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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NicCx)
    Stop being so patronising. Times have changed, gay couples can have a child. It's time you accept that fact.
    No they can't. They can adopt but can't have. Neither can a single heterosexual man have a child.

    They can adopt a child someone else has had but they cannot have one themselves. I didn't decide that. Nature did. Don't get mad at me for understanding this.

    I have no issues with anyone adopting as long as they're decent people and as long as the child has been allowed to bond with its biological mother first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thenumber2goose)
    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.
    My point on children brought up in a gay marriage will be different in some way WAS SOLELY ME - not a website.

    So you're telling me a child born with a single father, or a single mother will be the same as someone brought up in a "loving" gay family or a hetero one?!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    No they can't. They can adopt but can't have. Neither can a single heterosexual man have a child.

    They can adopt a child someone else has had but they cannot have one themselves. I didn't decide that. Nature did. Don't get mad at me for understanding this.

    I have no issues with anyone adopting as long as they're decent people and as long as the child has been allowed to bond with its biological mother first.
    You clearly do have a problem with it by trying to be a smart Alec and picking out little words and making an issue from it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swan stardust)
    Every couple-no matter their sexual orientation-who wishes to adopt,should be monitored.
    I don't see why the sexual orientation of parents would stop social workers from making sure they are able to raise a child.
    When raising a child,sexual orientation is irrelevant,all that matters is to give lots of love to the new family member
    I stand my previous point given out to another TSR poster ... Being born in a gay household has some relevance to how that child will grow up to be when they're older - be it good or bad. But, of course financial stability and love are major concerns too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    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.
    Your point was that children of gay and lesbian couples are ten times more likely to be sexually abused. A claim that is false. Even the source you thought you lifted it from proves it false. If they could make the same claim about male homosexual couples, they would have done. That much is abundantly clear.

    And you should know that you cannot imagine up ridiculous claims and expect people to take them seriously 'because even if there were any evidence, people would ignore it'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Franglais)
    My point on children brought up in a gay marriage will be different in some way WAS SOLELY ME - not a website.

    So you're telling me a child born with a single father, or a single mother will be the same as someone brought up in a "loving" gay family or a hetero one?!
    I'm not telling you anything; I prefer to look at the evidence. It is true that children brought up by one parent tend to have more "issues". However, this does not hold true for homosexual parents.

    Thus, we can conclude that it is the lack of stability in a single parent family that causes said issues, not the gender of the parent(s).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xcalibur)
    God designed it so that only a woman can give birth with a man. So why should homosexuals be able to have children?
    God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....


    (He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thenumber2goose)
    Ikr, the kid will be one of the few to have two parents there among the droves of single parents. So weird.
    Speak for yourself.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    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.

    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.
    I never said you did, I was referring to the people who have openly done so throughout the course of this thread. You presume far too much... I've never stated that I don't value 'nature', merely that it's not the be-all and end-all when it comes to child rearing.

    The 'maternal deprivation' and surrounding theories was based on a series of largely discredited assumptions - disregarding 'natural mothers', 'fathers' and a range of other contributing factors - the effects of which aren't as inevitable as you appear to think they are.
    Offline

    3
    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.




    If nature intended for 2 same sex people to have children, why can't they? Unless you have made a breakthrough in the field of biology then there is no chance of what you said happening.

    I don't see the issues with same sex couples adopting but at the same time I think like with any adoption the child should be with its mother in the early stages and adopted after a certain period of time. The maternal bond especially in the early stages is important. To deny a child this is quite frankly disgusting and disturbing because nature and nurture are both as important and to dismiss one in favour of the other is beyond absurd.


    Can't believe you wish to deny a child the right to its natural and biological mother who due to being his natural mother can nurture the child maternally in a way no man can (its proven the maternal bond early on can be key to development later) and you wish to deny a child this for what you believe are societal advancements in the modern world....

    I find that quite disturbing.
    just a side note, not sure what religion you are but doesnt you god also deny some children their mothers, i.e wars and conception problems? + pretty sure some orphans have grew up and turned out alright?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AcronymOfHashtag)
    God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....


    (He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)
    AHAHAHAHAHA, literally spilt coffe on my laptop reading this
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Limpopo)
    It is abnormal and unnatural for two men to procure a child in this manner.
    It's also 'unnatural' to give a child Christmas presents, or for a child to wear socks, or for a child to have a bath. I don't see anyone complaining about that. So shhhh
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NicCx)
    You clearly do have a problem with it by trying to be a smart Alec and picking out little words and making an issue from it.
    No I do not at all so stop making silly claims. There's nothing at all to do with being a smart Alec. Its biological fact. Let me ask you have you ever seen a single man of any sexuality give birth/have a child? The answer is no.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilyobz)
    just a side note, not sure what religion you are but doesnt you god also deny some children their mothers, i.e wars and conception problems? + pretty sure some orphans have grew up and turned out alright?
    I'm not religious. Im a staunch atheist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AcronymOfHashtag)
    God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....


    (He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)
    He also impregnated a 14 year old girl without her permission in a time when everyone would accuse her of adultery and possibly kill her.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    Gay adoption is too new to actually see what it does to the child in the long term. Let's see.



    Just because there's nothing wrong about something, doesn't necessarily make it right.


    This is my opinion, so I don't need replies to my post. Thanks.
    Are you incapable of reading. People were claiming that it was wrong for those reasons. My post was very obviously about that as it quoted them. Go look up the word 'context' before making posts and stop reading mine out of that said word.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AcronymOfHashtag)
    God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....


    (He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)
    Just leave him alone. He can't and doesn't even know how to back up his claims.

    Btw, brilliant post!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    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


    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.


    No you assumed that by going on an idiotic and overly emotional tirade against a point you quite evidently didn't grasp.




    So because they have the same opportunities later on and aren't disadvantaged its fine to deny them their maternal bond? Wow just wow.



    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.

    Either they are disadvantaged as a result of not being around their mother or they are not.
    You have stated again and again that you think this is the case. But when we look at the information you fail to ever come up with a child being disadvantaged. Either it's such a strong disadvantage that there needs to be some natural right (which not everyone agrees there even are natural rights, so just assuming that there are and this is one of them is plainly stupid) OR if there is a disadvantage it's very small.

    As children are not automatically autonomous are you also going to pander to their natural right to be brought up without junk food until they can decide if they want junk food or not? I mean it's bad for you so having it is a disadvantage.

    Finally, on the meat industry:
    The fewer consumers it has the smaller it is. You can't claim that you think it's terrible but that you'll still give it your money because you enjoy it (and why else would you give it your money) without sounding like an idiot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Either they are disadvantaged as a result of not being around their mother or they are not.
    No. You think this is all to do with advantages and disadvantages. Its not. Its about maternal love which you wish to deny certain children.

    You have stated again and again that you think this is the case. But when we look at the information you fail to ever come up with a child being disadvantaged. Either it's such a strong disadvantage that there needs to be some natural right (which not everyone agrees there even are natural rights, so just assuming that there are and this is one of them is plainly stupid) OR if there is a disadvantage it's very small.
    No I did not so stop lying. You've completely missed the point. I think its important that a child has the maternal bond and love with its biological mother. Does this mean the child will be disadvantaged later in life? No. Never claimed it did.

    As children are not automatically autonomous are you also going to pander to their natural right to be brought up without junk food until they can decide if they want junk food or not? I mean it's bad for you so having it is a disadvantage.
    Children should eat natural food yes.

    Finally, on the meat industry:
    The fewer consumers it has the smaller it is. You can't claim that you think it's terrible but that you'll still give it your money because you enjoy it (and why else would you give it your money) without sounding like an idiot.
    Yes I can. Many others do as well. Just because you disagree with something it does not mean you have to take a moral stand against it. If I took a moral stand against everything I objected to then I'd have bugger all time to live my life. Do you take a moral stand against everything you disagree with? Clearly not. Nobody does. Sometimes in life you just have to get on with things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarcasticMel)
    Enough said. You don't see the guy or girl in a normal couple topless usually.
    Normal couple?

    But yes actually you do. It's a common thing and I'm surprised at the amount of people on here that are unaware of it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • 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.