Scotland has just introduced a bill which will legalise same sex marriages.

[Keith W]

From your "choice" quote:

......

With the Scottish Government expected to publish its consultation on the controversial issue shortly.....

That Scottish government consultation totally refutes that poll, it's results show that 64% are against same-sex marriage

The one by the government matters most because it is the official one commissioned by the government on this issue

 

[H2O]

Can you provide proof to back up your argument?

Which part? Do you want me to prove that people are worth giving a chance?

I'm saying people should be given a chance to help if they want.

You're placing a restriction on the help allowed.

IMO restrictions of any kind require proof that they are needed.

 

[srichards]

There is little proof for either argument. There have been few studies to compare outcomes for children in adopted same sex vs opposite sex households and they don't seem to have been carried for long enough.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm/

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Which part?

I'm saying people should be given a chance to help if they want.

You're placing a restriction on the help allowed.

IMO restrictions of any kind require proof that they are needed.

Proof that being brought up by two homosexuals has no adverse effect on the child. Saying that they should be "given a chance to help if they want to" just goes back to my point about "rights" - just because you want something doesn't mean you should automatically get it. Especially if it has the potential to impinge on the rights of another (the child).

 

[onomatopoeia]

Same reason a reglious doctor shouldn't be allowed to refuse abortion or offer transfusions.

There is a conscience clause in abortion legislation, a doctor may refuse to perform an abortion for reasons of conscience but if so must refer the patient to another doctor who will.

Abortion is such an emotive issue that compulsion would be wrong. It is entirely possible to have principled objections that are not founded in religious belief. The situation we have is about as equitable as it can be for both parties.

Self-determination is key. The woman gets a choice. The doctor gets a choice. The people I don't like are the ones that threaten, harrass and intimidate those seeking or performing abortions as they are trying to restrict self-determination in others.

Anyway, not equal marriage.

 

[H2O]

Proof that being brought up by two homosexuals has no adverse effect on the child. Saying that they should be "given a chance to help if they want to" just goes back to my point about "rights" - just because you want something doesn't mean you should automatically get it. Especially if it has the potential to impinge on the rights of another (the child).

If there's no proof it has an adverse effect why would/ should you assume it does?

Potential adopters have to go through a lot checks to ensure suitability regardless of gender.

If they pass all those checks and no one can prove a problem is likely to be caused by their gender then I really can't see the justification for your argument.


Progress is not made by doing everything exactly as it's always been done before "just because".

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If there's no proof it has an adverse effect why would/ should you assume it does?

There was no proof until relatively recently that smoking was injurious to the health, by the time the correlation was made between it and lung cancer it was too late for many.

Smoking is a personal choice, being adopted isn't.

Potential adopters have to go through a lot checks to ensure suitability regardless of gender.

If they pass all those checks and no one can prove a problem is likely to be caused by their gender then I really can't see the justification for your argument.

Progress is not made by doing everything exactly as it's always been done before "just because".

Change doesn't necessarily equate to progress.

Can you tell me what additional checks are in
place when it comes to vetting "same sex" couples?

 

[trencheel303]

Why would additional checks need to be in place? What are you inferring that a same-sex couple are more likely to do that will harm the child?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Why would additional checks need to be in place? What are you inferring that a same-sex couple are more likely to do that will harm the child?

I don't know, but anything that is outwith the norm merits closer scrutiny, particularly when it involves the welfare of a child.

Or do you believe the rights of the potential parents trump those of the child?

 

[H2O]

There was no proof until relatively recently that smoking was injurious to the health, by the time the correlation was made between it and lung cancer it was too late for many.

Slightly speechless that you're making that comparison to be honest.

It was correct to allow smoking when there was no evidence of detrimental effects.

Now we know how bad it is of course we should encourage it to stop.

Change doesn't necessarily equate to progress.

Can you tell me what additional checks are in
place when it comes to vetting "same sex" couples?

Of course it doesn't. But a lack of change ensures no progress.

Nothing is a dead cert to work but that doesn't mean you shouldn't allow anything to be tried out.

Just monitor it closely so you can stop it if it proves a bad idea.

Additional checks?

There's no need for additional checks. If they pass the same checks everyone else does why would they need extras? I didn't even mention extra checks :-/

 

[trencheel303]

I don't know, but anything that is outwith the norm merits closer scrutiny, particularly when it involves the welfare of a child.

Or do you believe the rights of the potential parents trump those of the child?

What I don't get is how it apparently affects the welfare of the child. It's nothing to do with "rights", I just disagree with this old fashioned thinking that a child must exist in a father/mother relationship to grow up.. properly?

You could say that mixed race couples are not the norm .. should we scrutinise them more when they want to adopt.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Slightly speechless that you're making that comparison to be honest.

It was correct to allow smoking when there was no evidence of detrimental effects.

Now we know how bad it is of course we should encourage it to stop.

.

So you have proof, rather than anecdotal evidence, that same-sex adoption isn't detrimental, over the long term, on a child?

Of course it doesn't. But a lack of change ensures no progress.

Nothing is a dead cert to work but that doesn't mean you shouldn't allow anything to be tried out.

Just monitor it closely so you can stop it if it proves a bad idea.

Additional checks?

There's no need for additional checks. If they pass the same checks everyone else does why would they need extras? I didn't even mention extra checks :-/

So, just run an experiment with the lives of small children and if it doesn't work out then "ah well, never mind"?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

What I don't get is how it apparently affects the welfare of the child. It's nothing to do with "rights", I just disagree with this old fashioned thinking that a child must exist in a father/mother relationship to grow up.. properly?

You could say that mixed race couples are not the norm .. should we scrutinise them more when they want to adopt.

It affects the rights of the child because they are not being given any say as to whether they are placed with homosexuals or not. The decision is being made purely to please the adopting couple.

 

[fracster]

What I don't get is how it apparently affects the welfare of the child. It's nothing to do with "rights", I just disagree with this old fashioned thinking that a child must exist in a father/mother relationship to grow up.. properly?

Do you not think that kids from a stable mother and father family are more settled than say kids from single parent families?

I know you can quote stats,I also know that many single parents do a damned fine job and i`m not knocking them at all.But ,generally, what is your gut reaction to the above question.

You could say that mixed race couples are not the norm .. should we scrutinise them more when they want to adopt.

Silly comparison in my opinion.

 

[PMK]

.

So you have proof, rather than anecdotal evidence, that same-sex adoption isn't detrimental, over the long term, on a child?

So you have proof that it is detrimental?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

So you have proof that it is detrimental?

Do you have proof that it's not?

 

[srichards]

It affects the rights of the child because they are not being given any say as to whether they are placed with homosexuals or not. The decision is being made purely to please the adopting couple.

Children in care do worse of all. Just about any home situation that is stable is better than being in care. If they are adopted young then they aren't going to give a monkeys whether they live with two dads, two mums or one of each. They'll just want to be adopted by loving parents.

 

[PMK]

Adoption is quite simply summed as a taking on an 'unwanted child' - correct?

So if there are a couple who are willing to adopt, no matter of sexuality, colour, creed, heritage, religion etc that will love that child, surely that's all that matters?

 

[trencheel303]

Do you not think that kids from a stable mother and father family are more settled than say kids from single parent families?

it really depends, because there is always so much more to it than that. you can't just boil down a child's likelihood of success in life to whether or not they were brought up single parent or by a couple. I don't really have a gut instinct on the matter, although when I see a full family out and about I do think about how nice it is that some families are still together, as many are so fragmented these days.

It affects the rights of the child because they are not being given any say as to whether they are placed with homosexuals or not. The decision is being made purely to please the adopting couple.

I find it unlikely that a child would be deliberately forced into the hands of foster parents that they did not wish to be with.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

it really depends, because there is always so much more to it than that. you can't just boil down a child's likelihood of success in life to whether or not they were brought up single parent or by a couple. I don't really have a gut instinct on the matter, although when I see a full family out and about I do think about how nice it is that some families are still together, as many are so fragmented these days.

I find it unlikely that a child would be deliberately forced into the hands of foster parents that they did not wish to be with.

So a 2 year old will have a concept of homosexuality and be able to make a rational decision as to whether they want to be brought up in such a way?

As for being "forced", that's exactly what happened to the children in the Edinburgh case.

 

[Russ77]

So you have proof that it is detrimental?

Do you have proof that it's not?

I see plenty of proof almost daily that there are many women that should be "sewn up" as they seem incapable of looking after/brining up what they drop 9 months after a bunk-up to secure a bigger house......

I also see plenty of blokes that are equally lacking in the parental skill department.

Therefore I think that provided ANYONE who wants to adopt meets the required standard to do so should be allowed to whether they're gay, straight or whatever as they'd probably make better parents than some of the excuses for parents I see!

So tell me what would be more damaging......

A child growing up with two mums or dads who teach them right from wrong, that they need to go to school and get a good education and a job and become decent members of society.........

Or parent(s) who are sponging off the state, think the World owes them a living and that it's perfectly OK to lie/cheat/steal to get whatever you want in life?

 

[H2O]

.

So you have proof, rather than anecdotal evidence, that same-sex adoption isn't detrimental, over the long term, on a child?

As i've not said that at any point in this thread i can only conclude you either have trouble understanding the writen word or just like making things up?

I can't prove something works until i'm allowed to test it. I'd of thought that was pretty obvious.

.
So, just run an experiment with the lives of small children and if it doesn't work out then "ah well, never mind"?

Bit dramatic don't you think?

The family looking after the child you're talking about would still have gone through the normal sutability checks and would be monitored to ensure things were going ok.

Given those conditions yes, we should run an experiment with children who have no one else to take care of them in the hope that we can give them a better life.

Do you have proof that it's not?

Again.

In all things proof should be supplied by the person requiring the restriction to prove that it is needed. Not the other way around.

 

[trencheel303]

So tell me what would be more damaging......

A child growing up with two mums or dads who teach them right from wrong, that they need to go to school and get a good education and a job and become decent members of society.........

Or parent(s) who are sponging off the state, think the World owes them a living and that it's perfectly OK to lie/cheat/steal to get whatever you want in life?

This is what I've been trying to say for roughly the last page, but all I keep getting are answers along the lines of "but it's not the norm" and "it's detrimental", without any real explanation as to why except for "it just is", kinda thing. Not really very insightful.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

In all things proof should be supplied by the person requiring the restriction to prove that it is needed. Not the other way around.

Sorry, but I disagree. If you want to do something that impinges on the life of another it is up to YOU to prove that doing so is safe and won 't have a detrimental long-term effect on the the other person.

 

[ZoneV]

Sorry, but I disagree. If you want to do something that impinges on the life of another it is up to YOU to prove that doing so is safe and won 't have a detrimental long-term effect on the the other person.

I expect same sex couples and their adopted child are checked regularly, and the child's happiness and wellbeing assessed in the same way as with any adopting family, regardless of gender.

 

[H2O]

Sorry, but I disagree. If you want to do something that impinges on the life of another it is up to YOU to prove that doing so is safe and won 't have a detrimental long-term effect on the the other person.

So how do you prove something without being allowed to test it?

Seems like an excuse to get your own way to me. Especially as there's clearly no proof to support your argument either.

 

[cambsno]

I sit on the fence on same sex adoption - on the one hand its not natural, families work best as a mum and dad imo, although there are also plenty of bad cases of that!! Also, I remember how kids are at school, the slightest thing to be used against someone will (be it glasses, ginger hair, rich/poor, fat etc...) and the child will be teased at the very least about this. However, I would love to see all kids in care be taken out and place dwith foster parents, even if they are gay, single parents, old, young etc... as long as they can demonstrate that they can provide a good safe home.

In reality there is no perfect answer. There will be people who think it does no harm and those that are against it on moral grounds and both are perfectly entitled to their opinion.

Are there stats on same sex relationships? For example (and I am making stuff up now), it may be that married couples with kids on average last 15 years, married couples with no kids last 12 years, cohabiting couples last 8 years and same sex couples last 6 years. In that example, married couples with kids should be the 1st option as they are more likely to stay together = longer term stability.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

So how do you prove something without being allowed to test it?

Seems like an excuse to get your own way to me. Especially as there's clearly no proof to support your argument either.

There must be (unbiased) evidence available from other countries.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

This is what I've been trying to say for roughly the last page, but all I keep getting are answers along the lines of "but it's not the norm" and "it's detrimental", without any real explanation as to why except for "it just is", kinda thing. Not really very insightful.

Are you saying homosexuality is the norm?

 

[FourRingCircus]

This thread is nothing to do with children, gay-couple adoption or PDA (public displaying of affection), so please take your thinly veiled attempt at homophobia out of my thread; ta.

I have witnessed first hand what having two same sex parents can cause a child to go through during growing up; but that certainly doesn't mean we should ban homosexual couples from adopting/having children.

Not heard of surrogacy then.

So what you're saying then is you don't agree with adoption on the whole. Or are you saying that it would be okay for a heterosexual couple who cannot have a child (infertility etc) to adopt on the basis that they are a heterosexual couple so that gives them the "automatic right" to a child?

why should having gay parents immediately be labelled as a bad thing for the child.

Why would additional checks need to be in place? What are you inferring that a same-sex couple are more likely to do that will harm the child?

I just disagree with this old fashioned thinking that a child must exist in a father/mother relationship to grow up.. properly?

Can I come back in now and complain that you have abused my rights and you were picking on me? You appear to do your fair share of this type of complaining yourself so you should be qualified to recognise my plight. Your first quoted post above was an unveiled attempt at getting me out of 'your' thread. You then go on to discuss at length exactly what I was (politely) introducing to the conversation.

Can I ask (in light of your subsequent posts) why exactly you felt the unilateral need to tread on MY feelings, make completely untrue accusations of a stranger and seek to alienate me in this way?

 

[PMK]

Also, I remember how kids are at school, the slightest thing to be used against someone will (be it glasses, ginger hair, rich/poor, fat etc...) and the child will be teased at the very least about this.

I agree, I remember this sort of treatment too - but what do you do as an observer/teacher/parent? You don't get the ginger kid to dye their hair, you don't get the kids to wear contact lenses etc..

There would be some name calling I guess, but that doesn't mean it should be a deciding factor as to whether two people of the same sex are entitled to a family life.

I'm sorry but the 'detrimental factors' argument is becoming tiresome - nobody can prove whether or not it would affect the childs upbringing, but as I said before if the parents are there to love them it sort of becomes a moot point for me.

 

[H2O]

There must be (unbiased) evidence available from other countries.

Must there? Wouldn't that suggest that they'd been allowed to test it then?

How is it better making someone else do that kind of work for us?

 

[trencheel303]

Are you saying homosexuality is the norm?

It's as normal/natural as heterosexuality in the world, it just occurs less.

If by "norm" you mean "most often occurance" (or mode) then yes, heterosexuality is "the norm", just as silver cars are "the norm". Doesn't make it any less right though or does it mean it's correct to be any less tolerant of it just because it's not as commonly occurring.

I sit on the fence on same sex adoption - on the one hand its not natural, families work best as a mum and dad imo, although there are also plenty of bad cases of that!! Also, I remember how kids are at school, the slightest thing to be used against someone will (be it glasses, ginger hair, rich/poor, fat etc...) and the child will be teased at the very least about this. However, I would love to see all kids in care be taken out and place dwith foster parents, even if they are gay, single parents, old, young etc... as long as they can demonstrate that they can provide a good safe home.

Indeed, having same sex parents/guardians can lead to bullying, but so can hair colour, eye colour, skin tone, freckles, being tall, being short, being thin, being fat, being black, white, or any kind of foreign, having a high pitched voice, having a deep voice, long hair, short hair, big feet, small feet, being an early bloomer, being a late bloomer, wearing glasses... not wearing glasses, the way you dress, the way you walk, your preferences and interests, your social group, your class status, the foods you like, the things you own/don't own...

...need i continue lol? Kids will bully over anything so the argument that kids brought up by same sex arguments will get bullied, although probably true, is a moot point...

 

[neil_g]

how on earth would you test it?

"so little jonny, youve been living with your 2 daddys now for a few months. do you like boys or girls?"

"ewww girls smell!"

:shrug:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Must there? Wouldn't that suggest that they'd been allowed to test it then?

How is it better making someone else do that kind of work for us?

This is an unwinable argument because you're suggesting that it should be tested because it can be, irrespective of whether there is the possibility of causing harm to defenceless children, just because an adult feels that it is their right to have a child.

The rights of the child should be the most important issue and those rights should include that to be placed in, (and I'll resist the temptation to use the word "normal") a traditional family unit, rather than used as part of some pc experiment.

 

[Russ77]

This is what I've been trying to say for roughly the last page, but all I keep getting are answers along the lines of "but it's not the norm" and "it's detrimental", without any real explanation as to why except for "it just is", kinda thing. Not really very insightful.

I can't work out whether you're saying my post wasn't very insightful or if you're referring to other responses in the thread?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It's as normal/natural as heterosexuality in the world, it just occurs less.

I'm afraid we'll need to disagree there.....

 

[trencheel303]

I can't work out whether you're saying my post wasn't very insightful or if you're referring to other responses in the thread?

referring to other responses.

 

[PMK]

The rights of the child should be the most important issue and those rights should include that to be placed in, (and I'll resist the temptation to use the word "normal") a traditional family unit, rather than used as part of some pc experiment.

Why is it a PC experiment? I don't understand. Why are you completely and utterly convinced that a child brought up by a same sex couple will be damaged? It really is a strange stance...

 

[trencheel303]

I'm afraid we'll need to disagree there.....

I am surprised at this from you tbh, I always had you down as a pretty intelligent chap and have had a good bit of respect for you, but that comment is a bit of a let-down tbh, and makes me wonder what else you think about homosexuals (and other non-heterosexual people) that is both unfair and untrue... I'll be civil though and leave it at that.