Forums

Federal Government is moving to stop gay couples from adopti

Page:   1 2 3 4
 
 

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
August 3, 2007, 09:49

as i said Frogger……we all have our triggers. I’m not a same sex parent but it pressed my buttons too.



Sage
 
Joined in 2007
August 3, 2007, 11:16

Wow, I can’t believe the lengths they go to to stop same sex couples having children. Maybe they’ll try to pass a law that’ll stop us reverting back to the “normal” way to have a child, because I’m sure many will end up seeing that as the only way if they have their way.


I must admit at one point I was against it all too, I even had my doubts after I’d admitted to myself that I wasn’t “straight”. However I see things very differently now.


There are much worse things than having same sex parents. Like having one parent, having no parents, having parents who don’t love you, abuse you etc. I don’t have kids or have same sex parents, or know any kids from same sex parents for that matter, but I DO know that if… hopefully when… I have a child with my partner I’m going to love and cherish that child more than anything in the world, regardless of whether I’ve given birth to it, she has, or neither of us have, and give it everything it could possibly need, including a positive male influence – what are grandfathers and uncles for??. What more can you wish for for a child?



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
August 3, 2007, 15:06

How long will it be before people wake up to simple facts in life and not just take things from a text book level. Howard being one of them.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 6, 2007, 10:45

Amazing that the Govt. will never admit that even though they have this ideal of a Mother and Father it just doesnt happen in most cases anyhow. Many Kids with Mums and Dads just arent being cared for, at all.


This seems like a pretty emotive issue so the less I say on the topic the better. Maggie is right there are so many kids out there not getting the care they deserve, but I don’t think thats the issue. The government is not endorsing heterosexual couples who abuse their children and discriminating against homosexual couples who care adequatly for theirs as a kind of horrific juxtaposition. Abuse of children in heterosexual families has no place in the discussion because the governemnts reasoning rests on a lack of support for gay marriage. It stands to reason that they would not support adoption as well. I’ll leave my opinions to myself on the whole thing.


Strokes makes a vaild point though, if the government has cause to ban homosexual couples from adopting overseas then whats the reasoning to allow them to adopt within Australia and through various means having their own biological children? It seems to me that if you are going to support one on the basis that it is a less than ideal environemnt as the studies suggest then you need to support the whole thing… What makes internationally adopted children different from domestic ones? Doesn’t really make any sense to me.



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
August 6, 2007, 15:13

There is one thing I have learnt having MS (multiple sclerosis) and living with it now for almost 10yrs, although studies into it show certain things about the disease and its effect on those that have it, the studies are not conclusive and the be all and end all fact for everyone involved across the board.

I was told I would feel this, think that, lose this and maybe regain that, some of it was true but not all of it, if I had listened to the studies alone and followed them as complete fact, I would be nowhere in my recovery now and living as a recluse at home believeing that my life has no means of ever having any real direction since it would end early anyways or be cut short through some major disabling set back. I wouldve seen only what they have written about the disease and every little ache or pain wouldve meant to me that yes I was going downhill.

According to the text book, a Doctor even believed that my sore throat and achey joints was “definately the MS” and what it actually was, is the flu and mild arthritis. What am I getting at? Just because something has been studied and researched and applied as fact, does not make it fact, there are many exceptions and very few absolutes.

An ointment only prescribed for ears was wonderful for a rash I had and psoriasis, the Docs will never prescribe it for that but it is the only thing that had successully treated it. Sad thing is, they will never look into why it worked so effectively because the studies showed that it was only meant for the ear and it cant possibly be good for anything else since the two or three things I used it for aside of the ears, it just could not possibly be good for and they wont even look at the difference on my skin because it just isnt possible even though the evidence is staring them in the face.

My overall point, is that what is a study based on words and a handful of people compared to actual experience amongst or with that which you are studying and documenting as fact.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 6, 2007, 20:42

My overall point, is that what is a study based on words and a handful of people compared to actual experience amongst or with that which you are studying and documenting as fact


So to paraphrase your overall point you are saying that the studies simply don’t cut it when compared to your experience. Your perfectly right. Any kind of study is not going to be perfectly accurate for everyone, the human experience is so subjective. In relation to gay couples and children you may find that if there is a strong male role model in the form of teacher or friend, or if one of the parents in quite masculine in personality then the child will grow up with healthy gender role expectations. Thats just one example of what I’m sure is a multitude of variations. But when passing bills the governemnt can not take into account the subjective experience of every individual. The studies give an indication based on a sample of the population. It’s not 100% accurate but it gives the fairest measure we have of trying to evaluate what the experience will be like for the majority of the population. Governments use studies all the time to evaluate the impact certain bills will have on the population because its impossible to ask every citizen to write an extensive report on their circumstances and how the bill or potential bill has affected them.


Your doctors described symptoms to you because the majority of patients in their care experienced them, that does not mean that you will but it does mean that you are likely too. Studies are fact in as far as they attempt to evaluate what the majority of the population will think, feel, do or develop in certain circumstances by taking a sample of the population and studying them. If you have a better idea then I’m all ears.


My argument goes that if these studies prove that the majority of children in the sample where negativly affected in some way growing up with same sex parents then I would not take the risk. Our government to an extent has to work on a utalitarian ethics system ‘the greater good for the greatest amount of people’ if the majority of internationally adopted children will suffer in some way due to a less than desirable environment then we need to protect those children. I understand that the studies are not all-enculsive because they can not ask every person, the sample causes problems, but there is no better way.



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
August 6, 2007, 21:16

I do see your point in how these things are evaluated. I guess what they dont do when they do evaluate the kids with same sex parents and document their studies on is this 1)Is it the fact that the parents are same sex that has caused the unrest they have discovered in the kids? or 2)Is it the discrimination these kids face because their parents are same sex parents that has caused the “less than”prefered environment for the kids and the unrest in the kids? (to anyone reading Im not against same sex parenting at all, Im just engaging in a healthy debate & looking at every side)


So why not have a study as to what the real problems are that kids face when their parents are the same gender outside their immediate family situation. Im sure the studies will show that these kids do face harassment at school, church and discrimination as a whole to a degree and it does cause discomfort to the kids, so if that be the case then the change that needs to take place is more education regarding homosexuality on a broader scale, not the banning of same sex adoption and parental rights and some form of public acceptance at some public level so that the problem of homophobia is alleviated in the first place to a greater degree. (again Im not questioning the rights of gay/lesbian couples having children)



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 7, 2007, 06:57

The studies that are of any relevance to a debate on gay couples adopting children are the developmental ones that, you are right, do not study the effects society can have on a child that has gay parents. What the developmental studies aim tofind out is whether a child is developmentally disadvantaged in a same sex environment. The studies suggest that during the formative years when children develop socially, children of gay parents tend to develop in ways that are different to those of a child in a heterosexual environment. For instance they may become confused about gender roles by the age of three, which in turn the studies suugest has an affect on the way in which those gender roles are played out in adulthood. No study suggests that developmental characteristics are the one and only factor influencing a child, but from the ages of 0-10 they are pretty influential. A child’s ‘blueprint’ of the world is being formed. What the studies suggest is that a child who grows up with gay parents has a somewhat (sometimes significant sometimes not) different blueprint. The change is seen to be a ‘foundation’ for choices in adulthood that are not considered the norm. Of course most children in one way or another due to ‘bad foundations’ in childhood develop in ways that are not ok, the internalisation of racial bigotry for instance. The argument the government must consider is do the studies prove that the majority of children in same sex environments develop differently and with negative impact than children in heterosexual environments? If the answer even comes close to yes then it is negligence to allow gay couples to adopt because you are willingly placing a child into potential disadvantage.


As far as studies on society go, I would like to see more done too, the problem is they are rarely given any authortative integrity because they are conducted and analysed primarily by gay people and they are seen as a way of promoting the gay cause (a premis that is not completly unfounded in alot of cases). Of course societal impacts are going to have a huge affect on the child, but they don’t enter into a discussion on adoption rights because children of gay parents are discriminated against in every culture and because adoption has a developmental focus due to the fact that nine times out of ten the babies are six months or younger ie, they are hardly at an age to be influenced by a discrimatory environment. So while it is a relevant point that serious sociological study needs to be conducted (hopefully in the future by objective heterosexuals), it does not reflect the matter of gay adoption.


I understand that I am not making very many friends with theis opinion. I do not consider it homophobic, I believe due to these studies and for religious reasons that gay people ought not to adopt or have children through other intentional means because it is a less than ideal environment. I have not found any conclusive evdence that goes beyond ‘its not politically correct and seen as discrimination’ to inform me that the majority of children in the majority of cases are not negativly affected. Everyone thinking about this issue needs to actually do the research to come to a conclusion about it, with children’s futures central to the debate the simplicity of ‘gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples because we are all human being and its a ‘basic human right'” simply doesn’t cut it. It probes me to ask why you hold the conclusions that you do, if based on study it is even potentially harmful, why would anyone promote that?



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
August 7, 2007, 08:38

If I didnt personally know children of gay/lesbian parents and by saying children I mean kids from 0-35, I wouldnt have a leg to stand on but I do. Some of the girls grew up wondering if they could kiss a girl or not like anyone does at some stage, where as the others had no feelings that way at all, yet they either got married or have boyfriends and the boys also have g/friends or are married. Maybe one girl I know actually tried being with a girl but was not her thing. The parents were very balanced in the upbringing and they were taught that some kids have two moms or one mom or 2 dads or one dad or neither and are orphans. When ever I did ask how they were growing up (older ones) they werent confused any less than any other kid I ever knew (including myself in adolesence) and their grades didnt suffer in school, the only prob they had was being made fun of if anyone ever found out but for the teens I knew that was much less now days than the older ones. Some are even Christians. So this is why I have no problem with same sex couples having children. Ever heard of parents trying to raise children from a text book study on how to raise children based on popular studies and supposedly proven studies? I have and the kids were out of control or had little respect for their parents or elders. Pretty much like the kids I knew who went to the Steiner schools.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
August 7, 2007, 19:05

Until anyone can disprove the developmental studies on a psychological basis the evidence still stands. I’m sure you do know some families with gay parents, so do I. Nobody knows what goes on benieth the surface in any family that is not their own, it may look sunshine and roses on the outside, but it’s hardly ever the case in any family. What we know of other peoples families relys on what they tell us and what they allow us to see, most people don’t parade the bad stuff. I’m not suggesting that all the familes you know have deep seated issues, but it’s not a very reliable argument to wipe the slate clean for all gay couples based on a subjective knowledge of a few familes, a knowledge that is controled by the famiilies themselves to show them in the best light, we all do it.


It’s a cop out as far as I’m concerned. There is a total lack of conclusive evidence to indicate that the majority of children are not harmed by their environment. What we experience ourselves and what we know of the experiences of others is relative, it’s not a fundamental truth for all people and laws should not be put in place just because it worked out ok for some. Children’s futures are at stake and we can not afford to stand lightly or undecided on this issue. We have the evidence that the majority of children were negativly impacted… Why are we even debating this? It should be crystal clear. Any ‘right’ afforded to gay couples to have children (which by the way is not a right) should not be done at the expense of the wellbeing of any child, anywhere, ever. If there is even a smidgen of doubt, we need to stand up against this. Children are some of the most vunerable people on this planet, we need to protect them.


Page:   1 2 3 4
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.096 seconds.