Suicide bomb gang guilty of plotting 'worst ever terror attack in Britain'

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fair enough. I suppose a same sex adoption would affect different children differently. Some would grow up fine with it, others probably would not. I think everything else being equal a heterosexual couple adopting will have less problems than a homosexual couple adopting. Again, this will probably differ child to child and area to area. A child being adopted by a nice upper middle class gay couple in London will probably find it easier than one brought up by a gay couple in a working class area of Barnsley. In Barnsley it really would be a social experiment.

Personally Jason, I found your argument a touch contradictory in that you were talking about the inherent nature of parenthood as dictated by sexual orientation, but then suggested there was nothing inherent in sexual orientation.

Closed on one side of the coin; open on the other.

I would argue that both sides are open, which is why I could see your point on choice with regard to the latter.

[Ally]

I dont have a problem with it, please stop suggesting I do. What two adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. It does matter however when they want to have kids.

Ah I see. So how far does that policy extend? Should people who believe in open marriages not be allowed to have kids? How about S&M? Light bondage? Spankers? Porn watchers? Anyone who doesn't believe in missionary position, lights out, with your eyes closed? If Hubby wants to have 3 way with his wife and her best friend? No kids for them? Should the NHS make them fill out a questionaire as to their preferred styles and positions and toys?

Since what one chooses to behind closed doors should never be on display before the kids in any overt fashion, what precise difference does the gender of the participants involved make? Who are you to decide which sexual proclivities rules one out for parenting? Who's to say we wouldn't look at your sex life and feel you are not suitable for raising kids?

[jason_c]

Of course many people are not wired gay. The vast majority of the population is wired straight.

Then there are the second largest population of people who have some flexibility as they are wired somewhere in between gay and straight and have more options in picking a partner.This is the sole place where "choice" comes in.

But if you have a problem with this, as Jason seems to, then in reality you are placing your own irrational judgment on people. Let's say someone is wired 50/50 down the line with them being equally attracted to male and female partners. They have an absolute "choice" in which way to go for a lifelong partner.

What difference does it make, really, if they pick the "gay" relationship as opposed to the "straight" relationship? Who cares? Other than the homophobes.

I dont have a problem with it, please stop suggesting I do. What two adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. It does matter however when they want to have kids.

[jason_c]

Jason,

I can't agree that a child is better placed with a hetrosexual couple than with a same sex couple.

Where I do have more sympathy with your arguments is the idea that being gay is a choice. Let's not forget that the Americans are very much like the Germans when it comes to ideas surrounding nature and being born a certain way.

I suspect that many people are not 'wired' gay.

Fair enough. I suppose a same sex adoption would affect different children differently. Some would grow up fine with it, others probably would not. I think everything else being equal a heterosexual couple adopting will have less problems than a homosexual couple adopting. Again, this will probably differ child to child and area to area. A child being adopted by a nice upper middle class gay couple in London will probably find it easier than one brought up by a gay couple in a working class area of Barnsley. In Barnsley it really would be a social experiment.

[Phil H]

What nice people you all are!!!

[Ally]

Jason,

I can't agree that a child is better placed with a hetrosexual couple than with a same sex couple.

Where I do have more sympathy with your arguments is the idea that being gay is a choice. Let's not forget that the Americans are very much like the Germans when it comes to ideas surrounding nature and being born a certain way.

I suspect that many people are not 'wired' gay.

Of course many people are not wired gay. The vast majority of the population is wired straight.

Then there are the second largest population of people who have some flexibility as they are wired somewhere in between gay and straight and have more options in picking a partner.This is the sole place where "choice" comes in.

But if you have a problem with this, as Jason seems to, then in reality you are placing your own irrational judgment on people. Let's say someone is wired 50/50 down the line with them being equally attracted to male and female partners. They have an absolute "choice" in which way to go for a lifelong partner.

What difference does it make, really, if they pick the "gay" relationship as opposed to the "straight" relationship? Who cares? Other than the homophobes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Jason,

I can't agree that a child is better placed with a hetrosexual couple than with a same sex couple.

Where I do have more sympathy with your arguments is the idea that being gay is a choice. Let's not forget that the Americans are very much like the Germans when it comes to ideas surrounding nature and being born a certain way.

I suspect that many people are not 'wired' gay.

[jason_c]

Let jason have some space folks.

I know he's on the ropes, but I also think he may now have glimpsed why his position is unsustainable. To go on at him might just make him cling even more stubbornly to the untenable.

Phil

Thank you for your concern, Phil. As far as adoption goes I can be persuaded that im wrong. I note one of my first statements on the issue on page 9 of this thread "Should gays be allowed to adopt?....My leaning is towards no they should not". Ive since given my reasons; adoption agencies are so strict on pairing the right child with the right couple - strict pairing with regards to race, culture, education, health etc. The theory behind this seems to be that it is otherwise detrimental to the child not to have such strict standards. I cannot understand then why adoption authorities(and casebook posters) willingly throw aside the sexuality issue as possibly being detrimental to a child. For this I have been called homophobic, and noticed a few other jibes in my direction.

However, my mind is far more made up on the issue of infertility treatment for gays/lesbians. Here we are talking about a publicly funded health care that is rationed every day in every hospital. However, I have no right to stop these same people paying privately for this treatment.

[Ally]

Fat people are already discriminated against in terms of adoption. Though im not sure if this is official policy throughout the UK, or simply on a local authority basis.

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.440812

And way to cherry pick out a word, and present an argument that is irrelevant. Unless you agree with fat people being discriminated against due to the potential of the bullying their children might endure, what's your point?

[Ally]

Let jason have some space folks.

I know he's on the ropes, but I also think he may now have glimpsed why his position is unsustainable. To go on at him might just make him cling even more stubbornly to the untenable.

Phil

Uh, why do I care what someone clings to or why? I am not the savior of the world out to convince people to play nice and be kind and share their cookies.

This is a discussion, not an intervention.

[jason_c]

Oh, bullying. I see. So kids get bullied if their parents are fat. Should no fat people be allowed to adopt? Kids get bullied if their parents are garbage collectors. Should no garbage collectors be allowed to adopt? Cafeteria workers? Kids get bullied if their parents drive an ugly car. Should we vet the kinds of cars that adoptive parents are allowed to have? I mean, in the interests of preventing all this bullying. Children can have male and female influences in their lives, without having to actually live with one of each. What about soldiers? I mean should we not allow soldiers and their spouses to adopt since there exists the possibility that there will only be a single-sexed influencer as the soldier may be out of the country for years on end? Or die, leaving only a sole gender influencer?



Gay relationships are "far more likely to break-up than heterosexual ones"?? !!! Really, do tell me where you picked up that bit of research? I mean the divorce rate amongst hetero couples is outrageous, and that's even when you take into account that many people aren't even bothering to get married now, so their break ups aren't even counted. But please, do lay out your figures and facts for "gay relationships are far more likely to break up" because I have not been able to find a single statistical source that proves your claim.




Yes absolutely because goodness knows you can just talk any old straight guy into going down on another guy, given the proper upbringing. All's it takes is a really convincing argument.

Fat people are already discriminated against in terms of adoption. Though im not sure if this is official policy throughout the UK, or simply on a local authority basis.

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.440812

[Phil H]

Let jason have some space folks.

I know he's on the ropes, but I also think he may now have glimpsed why his position is unsustainable. To go on at him might just make him cling even more stubbornly to the untenable.

Phil

[Ally]

Bullying, and the fact that children ideally need both a male and female influences on there lives are the two main reasons im against gay adoption.

Oh, bullying. I see. So kids get bullied if their parents are fat. Should no fat people be allowed to adopt? Kids get bullied if their parents are garbage collectors. Should no garbage collectors be allowed to adopt? Cafeteria workers? Kids get bullied if their parents drive an ugly car. Should we vet the kinds of cars that adoptive parents are allowed to have? I mean, in the interests of preventing all this bullying. Children can have male and female influences in their lives, without having to actually live with one of each. What about soldiers? I mean should we not allow soldiers and their spouses to adopt since there exists the possibility that there will only be a single-sexed influencer as the soldier may be out of the country for years on end? Or die, leaving only a sole gender influencer?

Also, the fact that gay relationships are far more likely to break-up than heterosexual ones. Though as I said earlier, gay adoption within an extended family is probably preferable for a child than long term institutionalisation.

Gay relationships are "far more likely to break-up than heterosexual ones"?? !!! Really, do tell me where you picked up that bit of research? I mean the divorce rate amongst hetero couples is outrageous, and that's even when you take into account that many people aren't even bothering to get married now, so their break ups aren't even counted. But please, do lay out your figures and facts for "gay relationships are far more likely to break up" because I have not been able to find a single statistical source that proves your claim.

There's all of of stuff that leads to the sexuality of an individual. Genes and upbringing being two of them.

Yes absolutely because goodness knows you can just talk any old straight guy into going down on another guy, given the proper upbringing. All's it takes is a really convincing argument.

[jason_c]

And yet, you completely avoid the question. What precisely makes you think straight parents are more "suitable" than gay parents. Other than a mistaken assumption that all kids being placed for adoption must be straight, which frankly is not supported by fact. If having straight parents would alleviate "confusion" over sexual identity in your mind, why are there any gay people at all?

What makes straight parents more "suitable" than gay parents?

Bullying, and the fact that children ideally need both a male and female influences on there lives are the two main reasons im against gay adoption. Also, the fact that gay relationships are far more likely to break-up than heterosexual ones. Though as I said earlier, gay adoption within an extended family is probably preferable for a child than long term institutionalisation.

There's all of of stuff that leads to the sexuality of an individual. Genes and upbringing being two of them. I don't think there is an absolute answer for yourl question on "why there are any gay people at all?" There are a multitude of explanations as to the origins of a sexual fetish in a person. I suspect the same is true for homosexuality.

[Ally]

And yet, you completely avoid the question. What precisely makes you think straight parents are more "suitable" than gay parents. Other than a mistaken assumption that all kids being placed for adoption must be straight, which frankly is not supported by fact. If having straight parents would alleviate "confusion" over sexual identity in your mind, why are there any gay people at all?

What makes straight parents more "suitable" than gay parents?