And Tasmania suddenly recognises same-sex marriages registered in other states or countries.
Excellent news! One more stupid, pointless barrier against equality falls.
Remind me again why we have to drag this whole thing out? Full equality is inevitable, you know – and I bet the advocates for discrimination know it, too. But it’s like they just want to make gay people suffer for as long as they can possibly get away with it, even knowing they’re going to lose in the end. Spiteful, really.
ELSEWHERE: NSW debates same-sex adoption, as if there were actually any rational arguments against it.
Moved On 
I have no problem with gay marriage but I’m against gay adoptions. We don’t know if this is good for the children or not, and children should not be guinea pigs. (Guinea pigs should not be guinea pigs either, for that matter.)
I’ve done an update about NSW considering same-sex adoption, which makes your comment suddenly relevant to the post.
So, let’s deal with your irrational fear of gay people raising children as if they don’t already do it around the world and in Australia every day with no discernable issues except that lesbian parents apparently raise slightly smarter kids.
What makes you think it puts children at risk?
Kids mock each other over what brand of clothes they wear. Given that, I’d be surprised if they’d be ok with same sex parents. Plus I’ve seen what sociologists (almost all of which are liberals) can do with statistics and it’s not a pretty sight.
Oh, you’re kidding. You’re suggesting we should prohibit same-sex adoption because kids might tease other kids?
Can you imagine how many things we’d have to ban on that standard? Poorer parents. Richer parents. Fatter parents. Thinner parents. Parents with moustaches. Parents with silly laughs. Parents who are overbearing. Parents who are pushovers. Single mothers. Single fathers. Parents who are teachers. Parents who are religious. Parents who drive a crappy car.
I mean, seriously. That is an absurd argument. You are taking the piss, right?
Teasing is a euphemism. Where I grew up kids were sometimes beaten unconscious. And no, I never said I want to prohibit marriage, only adoption.
Your other argument seems to be a silly rant with little substance to it. If you just want to quarrel find someone else to do it with. I’ve said my piece.
The NSW story linked to mention the couple appear to be able to adopt the children individually but not together. Does this indicate single would-be parents could adopt but same-sex couples cannot? If the main argument is around having both a father and a mother, why do church groups not have a problem with this also?
You are supporting a law that discriminates against gay parents. The best reason you’ve given for this is that you think their kids will be “beaten unconscious” by other kids who’ve been taught that there’s something wrong with gay parents, have I got that right?
Not exactly. Yes I suspect these kids will get into trouble but I only mentioned being beaten unconscious because you said “teasing”. Normally, in the schoolyard it will be somewhere between those extremes.
And kids don’t need to be taught that there is something wrong with gay parents. They are as a rule very conformist, I mentioned brand of clothing as an example of that.
Well, quite. So if that’s your rationale for banning gay parents from adopting, what other types of parents should be banned from adopting – or raising their own kids? You know, to avoid the cruelty of kids picking on other kids which you believe can somehow be avoided through legislation.
I think all parents should apply be required to meet some criteria, like not being alcoholics and such. Also I think parenting classe should required to ensure they know the basics. This of course may be hard to implement for political reasons. But that’s not a good reason for allowing gay parents to adopt.
Kids will alway pick on each other, but if we can limit this in certain ways all the better.
Now you’re equating gay couples with alcoholics.
Should we ban muslims from adopting, cos racist kids will tease their kids?
Seriously, your argument is absurd.
Surely you can concede that if that’s all you’ve got, government should not be banning gay adoption.
@Paradigm Are you seriously saying that a kid getting teased about something by his peers is a reason something should be banned? My surname is Rumble. Should I banned from breeding because it’s such an easy name to tease a kid with? That’s about the most random argument ever.
Paradigm, do you have children?
I ask this because I wonder if your bias comes from experience or just what you believe may be the case.
I have two children now in their late teens with the youngest now in the final two years of high school. From when they were in primary school they have been exposed to same-sex parent couples as have their friends (both school and others). Not once in all those years have I heard a single disparaging remark about the children or the parents of those couples. The children have been treated the same as those in ‘normal’ families.
Children’s attitudes come largely from their parents and other adults. I sincerely believe that once opposition to same-sex marriage and adoption is history, then bullying and teasing about these things will also find a place in the dust bin.
It doesn’t take much research to find evidence that children with same-sex parents are no worse off than children with opposite-sex children. There are some studies that show that kids with lesbian parents have actually slight better off outcomes. Here is an example:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
I’m not equating gays with alcoholics. You asked what other types of parents should be banned from adopting and I gave an example. That’s not equating the two. You have all these rights that adults should have but you don’t think much about what happens to the kids. I have always stood out and for that I had to defend myself with my fists on numerous occasions. Other kids who weren’t as big as me got beaten up all the time. I don’t want that for any kid just because gay people want to adopt. Adoptions should be carried out for the sake of the children, not the adults.
Ronson: I don’t have children but like I said, I’ve experienced this sort of thing first hand and I don’t think human nature has changed since then. You read about these cases were kids bully and beat each other up all the time. As for childrens attitudes, I personally think they come from peers rather than parents. There is a lot of research confirming that parents have little influence in this regard. Read Judith Rich Harris “The Nurture Assumption” for instance.
The research you refer to is done by sociologists that abuse science on a daily basis to get the result they decided on beforehand. You can look through all of the internet and you will find these summaries that say everything is fine, but never ever do you get to see the full study. And if you google “gay male parent” you only get a load of studies (summaries) of lesbian parents and how well that turned out. Perhaps you don’t smell a rat here but I do.
“Adoptions should be carried out for the sake of the children, not the adults.”
Sure. Kids need good parents.
You are seeking to exclude good parents despite, apparently, having no rational reason for doing so.
The discrimination here, the unnecessary and artificial removal of good parents from the potential adoption pool, is what’s hurting kids. Not the idea of ending it.
“anti-bullying efforts in schools push gay agenda”
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15928224#ixzz0yA7An2P7
LOL!
According to Focus On Family ministries, homophobic students, teachers and parents all over the country are being bullied by gay rights activists.
Apparently, encouraging tolerance and stopping the bullying of gay students in schools discriminates against peoples right to hold “Christian viewpoints” and such bigots feel they are having the gay agenda forced upon them.
The idea that they are good parents is derived from studies by sociologists who are almost exclusively liberals and in a field so unscientific many sociologist even discard the idea of being scientific. And you never get to review these studies only read their or the liberal media’s summaries of it. That’s your rational basis for assuming they are good parents. And even if they are good parents the other kids probably couldn’t care less.
“The idea that they are good parents is derived from studies by sociologists who are almost exclusively liberals and in a field so unscientific many sociologist even discard the idea of being scientific.”
And, what are your credentials? Or how do you know they are exclusively ‘liberals’, do you know them?
“. That’s your rational basis for assuming they are good parents. ”
It beats the hell put of your suggestion that the law of the land should be dictated by the whims of school kids. How about the little pricks who bully others be held accountable? After all there are enough bigots, we ought to be educating the young so there are less in the future.
“And even if they are good parents the other kids probably couldn’t care less.”
Just reinforcing your ridiculous point?
Duncan: If bullying gay kids is so common do you think bullying kids with gay parents isn’t? Any person who is good parent material would refrain from adopting if they suspected this outcome.
“The idea that they are good parents is derived from studies by sociologists who are almost exclusively liberals and in a field so unscientific many sociologist even discard the idea of being scientific.”
No, the idea that they are JUST AS good parents as heterosexuals is based on there being no evidence to the contrary. The default position, in the absence of any evidence either way, is surely equality.
On what grounds do you assume they’ll be lesser parents?
“That’s your rational basis for assuming they are good parents.”
I’m not “assuming” gay people are automatically “good” parents. I’m saying they’re JUST AS LIKELY to be good parents as heterosexual people. I’m saying no-one has shown how their sexuality has any bearing on their ability to raise children.
Banning gay people from adopting restricts the set of available parents. Unless you have some evidence that they are worse parents than heterosexual couples (and you don’t), then such a rule blocks out good gay parents from the available pool and increases the risk of kids going to bad heterosexual parents.
You’re not denying that there are bad heterosexual parents, are you?
Rob: I’ve seen numerous of sociological studies that are so flawed it’s embarassing. For instance a top name here in Sweden carried out a study that concluded that most women had been the victim of violence from men. It turned out that violence included harsh language. And it’s not even a controversial statement that most sociologists are liberals. Ask around. They will tell you this themselves.
“Duncan: If bullying gay kids is so common do you think bullying kids with gay parents isn’t? Any person who is good parent material would refrain from adopting if they suspected this outcome.”
That’s offensively stupid. Kids get bullied for being muslim, for example. So should muslims refrain from adopting? Should the state BAR muslims from adopting?
Exactly the same logic as your anti-gay position.
Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons, so why not add another? And another? You seem to like care for gay rights just a little bit more than you care for children. And why are you on about Muslims? If it turns out their adopted children get in trouble, sure I would see a problem with that.
“Rob: I’ve seen numerous of sociological studies that are so flawed it’s embarassing. For instance a top name here in Sweden carried out a study that concluded that most women had been the victim of violence from men. It turned out that violence included harsh language.”
So they weren’t wrong then, or are you claiming that verbal violence doesn’t exist, or if it does exist then it’s OK?
“And it’s not even a controversial statement that most sociologists are liberals. Ask around. They will tell you this themselves.”
What’s wrong with being a Liberal, I’m assuming you mean Liberal in the American sense of the word? Basically you’re playing the man, you’re engaging in an ad-hominem attack, you’re dismissing the findings of reports on the basis that you disagree with the authors politics. I’ll ask again, what are your credentials?
Ah, okay, so you have no problem with Muslims being prevented from adopting children, if it can be shown that kids bully Muslim kids?
Right, say children of Christian children were bullied. Should Christians be prevented by government from adopting?
“Any person who is good parent material would refrain from adopting if they suspected this outcome.”
Rubbish.
As has already been pointed out, that argument can be extended to cover almost anything. From the incredibly ugly, to people with silly names or crappy jobs being unable to adopt.
But hey, maybe we can just send all teh gays to an island somewhere where they wont get bullied, and they won’t be source of embarrassment to their families.
This discussion made me think of the children’s book we read to our daughter at least twice a week (she has about 50 books and she is allowed to pick them, so the rotation is quite high!)
It’s Okay to be different, by Todd Parr.
1:18 is the pages of interest.
I think it’s great how the two pages about having different Mums and Dads is next to the adoption page. Well done My Parr, well done!
How are your kids meant to know which kids to bully and hate, then, t&t?
Rob: I think violence and harsh language are two different thing, yes. Both exist but language is not violence. In rare cases both are called for, even against women (I have never hit a woman, I might add) but usually none of them are ok. Clear enough?
I don’t need any credentials to see that these studies are flawed. I don’t need credentials to be suspicious of studies by liberals who don’t want me to know how they arrived at their conclusions. That’s common sense. And a person with scientific credentials will tell you that.
There is no wrong with being a liberal. But if you are a liberal who claims to be scientific but not willing to share the full information and alway arrive at conclusions that fit your own political view, then something is wrong.
Jeremy, I’ve already told you that I don’t know how many groups can be banned for political reasons. But I don’t see the point in adding any new groups without having more than these studies to go on.
Getting late here so I’m signing off now.
Yup, you haven’t a single rational reason for the government ruling out gay couples. You have no evidence that they are worse parents, or that kids are worse off with them. None. And yet you support the pool of potentially good parents being reduced for no reason, with the obvious upshot of putting kids at risk.
I think we can all see how strong your argument is.
How are your kids meant to know which kids to bully and hate, then, t&t?
It’s easy….
The kids of parents who vote Liberal.. That’s a no brainer!
You hate-filled leftist! I bet you’ve trained your kid to say “boo Tony Abbott nobody likes you” when he appears on the television.
I have a dream that one day my four gay friends will live in a nation where they will judged not by the configuration of their genitalia but by the content of their character.
Loving people make the best parents and the best marriages, its not an issue about pirates of mens pants swabbing the poop deck or fuzz bumpers bumping fuzz.
“Loving people make the best parents and the best marriages, its not an issue about pirates of mens pants swabbing the poop deck or fuzz bumpers bumping fuzz.”
Very funny, and very true.
“Fuzz bumpers bumping fuzz”
Try saying that six times quickly.
I’d like to see it six times very slowly.
Paradigm said: “I think violence and harsh language are two different thing, yes. Both exist but language is not violence”
I beg to differ. In my case, language was the main tool used by my ex to intimidate and control me. While the threat of physical violence was always present, it was rarely used. No doubt the ex felt he could justify to himself that he wasn’t being abusive because he rarely used physical violence – but from my perspective the constant living in fear told a different story.
You’re being inconsistent. If language isn’t a tool of violence and intimidation, then how do you define bullying? A great deal of school-yard bullying is verbal or social (and these days can be online). Are you saying that it is only bullying if it’s physical?
I support adoption by same-sex couples. Every child a same-sex couple adopt is planned and wanted, which is probably part of the reason their children do so well in various studies. As for the bullying issue – these parents would be aware of bullying, it’s impact, and strategies to deal with it from their own school years (people who are gay don’t suddenly turn gay after leaving school, they are gay while at school, and no doubt many would have been targets for bullies because of their sexuality).
Part of the reason kids of same-sex couples are bullied is because they are seen as different. If same-sex adoption were seen as normal (i.e. just another variation on family) then the risk of their kids being bullied would reduce. Who is sending the bullies the message that “same-sex parenting is wrong?” – these are the people you should be going after Paradigm, if you want to reduce bullying of kids of same-sex couples.
Paradoxical Paradigm
“I beg to differ. In my case, language was the main tool used by my ex to intimidate and control me.”
Words can be hurtful and used to control people. But that does not make words violence. This word was use before sociologist even existed. Re-defining it to suit your own goals is misleading.
“You’re being inconsistent. If language isn’t a tool of violence and intimidation, then how do you define bullying?”
I don’t define it. Like “violence” it’s already in use so I don’t get to define it! Incidentally it can refer to words as well as physical force.
“Every child a same-sex couple adopt is planned and wanted, which is probably part of the reason their children do so well in various studies.”
Yes but you can look in vain on the web for a full presentation of such studies. Since the subject of Muslims was brought up I take that as an example. PEW summarized their findings on American Muslims as “mainstream”. But they also had a link to the full report. In reading that it turned out that almost ten percent of American Muslims are ok with suicide bombings. That to me is not a mainstream group. But if PEW thinks that fine, because the had the decency to share the full information. Doesn’t any of you guys become the least bit suspicious when you are not allowed to do that? Don’t you ever wonder about why they don’t do any research on gay male parents?
“As for the bullying issue – these parents would be aware of bullying, it’s impact, and strategies to deal with it from their own school years…”
Having that experience doesn’t necessarily give you the ability to prevent your child from being bullied.
“If same-sex adoption were seen as normal (i.e. just another variation on family) then the risk of their kids being bullied would reduce. ”
There aren’t that many gay people around. So it will never be common.
“Who is sending the bullies the message that “same-sex parenting is wrong?” – these are the people you should be going after Paradigm, if you want to reduce bullying of kids of same-sex couples.”
In my experience kids are conformists and don’t act based on what parents tell them. Parents are not cool. The popular kids are.
“Words can be hurtful and used to control people. But that does not make words violence.”
Are you trying to tell me that the violent relationship I was in wasn’t really violent because most of the violence was in the form of verbal intimidation?
Now I know to file you under PT for Patronising Troll.
I wonder what percentage of American Christians would be OK with attacks (including arson, bombings etc.) on abortion clinics … or abortion doctors, for that matter.
Hey, wait a sec … those things are terrorist acts too!
Kyna:
The answer is yes. Call me a troll if you like, but to me and most people “violence” refers to physical force.
(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence)
Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt. Worldwide, violence is used as a tool of manipulation and also is an area of concern for law and culture which take attempts to suppress and stop it. …
Paradigm those “liberal” Social Scientists are at it again…
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/10090142-children-raised-by-gay-couples-show-good-progress-through-school.html
There again in your thinking, they are all “Bleeding Hearts” same sex couple supporters.
I must start researching myself “Homophobia”
I agree with that wiki definition, I agree with Kyna, regardless, it’s abuse and it’s wrong!
I agree with Paradigm
Black people should be prohibited from adopting white children due to the risk of teasing from other children. You know it makes sense, and I’ve seen it happen many times in my past (and even had to beat up a few people using my fists of blue steel).
Anyway, if the blacks had any true parenting skills they would understand this and not seek to adopt white children in the first place. ‘Risk of teasing’ should be a fundamental consideration of all potential parents before they get preggers, especially the blacks, the gays and the fatties. To do otherwise is basically akin to child abuse.
Why do you condone child abuse Lefty?
Sorry – I left out ugly people.
Obviously ugly people are likely to have ugly children, and on this basis they should probably be prevented from breeding. We’ve ALL seen the ugly kids getting picked on in the playground and surely any responsible prospective parents would be able to predict this outcome. It just breaks my heart to think of these kids and the apalling hurt that they will experience due to their parents’ selfish desire to propogate.
It makes me wonder – is sterilization of all uggos and fatties a step too far?
Those who hate children will probably argue that it is.
mikutuzov:
I said most people not Wikipedia. Language is a social convention.
scouseone:
I’ve criticized the research and the unwillingness to disclose full information, not the existence of the research. And you really should research wether the vast majority of social scientists are liberal or not.
Rob: See above.
Mondo: Kids will always be bullied but let’s do what we can do keep it at a minimum – especially until we get all the facts on the table. Transracial adoptions are also problematic. In Sweden kids adopted from other countries like China and South Chorea commit suicide four times as often as other kids. That said the kids who don’t get adopted may have even higher suicide rates. All I’m saying is that it’s more complicated than you wish for it to be.
Kids will always be bullied but let’s do what we can do keep it at a minimum – especially until we get all the facts on the table. Transracial adoptions are also problematic.
You said it dude – black and white just don’t mix on the playground and there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s like a law of physics – we all just need to accept it and work around it. Fuck those stupid do-gooders who think the solution is to encourage more tolerance and inclusiveness – they’re clearly fantasists. I mean, have they been able to facilitate any change at all in race or gender relations in the last century? Nope – we’re no different to we were in 1910.
I remember my grandmother telling me that black and white people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because their coffee coloured babies would be bullied at school and she was SO right.
Just like you’re right in this argument Paradigm. You’re right for the exact same reason that she was.
But just for clarification – what about if the adoptive parents are, like, full martial arts experts? Obviously in that case the child will be taught to kick ass and then the mixed race adoption won’t cause the complications you’re referring to above. I mean, if a couple of lezzo parents are MMA black belts then their kid will probably be the one doing the beating up! How sweet would that be?
So there should obviously be an exception for gays who are professional fighters, right?
Firstly, I’m not saying transracial adoptions shouldn’t be done. I’m saying it’s problematic – a word you seem allergic to. We should look into it. Do these suicide matter so little to you that you don’t even want to think twice? And for the record it seems like the National Association of Black Social Workers are the strongest opponents of transracial adoptions, along with a large part of the black community.
“I remember my grandmother telling me that black and white people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because their coffee coloured babies would be bullied at school and she was SO right.”
And you’re SO ok with children getting beat up just as long as it promotes your high ideals. I feel sorry for your grandmother.
I’m utterly heartbroken by all the unsubstantiated anecdotal claims you have made about children suffering at the hands of kids due to the selfishness of their heartless black and gay parents. How can you suggest otherwise Paradigm?
And I’m not allergic to the word “problematic” at all – I love it!! It’s an awesome euphemism that effectively assists me to avoid considering real issues like equality, morality and social progress. All I need to do is assert that issues like inter-racial adoption are ‘problematic’ and I can completely avoid providing any further justification for my prejudice.
Watch how this works: “Sure, racial equality is fine in principle, but in reality its problematic.” What a fantastic word! “Sure I’d like to give women the vote, but in reality it’s problematic’.
And don’t worry too much about my grandmother – she’s dead now. It’s probably for the best since she had a real problem with racial harmony anyway.