens (which is my personal experience), then no to gay adoption
      Then it's the attitude that has to change. All banning gay adoption is denormalise being gay. If gay people can't be treated like normal, then people will never become more open minded to the idea of same sex couples.
     
     
     
    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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  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.