Catholics, Homosexuals, Discrimination & Adoption

[Arhiann]

Cripes, i find it very hard to believe that people still think like this.)

What way? There are lots of points of view here.

Yes it can cause problems as you grow up (im from a family where lots of people are bisexual and my father is a T.V. amongst other things)

And therein lies one problem with it. There are a multitude of others though.

I don't think it really matters who the parents are as long as they look after their children, put them first and give them love warmth and stability.

The adoption service doesn't think this way, and it would be wrong to place children based on the criteria you are espousing. There are a lot more things that need to be considered.

I know far too many hetrosexual couples who cant do that. Who use their children as pawns in power struggles, who show little or no intrest in their offspring. Which is worse being brought up by a loving gay couple or ignored by parents who don't give a damn.

That's rhetoric, but it's a pointless statement. Nowhere has it been suggested that that is the alternative. Which is better for looking after children, an apathetic gay couple, or a loving heterosexual couple? That's rhetoric too. It's quite easy to justify your case, if the alternative is to put the child into an abusive relationship (and yes, acts of omission are abuse).

With natural parenting, there is no choice initially of who parents the child. And lets make no mistake, gay couples take this route too. With adopting however, we have a choice of whom we allow to adopt. Therefore there is a huge responsibility to ensure that the **best** route is chosen for the child, and not one that is merely **acceptable**.

Given a choice between a gay and a straight family, that latter IMHO has to take precendence every time. That is the way nature intended it to be. The rights and welfare of the child have to take precedence over discrimination law.

 

[dagr]

Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't get this "natural" bit at all. We're not talking about conception here, but parenting, i.e. bringing up children. If you want to look at what's "natural", then you'll find that in practice most societies do (or until quite recently, have) a communal way of bringing up children, typically, and from a practical point-of-view, brought up by groups of mothers from baby to pre-teens, with minimal "parenting" from the male adults, specially towards the daughters.

A heterosexual male who has a one-night stand, gets a woman pregnant and then says that's the end of it, is not my definition of a parent. He's a biological father. End of story, despite being 100% "natural".

Surely the whole point is to find a "good enough" stable home for the kids. I can't really see why sexual orientation should be a problem if the same inclusion criteria is applied when selecting potential parents.

 

[Arhiann]

Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't get this "natural" bit at all. We're not talking about conception here, but parenting, i.e. bringing up children. If you want to look at what's "natural", then you'll find that in practice most societies do (or until quite recently, have) a communal way of bringing up children, typically, and from a practical point-of-view, brought up by groups of mothers from baby to pre-teens, with minimal "parenting" from the male adults, specially towards the daughters. .

Of course. But simplistically, women are generally the primary care givers. I'm pretty certain there is a reason that women generally take primary care of children. The place for a child IMHO for the first few years of its life is with its mother. If not with a mother due to circumstance, then with someone similarly equipped.

The natural scheme of things is to have one man one woman, it's pretty hard to make babies without. There is a natural balance because of this. I'm not disputing that gay couples could provide a "good enough" or even "outstanding" parenting experience, but if all other variables are equal, surely, for the child's sake, a mixed sex union is best.

Surely the whole point is to find a "good enough" stable home for the kids. I can't really see why sexual orientation should be a problem if the same inclusion criteria is applied when selecting potential parents.

No, the point is to find the best solution.

 

[dagr]

...
The natural scheme of things is to have one man one woman, it's pretty hard to make babies without.

As I said, making a baby is not parenting - the subject here. Once the baby is born, almost all societies, even in the UK until recently with the invention of the nuclear family, children were largely parented collectively by groups of women (mainly mothers and grandmothers). The image of the mother, father and 2.4 children living (and parenting) as a tight-knit unit is relatively new.

There is a natural balance because of this. I'm not disputing that gay couples could provide a "good enough" or even "outstanding" parenting experience, but if all other variables are equal, surely, for the child's sake, a mixed sex union is best.

So, if the male/female couple candidates are not up to scratch, then having a gay couple, who are up to scratch, adopt a child is alright?

No, the point is to find the best solution.

Not sure what you mean by this. What if the "best" solution is not very good?

 

[Arhiann]

As I said, making a baby is not parenting - the subject here. Once the baby is born, almost all societies, even in the UK until recently with the invention of the nuclear family, children were largely parented collectively by groups of women (mainly mothers and grandmothers).

Or in other words by the family unit, with an emphasis on females being the primary carers. How can two gay gents compete with that? I disagree with you on the nuclear family though, the male is part of the unit. It's really not that new at all.

So, if the male/female couple candidates are not up to scratch, then having a gay couple, who are up to scratch, adopt a child is alright?

Theoretically yes because it is likely that a gay couple can provide a better experience than a straight one, but in reality, never because the possibility of there not being a similarily matched gay/straight couple is infinitely small. A male/female, should always (I think) take precedence. There are enough childless couples out there without having to consider homosexuals.

Not sure what you mean by this. What if the "best" solution is not very good?

The "best" solution will always be better than "good enough".

I think the reality is that if you could give the choice to the child, they would choose the traditional option. And again, the child takes precedence.

 

[cjd]

Yes, God made man and woman.........God did not create men / women as homosexuals, that is a choice made by those individuals.

I see, homosexuals choose to be homosexuals? Do you think you could? I'm pretty sure I couldn't; so how do you think that comes about?

 

[Arhiann]

I could, but I would choose to be a celibate one

Doesn't bear thinking about.

Theists would probably argue that it's a temptation from the devil, or some such nonsense.

 

[dagr]

Sorry Arhiann, but we'll have to disagree on this one, specially on what traditionally constitutes a family and who performs the real day-to-day parenting. I'm not saying the traditional pre-nuclear father had no role, but until recently the extended family was the unit, and in almost all cultures, the father(s) had, as a wide generalisation, little to do at the sharp end of parenting (education, etc.), except when boys reached a certain age.

 

[dagr]

And lest we all forget the dangers of bad parenting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHddm6_Wrh0





(Go on, admit it. You really felt like giving her a slap around the ear).

 

[adam]

I would like to move the argument away from the rights and wrongs of the Catholic (Christian) Church or others as clearly those who "have faith" believe in what the church does, and those that don't "have faith" don't.

I put "have faith" in such a way as it is the biggest non proof ever. It is too easily quoted in an attempt to win an argument. Want proof that God exists? "HAVE FAITH"

But I think a religious organisation should be allowed to put kids in to a family with the same beliefs as the family to which they were biologically born.

If a Catholic agency can not find a family it approves of, it should be able to put the child in the care of a Government agency that is not religious and then their duty would have been carried out.

Having searched the internet, I believe it is an acceptable term to refer to a Black Church. If a Black Church had a baby in need of adoption would they not prefer to put the baby with a black family? Members of their church with similar backgrounds and beliefs?

We are pretty much the same, however some are more similar than others. I don't say that anybody is discriminated against by the agency having a preference so long as there were places for homosexual couples to adopt if required and it was right for them and society.

As for "no black" signs it is completely different. We are talking nature, and babies are born as a result of the union (sexually, not by marriage!) of a man and a woman and I can see there being a lot of sense in preferring a baby to be taken in by a couple where one had bits between his legs and one didn't to put it in simple terms.

I am certainly not saying that a couple of men would bring a baby up gay, that is ridiculous but who will breast feed it? What if I believe that breast feeding is better for the baby than giving it powder from day one? Okay so that argument does not work for 2 women but then I am quite traditional and believe the best environment whether religion exists in the family home or not is for a man and a women to raise the child.

I was in a single parent family from the age of 6, my Mum did a pretty good job but of course, in an ideal world I would have had 2 parents at home. Relationships break up at the best of time but I don't think we should put babies in to an environment that is not our ideal if other options are open.

But I stand by the earlier point that I believe an organisation should be able, so long as it does not associate itself to local authorities or government, to select its own rules that are relevant to the situation. Gender of "parents" is relevant in this case, colour of skin is NOT.

Often it is beneficial to take this to its lowest level, and some would say silliest. What if a group of well meaning football fans set up an agency to find homes for the children of season ticket holders for a particular club. Are they unfairly and or illegally discriminating by only placing the child with other season ticket holders of the club and hence fans?

Is a Church discriminating by not allowing Jewish members or Muslim members in to pray? Allow in to the building by all means but should the be forced to allow non believers as members?

 

[cjd]

fyi - this subject is debated on Radio 4 tonight at 8pm - probably available on listen again after on the internet

20:00

The Moral Maze

24 January 2007

Michael Buerk chairs a debate on the moral questions behind the week's news. Ian Hargreaves, Steven Rose, Claire Fox and Clifford Longley cross-examine witnesses.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

As a gay man (and I'm sure I'm not the only one on here) I've been debating all day whether it's worth arguing against some of the ill-informed homophobic bigotry I have read in this thread (with apologies to those who have posted positive comments). I have decided to, not because I have any hope of changing the mind of those with entrenched views, but because there may be a few people who read this who have not thought this through, and would value the opinion of a gay man.

I did not choose to be gay, any more than I chose the colour of my eyes, my short-sightedness, or the fact that I am left-handed. Am I to be discriminated against for these reasons too, because I am in a minority? Would anyone choose to be villified, abused and discriminated against?

True I could choose to be celibate, but why should I, when my relationship with my long term partner does not affect anyone else? Most gay men will only look for partners in a 'safe' environment, i.e. where people are there out of choice, not coersion. There is no evidence to suggest that 'corruption' of youth is any more prevalent among lesbians and gays than among heterosexuals. It's just that it seems to some people more acceptable if its heterosexual.

As for the attitude of organised religion towards homosexuality, many of the church doctrines seem to take their lead from the Old Testament. While this has some importance as an historical document, it was of its time. If we interpret it literally, do we stone to death adulterers, not allow people to touch pigskin (for many years all ball game players would have had to wear gloves), etc. Christian churches should (by virtue of their name) follow the teachings of Christ, as documented in the New Testament. He spoke and acted against many of the accepted doctrines of the day, which had come from Old Testament teachings. If Christ were to return today, I suspect he would once again throw the money lenders out of the temple (metaphorically speaking) and be horrified by what what much organised religion had become in his name (the Catholic Church being at the forefront I suspect).

I hope that those people who regard homosexuality as unnatural don't have gay children of their own. What kind of hang-ups would such kids have, having been subjected to such bigotry from birth?

I look around me and think what a 'wonderful' job the present overwhelmingly heterosexual model of parenting is doing. There are far more children in need of adoption than there are potential adoptive parents. The criteria applied to vet potential adoptive parents are so strict, that anybody that comes through them, gay or straight, must be a far better bet for the well-being of the child than any foster home.

Finally a last parting shot. Most psychologists, and in fact gay men, would agree that the worst cases of homophobia are displayed by those who are trying to suppress their own latent sexuality. In the words of the bard "Methinks she doth protest too much"

Barrie

 

[cjd]

^^^ Great post. Thanks. Please don't leave the argument - we need to hear your views.

 

[Arhiann]

There are far more children in need of adoption than there are potential adoptive parents.

You're wrong there, by a long way. The difficulty is the adoption service; they scare an awful lot of people off.

 

[Arhiann]

Sorry Arhiann, but we'll have to disagree on this one, specially on what traditionally constitutes a family and who performs the real day-to-day parenting. I'm not saying the traditional pre-nuclear father had no role, but until recently the extended family was the unit, and in almost all cultures, the father(s) had, as a wide generalisation, little to do at the sharp end of parenting (education, etc.), except when boys reached a certain age.

To be fair, that we disagree was cleary evident. But you could safely say that homosexuals have had little to no input on child rearing for hundreds of years. Homosexuality has only recently been accepted, and only then begrudgingly.

Is it right that we experiment with children? The accepted method has to be the way. We have no idea if there will be any long term ill affects from the alternative, so why take the risk when there are plenty of other options available.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Barrie. Do you have an argument for the points which Chris and Ozzy made concerning school playground bullying of kids with gay parents?

If it wasn't for this, I would support same-sex parents.

Dave

 

[cjd]

Isn't bullying at school an argument for changing how schools manage bullying not an argument against preventing same sex adoption? Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons.

I got bullied for being tall and thin (until I broke one of their noses with an extreemly lucky punch), my kid got bullied for being a 'boff', my daughter for being new. It's life as a kid.

 

[Ozzy]

Just to re-iterate, I have nothing against anyones sexuality and my best mate and a previous business partner is gay.

It's life as a kid.

...but we both agree that yes life as a kid can be harsh and bullying can be part and parcel of that. We also both agree that being agressively bullied can have live long lasting affects on a childs (and ultimately adults) psychological well being, and for this reason he as a gay man in a long term relationship would never adopt a child.

I personally feel general acceptance of homosexuality in society is too young and needs to become a bit more widely accepted, which will happen over a bit more time. At that point, and this is only a gut feeling, the bullying that may happen at school might not be as agressive as perhaps it might be at this point in time.
It wasn't that long ago that disabled (or whatever the PC word is now) children were ridiculed in schools. Now we still get a small amount of bullying, but generally the other children accept the less abled children due to teachers and their parents being better educated over time.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But why would you add to number of kids already being bullied?

Dave

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

You're wrong there, by a long way. The difficulty is the adoption service; they scare an awful lot of people off.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Yes there are a lot of potential adoptive parents who for various reasons wish to adopt, but the number who pass the adoption criteria are fewer than the number of children available for adoption. Yes the adoption services probably do scare a lot of people off, and this is how it should be. Parenting is a very serious business, not something to be entered into on a whim. The adoption agencies have to be as certain as they can be that they do not make mistakes, both for the sake of the child and to safeguard their own reputations.

As for bullying, I cannot be of a lot of help. Just because something seems plausible, we should not assume that it's true, without hard evidence. Even the experts can't seem to agree on this - see
http://science.uwe.ac.uk/psychology/DrVictoriaClarke_files/ClarkeEtAl..pdf

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, in that in my experience, where the parent(s) is/are honest with the child, the child is best prepared for it and has a better chance of handling it. Bullying is rife in our schools for all kinds of reasons - children of one-parent families, those from ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, fat or thin children, those from poor families not able to afford the latest designer wear; in fact anybody that is different from the percieved norm, and indeed sometimes for no apparent reason at all. Gay or lesbian parents will be much more aware of this than the average parent and, I contend, much better placed to avoid it or help the child through it. There are plenty of support groups out there.

Perhaps we should be having a debate on how best to eliminate bullying.

Barrie

 

[cjd]

The radio 4 discussion was quite interesting.

The most powerful argument I thought was from the Catholic commentator who said that no-one seems to trying to find a sensible compromise for the sake of the kids. Now I wonder why that is?

 

[cjd]

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But why would you add to number of kids already being bullied?

Dave

I don't think the volume of kids bullied and bullying changes much but the likely targets might change a little.

I also doubt that the sum of human misery is changed much by bullying in comparison to that caused by the loss of 6% of UK adoptions - if that is the result of the Catholic church leaving the market.

 

[Arhiann]

no-one seems to trying to find a sensible compromise for the sake of the kids. Now I wonder why that is?

Probably because you shouldn't be making a compromise with someone's life if you have a choice.

 

[cjd]

Probably because you shouldn't be making a compromise with someone's life if you have a choice.

It would be nice to think so.

Unfortunatley that's blatently not the case here - it's a power game. It's just a small part of the Muslim/Christian/secular political influence game.

 

[Arhiann]

As a gay man (and I'm sure I'm not the only one on here) I've been debating all day whether it's worth arguing against some of the ill-informed homophobic bigotry I have read in this thread (with apologies to those who have posted positive comments).

Strong words, and ill informed.

The fact that you consider something positive as unbigoted ,and that you don't consider a negative comment can be unbigoted says a lot about you. I beleve it smacks of intolerance of anothers beliefs, whch by another name is...

I've certainly read bigoted comments in here, but (from memory) only from those with religion as a foundation for their beliefs. That's primarily because they aren't their own thoughts; they don't have an option to consider that anything else is a possibility. Besides myself though, there are others here that are far from convinced that same sex parenting is a good idea for reasons other than religion.

I did not choose to be gay, any more than I chose the colour of my eyes, my short-sightedness, or the fact that I am left-handed. Am I to be discriminated against for these reasons too, because I am in a minority?

I think the jury is still out on the nature and nurture issue. Personally I do think it's nature though, and I find it strange that someone thinks it's a personal choice. I would say it's a personal choice to act on the impulses you've been born with, but the impulses weren't your choice.

True I could choose to be celibate, but why should I, when my relationship with my long term partner does not affect anyone else? Most gay men will only look for partners in a 'safe' environment, i.e. where people are there out of choice, not coersion. There is no evidence to suggest that 'corruption' of youth is any more prevalent among lesbians and gays than among heterosexuals. It's just that it seems to some people more acceptable if its heterosexual.

If you're referring to a comment I made, it wasn't a serious suggestion. It was just my perspective on what I would do if I made a decision to be "gay" since I'm not, and the prospect is anything but appealing. I don't think it's been suggested anywhere in the thread that corruption of youth is an issue; I may have missed it though, it's a long thread.

With regard to the Church. Well, since it's part of the thread title we should discuss it, but in general the less said about religion the better. I doubt very much whether the Catholic Church will leave themselves open to discrimnation proceedings, they'll just shut up shop.

I hope that those people who regard homosexuality as unnatural don't have gay children of their own. What kind of hang-ups would such kids have, having been subjected to such bigotry from birth?

I hope you're not referring to me here. I've said that same sex parenting is not what nature intended, but I haven't said homosexuality is unnatural. Cancer is natural too, but it's not what nature intended.

I look around me and think what a 'wonderful' job the present overwhelmingly heterosexual model of parenting is doing. There are far more children in need of adoption than there are potential adoptive parents.

Absolutely. You need a license to watch telly, but not to have kids. I have direct experience of the adoption service and I know of one woman who had three children who had all been taken into care, and along came a fourth. Off to care went this one too, after 2.5 years of supporting the mother and trying to keep the family together. Pointless IMHO.

Finally a last parting shot. Most psychologists, and in fact gay men, would agree that the worst cases of homophobia are displayed by those who are trying to suppress their own latent sexuality. In the words of the bard "Methinks she doth protest too much"

Come now. Do you really think anyone has been that homophobic. I've not seen any of the real hatred that I would associate with the possibility that you espouse.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Yes there are a lot of potential adoptive parents who for various reasons wish to adopt, but the number who pass the adoption criteria are fewer than the number of children available for adoption. Yes the adoption services probably do scare a lot of people off, and this is how it should be.

Of course, and therein lies another problem. There are some fairly compelling figures that were produced by a gay/lesbian consumer report, that indicate that longevity in gay (male particularly) relationships do not last as long as a conventional relationship. I have no idea of how true this is, but I can also say that for a long time (and until quite recently in Scotland I think) unmarried couples weren't allowed to adopt for this reason amongst others.

I'm an exception to the rule when it comes to unmarried couples, because I've been with my girlfriend for about 15 years and we have two (unadopted) kids, and you may well be the exception to the rule where gay relationships are concerned, but the point remains. We do not experiment with children.

This is all moot though, since we do experiment with children. Gay couples have been able to adopt for some time I believe, the difference now being that you can't discriminate.

 

[Arhiann]

It would be nice to think so.

Unfortunatley that's blatently not the case here - it's a power game. It's just a small part of the Muslim/Christian/secular political influence game.

Didn't catch the interiew. I may listen to it tomorrow. Then again I may not; there's generally little point in listening to theists.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Oh dear, I didn't want to get into a long running debate about this - there seems little point as nobody is going to change their views. I stand by what I have said; it was in response to various postings in this thread, and I don't see the point in going over the same ground again. If someone brings up a new point I may respond, but otherwise I've had my say.
Barrie

 

[Cornish Steve]

Christian churches should (by virtue of their name) follow the teachings of Christ, as documented in the New Testament. He spoke and acted against many of the accepted doctrines of the day, which had come from Old Testament teachings. If Christ were to return today, I suspect he would once again throw the money lenders out of the temple (metaphorically speaking) and be horrified by what what much organised religion had become in his name (the Catholic Church being at the forefront I suspect).

Spot on. In fact, I agree with 99 percent of what you write. Thanks for being willing to share your opinions on this.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Isn't bullying at school an argument for changing how schools manage bullying?

Yes, it is. Children will use anything as an excuse to bully if that's what they seek, and it's for schools to deal with it sensibly and not to ignore it.

 

[cjd]

Well, from what I can gather listening to the political discussion this morning, the government is not going to give the Catholic church an exemption on this. Various cabinet members have said it won't which kind of cuts Tony Blairs legs off - if he contradicts them they will now have to resign. It seems pretty clear that Blair wants it tho'

I also heard the Archbishop of Canterbury defending the Catholic position. He said something like 'this is about allowing people who have strong and justified beliefs being allowed to follow their conscience and be exempt from laws that go against those beliefs'

So maybe we should let UK based fundamental Muslims stone adulterers? It's only fair after all. (Oh ,and of course, we'll let the tax payer pay for the stones).

 

[Jayne]

My Mother and Granny brought me up, yes two women, I turned out ok. I think the Catholic church should check what year it is, it isn't Dicks day any more.

Most gay couples seek serious relationships out, same as any other couple and would look after a child just the same as anyone else. If an orphan was previous abused by a man, think how happy that child would be with two women or visa versa. Some religious stuff stinks! Except the bit about stoning adulterers. If my Mark strayed, i'd probably use a cricket bat instead, costing the tax payers nothing ...lol

Love and peace is my religion.

Jayne

 

[Arhiann]

I stand by what I have said; it was in response to various postings in this thread, and I don't see the point in going over the same ground again. If someone brings up a new point I may respond, but otherwise I've had my say.
Barrie

If you consider that having the view that same sex parenting isn't a good thing and is an indication of homphobia or that considering that nature didn't intend same sex parental relationships an indication of the same, (which is the implication) then I would suggest you either name names, or retract your statement because as it stands what you've said is legally actionable.

You have the right to your own opinion but you don't have the right to make abusive or scurrilous remarks against an individual, or for that matter a group of people that disagree with you. Your opinion isn't necessarily correct, though of course it may be and society (the last time I checked) allowed for opinions other than yours.

 

[cjd]

Please calm down there's no need to take unnecessary offense; it's important not to take discussions like these personally even if you think they are - otherwise the mods will be forced to close it.

 

[Arhiann]

I think you should probably look elsewhere for the cause of the problem. It was a perfectly mature discussion to a point.

As it happens though, I'm perfectly calm. I do consider it offensive however, to be called a homophobe, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I've given the OP the opportunity to respond, justify his position or retract his statement, and he has a reasonable amount of time to do so.

The difficulty I have here is that I don't actually recall anyone being personal so far, but Barrie clearly has been and unjustifiably so in IMHO. I am very interested in his opinion, but making statements such as he has can do nothing for his cause. It's attitudes like these that cause ordinarily people to leave contentious subjects (like sexuality and race) alone.

I'm not homophobic, and I don't deserve the opprobrium associated with being accused as such. I am entitled to have a different opinion, and I'm far from alone in having it. The coment was in my opinion clearly directed at me (and possibly others too), and it was unwarranted.

 

[cjd]

On the subject of homosexuality and 'what nature intends'.

This is an often used metaphor but it's not a good one (nature, of course, can't and doesn't intend anything.)

I imagine that if I was gay I'd find the inference behind it quite offensive as it basically suggests that homosexuals are not natural or outside nature.

It seems that about 10% of the human population are homosexual and as nature (or god?) created them I think we can conclude that they are as natural as anyone else.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Barrie wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for bullying, I cannot be of a lot of help. Just because something seems plausible, we should not assume that it's true, without hard evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think we can reasonably assume that more bullying will occur. The only way to be certain is to experiment.

Barrie wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gay or lesbian parents will be much more aware of this than the average parent and, I contend, much better placed to avoid it or help the child through it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why shouldn't the parents of fat, skinny, black, scruffy, etc. kids be just as aware of their children's non-conformance to their respective norms? And even if gay parents were more aware, how will they stop their children being bullied whilst allowing the child to maintain a normal, healthy social life? Saying that a problem can be solved is not a solution.

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't think the volume of kids bullied and bullying changes much but the likely targets might change a little.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Am I missing something here? I would have thought it was quite simple. If there is, say, one fat kid and one scruffy kid in a classroom who are regulary being bullied, psychologically or physically, and then a child with gay parents joins the class, then it is highly probable that there will be one extra kid being bullied.

Or are you saying that the bullies will allocate their bullying time fairly so the victims will each receive their fair share of bullying?

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also doubt that the sum of human misery is changed much by bullying in comparison to that caused by the loss of 6% of UK adoptions - if that is the result of the Catholic church leaving the market.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, let's say the catholic church pulls out of the adoption market, and the children that would have been adopted through them remain in state institutions. At the same time we have a few thousand children in the care of gay parents, most of whom are being tortured at their schools. How do you propose to "measure" the amount of misery in each group of children and compare the results? How can you quantify an amount of misery?

But let's suppose, for a minute, that we can do this anyway.

If
Cs is the amount of happiness felt by a child adopted by straight parents,
Cg is the amount of happiness felt by a child adopted by gay parents,
Ci is the amount of happiness felt by an institutionalised child,

then I would think that

(Cs - Ci) > (Cg - Ci)

In fact I would say that the majority of the cases of (Cg - Ci) would be negative! That is, for a certain number of years at least (especially in secondary school), the child would be happier in an institution.

Also, you seem to be saying that the catholic church should act contrary to its beliefs, and assign children to gay parents in order to be pragmatic and minimise an amount of misery. I'm not religious myself, but I can certainly understand why religious people must stand by their beliefs, and I would never try to blame them for any extra, unnecessary misery which is caused by this ridiculous law. In fact I think the catholic church has been very flexible in offering to refer gay adopters to other agencies.

And no, it does not therefore follow that we must allow muslims to conduct stonings in a public square.

cjd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't bullying at school an argument for changing how schools manage bullying?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, it is. Children will use anything as an excuse to bully if that's what they seek, and it's for schools to deal with it sensibly and not to ignore it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what are your solutions or suggestions gents? How would you "manage" or "deal with" bullying in the playground? Saying that someone else must solve the problem is not a solution.

Dave

 

[Ozzy]

It is perfectly understandable that Barrie will take this thread personally as he will feel a minority and a way of life for him is being discussed here, whether intentionally or not. For that I agree with cjd that everyone must bear that in mind with his comments, he will take things more personally than others.

Going back to the original topic, I think the Church has no choice but to close its centres and the Government has not choice but to not exclude the church from the law. Can you imagine the chaos amongst other religions if they did (as mentioned earlier I think).
It cannot be expected to expect a religion to go against their believes, as religion plays a huge part in this world. At the same time it cannot be expected to allow certain groups to be above the law.
This is one occasion I'm glad I do not follow any faith other than my own. I think I'm a Jedi according to the national survey

I don't dispute that same sex couples can make just as good parents as hetro couples, but I do believe that society in its current state will make it difficult for them and the children.

 

[Arhiann]

On the subject of homosexuality and 'what nature intends'.

This is an often used metaphor but it's not a good one (nature, of course, can't and doesn't intend anything.)

I imagine that if I was gay I'd find the inference behind it quite offensive as it basically suggests that homosexuals are not natural or outside nature.

It seems that about 10% of the human population are homosexual and as nature (or god?) created them I think we can conclude that they are as natural as anyone else.

Of course it can't intend anything, it's not a sentient being. But of course nature can't select anything either can it, and that blows Darwin out of the water too. You're arguing semantics here. A better choice of words may be the "natural order of things".

You're also arguing against a point I've never made. I'm not aware that I've said anywhere that homosexuality is unnatural. All I've said is that I think that mixed sex parenting is the natural course of affairs. If I have said homosexuality is unnatural, then it was unintentional, but I've looked thorough and I can't see where I've said that.

Interestingly, Peter Tatchell, gay rights campaigner has come out on the side of a bit of both in terms of nature or nurture.

There's also quite a funny bit on the latent homsexual tendencies of homosexuals alluded to by Barrie. The MPs that voted against the realtively recent proposal for changing the age of homosexual consent, were invited to take part in a scientific study of whether they would become aroused whilst watching homosexual pornography. They offered to test the honourable member's honourable member. Too funny. To date, none have accepted the invitation.

I don't want to think about Sebastien Coe or Michael Portillo watching gay worn with a micrometer attached to their nether regions, that will scar me for life, but it does sound funny.

It is perfectly understandable that Barrie will take this thread personally as he will feel a minority and a way of life for him is being discussed here, whether intentionally or not.

Whilst it may be a discussion that touches on Barrie's way of life, it doesn't give him the right to make false (personal) accusations. Even if you have a comment directed at you personally, the correct response is not to respond personally. Ad hominem attacks do nothng for your argument.

In many respects, Barrie will have come across this all before. The argument of the Church is trite, and they're almost certainly responsible for most of the twisted views society have of the incredibly complicated subject of human sexuality; I think most people can quite easily dismiss the view of the Church.

Other than that there are many accepted alternate views on the subject, which are far from homophobic.

I don't dispute that same sex couples can make just as good parents as hetro couples, but I do believe that society in its current state will make it difficult for them and the children.

Not entitely my point, but the same thing from a different angle. My point comes from the natural order of things.

As I said earlier, I can't imagine the Catholic Church would allow itself to be opened up to legal proceedings, so I think they'l just shut up shop. The goverment won't allow an exception, and as their opinion on the subject is written down in the book, they doesn't have a choice to not allow it.

On another note, 10%, is it really that high?

 

[cjd]

In fact I would say that the majority of the cases of (Cg - Ci) would be negative! That is, for a certain number of years at least (especially in secondary school), the child would be happier in an institution.

I think you're getting carried away with your algebra and forgetting your input assumptions.

Children from institutions are more likely to develop behavioural problems, become disturbed individuals, suffer mental problems, have fewer life chances, earn less money and are more likely to become criminals than kids that are adopted.

Bullying would only occur if the the kids brought up by gay couples live in a culture were it is seen as odd, different or even 'wrong'. The only way to prevent that (outside of having effective school bullying proceedures) is to make it normal in our culture - ie get on and do it.

You'd treat bullying in the playground on this issue the same way as good schools treat any bullying - you develop effective proceedures for it. That's just business as usual and if you want to see what works - just start another thread on it and we can find out.

 

[dagr]

To be fair, that we disagree was cleary evident. But you could safely say that homosexuals have had little to no input on child rearing for hundreds of years. Homosexuality has only recently been accepted, and only then begrudgingly.

Homosexuality isn't new. I believe you mean openly gay relationships are relatively new (relative in the sense that they weren't allowed, legally or morally, for the previous two/three hundred years. They weren't necessarily outlawed before that time). So, either homosexuality didn't exist for a couple of centuries or homosexuals lived as "normal" people, unable to live in openly gay relationships, but living in "normal" families. Is there any proof that those homosexuals that had kids and that lived that way were worse parents?

Is it right that we experiment with children? The accepted method has to be the way. We have no idea if there will be any long term ill affects from the alternative, so why take the risk when there are plenty of other options available.

You seem convinced that there is something inherently wrong (either potential or real) with gay/same-sex parents. My point, and what the law is saying, is we let ALL prospective parents undergo the same tough selection criteria. Full stop. Now, if that were the case and you are saying that you'd expect traditional male/female parent couples to "win" more adoption cases, then I could see (rightly or wrongly) your point.

One thing that strikes me here in the specific case of the Catholic church is a severe case of pot and kettle name-calling. The Catholic church has a terrible record of child abuse, not just at the individual priest level but more worryingly at the top management level. The number of cases where a priest who has abused children, been found out by his superiors, and is then sent away to repeat the abuse at another place is frightening. It doesn't exactly inspire me when their leaders say they want the right thing for the children.