I don't want to stir up another hornet's nest
but I am curious as to what the posters on this
forum think on this issue.

This was a discussion that we had recently with
friends. It did get rather heated.

I would like to know what posters here think -
and the reasons why?

Your views please.

Dear Foxy,

Presumably, many female homosexual couples can avoid the need for adopting or fostering other children by availing themselves of modern IVF procedures, perhaps publicly-funded. Or else, more simply, one or both grab a bloke and have a one-nighter, which would be surely more fun, and vastly cheaper, than going through that IVF process.

So are we mainly talking about male homosexuals ? Adoption of either boys or girls, or of course, both ? At what age ? Fostering or adoption ?

In the 'march through bourgeois institutions', what is the next Gramscian step ?

Love,

Joe

This is probably the easiest thread to respond to yet. NO!

Every child in every country in the world, rich, poor or otherwise has two things in common.
One, not one of them ask to be born, and Two, not one of then get to choose their parents.

Being a parent comes with huge responsibility and for any parent, whether they bare a child natually, adopt or otherwise must do all they can to provide that child with the best, most balanced upbringing they can provide, and placing a child in a situation where they will more than likely be bullied as a result of have a mum and a mum, or a dad and a dad at home is not in the best interests of that child.

Ask not what's best for the queers of the world, ask what's best for the children.

Good question Foxy.

As you say, this discussion can get very heated. It's good you don't want to stir up a hornet's nest.

Can we ask for your view before we begin sharing ours? I prefer to opt out of this discussion if my opinion is going to conflict with yours.

Pretty sure they already are.

I believe they are already doing so, and I have no problems with it.
However, it is really a non-issue because there are so few babies put up for adoption these days in Australia that it takes years for a heterosexual couple to adopt a child.

Birth mothers are able to say if they would agree for a homosexual couple to adopt their child, and most say no.
The majority of gay couples have the biological children of one or both partners living with them, and I believe that is the better option.

poor kids bound to be confused. Its hard enough now for kids in dysfunctional families. Why increase the dysfunction and pain in the community.

Isn't it already happening?

For what it's worth, my response is NO, they should not be able to adopt children.

Well I'm going to be honest here.

I really don't know how I feel on this issue.

I know that homosexual couples (male and female)
are already adopting children and I know that
the most important thing for a child is to be
loved and cared for - and live in a happy and
loving environment.

However, my own fellings on this issue are mixed.
I was hoping that I would find some answers reading
all your responses. Perhaps I'm more conservative on
this subject than I realised.

a few quotes from one man brought up by 'gay' parents

'“I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males,” he recounted, saying he “wanted to have sex with older men who were my father’s age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing.”'

one girl brought up by lesbians

'“Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent,” she explains, “Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their bi'

'“I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”'

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

Maybe that is why you have some reservations Foxy

I suppose what I am concerned about is
making things difficult for the child.
Now this may sound odd - and I'm not sure that
I'm putting it well - but children usually want
to be like their peers growing up. They don't want
to be "different." I know this from my own
experience when my sandwiches ar school were not
the norm, and my grand-mother's hand-knitted
exquisite jumpers were laughed up by the other kids.
I wanted to blend in and "belong."

Therein lies my mixed feelings on this issue.
On the other side of the coin - as gran used to say -
"Be proud - you don't want to be
just like everybody else - it's character-building."
But to a small child that just went over my head.
I didn't understand what she had in mind until much
later in life.

cont'd ...

I think that perhaps the main concern is being
ridiculed because of one's parents. Kids
ask questions, and being that "different" will have
consequences at school and could result in bullying.
From the parents point of view - it somehow smacks
of selfishness.

Dear runner,

Kids wanting to have gay sex if they have gay
parents? That did not even occur to me in this issue.

No.

The data on this is a still a bit vague and incomplete, but the studies so far suggest that children who are raised by a couple - whether gay or straight - are generally better off than those being molested and raped in group homes.

Seriously though, there's not much to suggest that children with two parents of the same sex are any worse off than those who have two parents of the opposite sex. The data is very incomplete, though, and most studies have only looked at lesbian parents so far. What can be said, however, is that children with only one parent are at a far greater disadvantage than those with two of the same sex.

There are bigger concerns such one or both parents displaying antisocial behaviour. I think a gay couple, who have had to jump through all sorts of hoops to adopt a child, are likely going to raise happier and healthier children than a straight couple who had a whoopsie and ended up resenting the child because of it.

I've heard dubious stories like the ones runner's mentioned, but sometimes you find that these people "found God" at some point in their lives and that's where their objections to same-sex parenting come from. Like this idiot for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001703/Another-mom-never-replaced-father-lost-Woman-raised-lesbian-moms-comes-against-gay-marriage.html

Foxy,

I don't think your concerns are as warranted now as they would have once been. Gay kids these days are usually out by the time they're 14 or 15 and the ones I know of, through a nephew of mine, don't seem to be given hard time about it. So I don't think having two parents of the same sex will be too much of a problem. Less and less so as time goes on too.

An electrical contractor was telling me that he and his wife had delayed their children for too long, being encouraged into a false security by the over-publicised (my opinion) success of older women and fertility assistance. They had exhausted the available options and themselves and looked to adoption.

However the advice on adoption he said they received was that their age would preclude them for ever being successful.

Knowing this stable, emotionally mature and loving couple I was saddened that others who might qualify before them on age alone, if weight is not attached to the highly desirable outlook, maturity, care and opportunities they could offer (and prove).

I am left wondering what direct consultation responsible bureaucrats and politicians, ever have with the electorate and what notice is ever taken. The couple I speak of could easily raise several children, putting more hours a day in than most younger couples would have available or even be motivated to commit to.

It is activists and those who can pay lobbyists who have the ear of politicians and can manipulate the media to embarrass politicians whose asserted desires are met. That excludes the majority of the population.

So I wouldn't be worried about the gays and the leftist 'Progressives' behind them not having gay 'rights' brought to the attention of the Parliament.

The better question here would avoid the over-exposed gay agenda and seek to understand what is causing the unexpected, enduring peak in abortions by women, early twenties to thirty, in their best years for having and raising children.

There is no appetite in some quarters for discussing the government reports that young working couples are being required to delay and eventually not have the children they planned and worked for. -Because young working couples are burdened with the taxes, user pays and higher housing costs arising from over-enthusiastic immigration, that lobs in the large metropolitan cities anyhow.

None of that is to challenge the present abortion arrangements. Nor is it being said that women should have children they don't want.

"Being a parent comes with huge responsibility and for any parent, whether they bare a child natually, adopt or otherwise must do all they can to provide that child with the best, most balanced upbringing they can provide..."

I agree, rehctub, bearing the responsibility of raising children is vitally important. But,

"...placing a child in a situation where they will more than likely be bullied as a result of have a mum and a mum, or a dad and a dad at home is not in the best interests of that child."

raises difficult issues.

Since this circumstance shows the ineptitude of the bully's parents, my instincts would be to remove the bullies into a better domestic environment. Others might disagree.

Foxy, since we can all of us use Argument from Anecdote here is a short one from someone who doesn't make money on the US conservative lecture circuit, and was in fact adopted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFcnZWdZRK0

[I suspect his biggest issue will be choosing between Catholicism and Judaism.]

This is probably the easiest thread to respond to yet. There is no reason why they cannot. All a child needs is a loving parent. Where a mother or father are no longer living does that deny them to keep their children. You religious bigots will steep to no depths.

I suspect, Ponde, that some of the posters here are atheists like me :) Is that your only shot ? Are you prepared to explore the crucial issues that might be raised, or simply trumpet your own views, no matter what anybody says ?

That's fine, there is no law against being a bigot :)

Joe

The question is wrong because the default is that people are allowed to do whatever they like unless prevented.

The question should therefore be: "Should, and on what grounds, be homosexual couples be prevented from adopting children?".

Some of us may not like the idea, but I can't find such legitimate grounds.

One noteworthy attempt was made by Rehctub on the grounds of the good of the child. However, as I disagree with his premises as if:
"One, not one of them ask to be born, and Two, not one of then get to choose their parents.", I cannot accept his conclusion either.

Suppose the natural parents left a will according to which if they were to die, then their children should come under the custody of uncle-couple such-and-such, then they both die in a road accident. Who has a right to deny their will?

Homosexuals are not fit to be parents. They have chosen to enter into an unnatural sexual relationship. Then why should they opt for fostering children? They can never ever satisfy the emotional needs of children. This kind of arrangement will lead to lot of social problems. Let us ban the so called homosexual mis "marriages" in the first place. It is a pity that in this materialistic world, all sorts of things are being legitimised (for individual's selfish ends) unmindful of the serious consequences of such acts in the society.

//Are you prepared to explore the crucial issues that might be raised//

I think the crucial issue that most people have is children being raised by single-gender parents. I don't see the problem. I know plenty of people who were raised by a single parent, and therefore by a single gender parent - there is no paternal/maternal influence when pater/mater is absent. If the presence of both gender role-models was essential for successful child-rearing, we would already know about it. There would be an enormous body of literature to refer to back to that clearly indicates that children suffer when primarily reared by a single gender.

If the absence of the paternal/maternal influence is such a bad thing, why don't protective services go around seizing the children of divorcees with sole custody and putting them into the care of married couples? Why don't they do the same with widows and widowers? If being raised by a single gender is highly detrimental to child's well-being, does that make widow(er)s who don't re-marry post haste child abusers?

Hi Toni,

Interesting point: is it in any way detrimental to children to be raised in a single-parent household ?

Are children raised in single-parent households any more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, or - through no fault of their own - be a burden on society ?

Actually, .......

WmTrevor,
The young man did not mention his relationship to girls or his natural parents. He treated his carers on an intellectual basis and not like a typical emotional child parent relationship - he called them John and Andy not Dad and Dad.

My wife has fostered 153 children in her lifetime and there was always an emotional bond with her expressed by these children, whether boy or girl.

I would like to find the actual number of gay couples who all you people are so worried about their adopted children.
There must be so few, as I have said before.

Heterosexual couples have to jump through so many hoops to secure one of the very few babies available in Australia for adoption, so I doubt it will be something you will have to get hysterical about for gay couples, because it would be rare.

Why don't the doomsday contributors to this forum be truthful and say you don't want gay couples to marry, have sex, have children, have jobs or any other normal life activity, because you can't bear the thought of homosexuality in any situation?

The issue is not the adopted children, but the actual gay couple....am I right?
If you were that concerned re children's rights and their lives, you would be up in arms with the rest of us re the poor kids who were sexually abused by the God-fearing Christian organisations in Australia, or the poor kids on those refugee boats or on Nauru.

I am more concerned about the kids who realise they are gay in their teens, but their supposedly loving heterosexual parents throw them out and disown them.
Where is the concern for those kids?

At least the kids that are cared for by gay parents know they were much wanted in the first place because the gay couple have to go through so much red tape to have these kids in the first place.

' If you were that concerned re children's rights and their lives, you would be up in arms with the rest of us re the poor kids who were sexually abused by the God-fearing Christian organisations in Australia'

Yea Susie and as usual you ignore the fact that most of the child molesters in the catholic church were into sodomy. In other words they had homosexual bents. Don't let facts get in the way of endorsing your dogmas.

Suse,
About 80% of those teenagers grow out of their "Gay" feelings, the rate of self described homosexuality drops from about 8% to 1.8% after age 21, it's a treatable condition and needn't cause anyone undue mental distress, for more info see Tanveer Ahmed's latest article.
The "children" on Nauru are almost all young men in their late teens and since in most third world societies the age of manhood is about 13 they're actually men,vagabonds, thieves and street urchins, for more information see the movie "Alladdin".
The racist message boards are full of links to mainstream news reports about women who've "adopted" young men of colour and been raped or murdered by them, or seen their biological children molested and maimed, it happens with monotonous regularity.
As for the child molesting priests they obviously were not "God Fearing" were they? Like many homosexuals the worst of those priests were sociopaths and anti social personality types don't feel fear, regret, remorse, shame or pity and they don't really suffer when exposed, sociopaths are good at feigning distress but they don't really feel it.

Sorry Ponde. Kids really do need normal parenting. I've seen too many kids of single mothers who's kids have gone of rails for the lack of a man about the place. Kids deserve a mother and a father.

Ugh. It really would be a good idea if we all at least skimmed the posts of everyone else to avoid making fools of ourselves by making a claim that has already been discredited. As someone who actually does know a bit about developmental psychology and developmental criminology, I suggest some of you making assumptions about what children need, go and do a bit of research.

Here's a good place to start:
http://scholar.google.com.au

Here, I'll even do the first search for you:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=same+sex+parents&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Of course, most of you won't bother, because, let's face it, this has nothing to do with the welfare of children. The "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" angle is just a superficial rationalisation for an otherwise irrational disliking.

JoM, where DO you get those ideas from?
Do you have any credible statistics about the gay population you seem to know so much about?
Runner......no, there are really no more words I can safely say here about your post.....

Suse,
Yes, all of the figures I cite are credible, though in a 2014 survey of 20,000 people aged 16-69 the number of homosexuals in the Australian population was estimated at 1.8% for men and 1.2% for women, I was using the 2003 figures.My estimate of 80% of younger people so attracted growing out of their homosexual attraction is also wrong, it's more like 95%, I know you don't like reading research papers so here's a Wikipedia page that explains it in terms a ten year old could understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Australia
You're not going to bother reading any of the articles I link regarding the other matters and I have to go to work soon so I won't trouble myself posting them but if Gerald Ridsdale's testimony to the Royal Commission is available online you should watch that, it's very revealing.

JoM,

"The "children" on Nauru are almost all young men in their late teens and since in most third world societies the age of manhood is about 13 they're actually men,vagabonds, thieves and street urchins, for more information see the movie "Alladdin"."

Absolute BS if I may say so : )

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2015/may/19/nauru-detention-centre-life-inside-the-asylum-seeker-compound-in-pictures

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/nauru-detention-serious-health-risks-to-children-revealed-in-confidential-report

Plenty of images of "young" kiddies in those articles - here are more images...from "Nauru".

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/2/18/1424243716275/c86bb323-7325-4c67-a372-b3af10d37617-620x372.jpeg

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/26/1411724199977/1439e1e4-2e41-495b-8d28-f276d20ca35b-620x372.jpeg

http://i1.wp.com/theaimn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/nauru1.jpg?resize=350%2C200

Here's the latest vagabond and street urchin to be flown to Nauru:

http://www.springhillvoice.com/images/firstbaby.jpg

Five month old bubba deported from Australia to Nauru recently ".... deported to Nauru to flies no water no aircon in hot vinyl tent..." - oh and through the stress of it all, her mum's ability to breast feed her was lost - happy days in a hot tent with the risk of dehydration while you're getting used to being bottle fed.

Jay of Melbourne,

Where are you getting this 95% figure from? I’ve utilised my own link above and Griffith university’s online library to find data suggesting that 95% of youth grow out of their homosexuality, but I can’t find anything.

The reason I ask is because suseonline asked where all the concern for gay youth with bigoted heterosexual parents was, and your response to this appears to have been to minimise the need for such concerns because, allegedly, 95% of homosexual youth grow out of it anyway.

So even if we take the conservative figure of 1.5% of the population being homosexual, that would mean that 28.5% of youth, at any one time, think they’re homosexual; 28.5% of youth out there are apparently worrying about how they’ll tell their parents that they gay, when in fact 95% of them will completely change and grow out of it. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Further to the above, 4.7% of the subjects of the survey you cited refused to answer, and I don’t see why too many heterosexuals would be anxious about revealing the fact that they’re straight. This could mean that as much as, say, 5% of the population are actually gay. So if this figure is more accurate (and I suspect that it is) that would mean that 100% of youth (or close to it) currently think they’re homosexual, going by the 95% figure you’ve provided.

So what’s with all the boy-girl relationships going on school? Has society just brainwashed them into thinking they’re all straight now?

With people like you AJ you would be telling the teenagers, try sex with both girls and boys and decide which one you prefer to see if you are homosexual. So it all depends on the experience they have and not their physical reality.

JoM, you surely can't be serious?
All these youth with homosexual yearnings that 'grow out of it' must be very careful at hiding their feelings, because there are NO stats proving your mad theory.
I haven't read about a more homophobic person than you before, but your ascertains are plain crazy!

Susie as usual only interested in her dogma (very perverted). No doubt unlike the doctor recently sacked for speaking the truth and medical facts about sodomy, her career will be safe as long as she holds to the perverted dogmas. The bigots seem to be winning at the expense of the kids and others.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/15b/DrChurch-BIDMC/index.html

While I understand the idealists calling for adopted children only to be given to the ideal 2 parent standard family, given the extreme shortage of kids for adoption and the priority given to the adoption agencies to choose "ideal" parents I find the whole debate about the rare parenting problems in gay couples to be trivial, especially considering the vast number of dysfunctional "ideal" families and single parent.

Lesbian couples normally don't need to adopt for obvious reasons, and generally raise as well balanced kids as normal nuclear families, and certainly far better than a large number of dysfunctional "normal" couples and most single parent families. Whereas gay male potential parents seldom wish to adopt, and even then very seldom manage to unless the biological parent chooses them.

I personally believe that the issue about gay adoption is another way to beat up on gay marriage.

Would I, Josephus?

<<With people like you AJ you would be telling the teenagers, try sex with both girls and boys and decide which one you prefer to see if you are homosexual.>>

What is it I’ve said that would suggest something like that? And how would the existence of people like me influence me to do something like that?

Or has my evidence-based approach just upset you?

<<So it all depends on the experience they have and not their physical reality.>>

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

I’m sorry, Josephus, but I don’t think that rational discussion is possible with someone who invents their own facts and ignores what the actual data has to say because they think the creator of the entire universe has informed them of the ultimate truth.

Virtually nothing you have had to say, that has anything to do with sexuality or marriage, has had any basis in fact.

runner,

"Susie as usual only interested in her dogma (very perverted). No doubt unlike the doctor recently sacked for speaking the truth and medical facts about sodomy, her career will be safe as long as she holds to the perverted dogmas. The bigots seem to be winning at the expense of the kids and others."

Do you think you could actually attempt to enlighten us beyond your penchant to call your opponents "perverted".

It's all you've got, buddy - and always delivered in a short run-by trolling comment.

How about showing us the depth of your intellect for a change...or is it beyond the bounds of credulity for some of us to surmise that it's there somewhere?

'Do you think you could actually attempt to enlighten us beyond your penchant to call your opponents "perverted".'

Again misrepresent me as usual Poirot. I called her views 'perverted'and you know it. Try a little honesty. Many of the feminist regressive ideas are also perverted (against the natural order of things). I dare say this medical doctor (urologist) has a little more understanding than Susie and even yourself Poirot but like you accuse so many others of you prefer to play the man.

AJ Philips,

Are you 'ughing' me? The practice and courtsey around here is to address the poster you are responding to.

As to your claim about knowing a "bit", I suggest you do know a bit about some things, and a whole lot about nothing. Don't try to teach your mother how to suck eggs, son.

runner,

"Again misrepresent me as usual Poirot. I called her views 'perverted'and you know it. Try a little honesty. Many of the feminist regressive ideas are also perverted (against the natural order of things). I dare say this medical doctor (urologist) has a little more understanding than Susie and even yourself Poirot but like you accuse so many others of you prefer to play the man."

That's a laugh - "playing the man".

You come onto this forum ad nauseam "playing the man". Nary a day goes by when you jump onto threads, bypass the actual subject, first port of call always being to smear and accuse your opponents of being 'haters" or holding "perverted views"...and you accuse me of "playing the man"!

Hypocrisy at its finest right there.

Here's a go - if I misrepresented you, I'll rephrase it.

"Do you think you could actually attempt to enlighten us beyond your penchant to call your opponent's views "perverted".

It's all you've got, buddy - and always delivered in a short run-by trolling comment.

How about showing us the depth of your intellect for a change...or is it beyond the bounds of credulity for some of us to surmise that it's there somewhere?

All better now?

Not just you, ttbn.

<<Are you 'ughing' me? The practice and courtsey around here is to address the poster you are responding to.

You were just the straw that broke the camel's back. If I respond to someone specifically, then I address them directly. Had you been around a bit longer, you’d have perhaps known that. So spare me your moralistic pontificating.

<<As to your claim about knowing a "bit"...>>

Actually, I know a lot since I’ve studied both topics in some depth and am somewhat qualified in the areas. But since I had already mentioned that recently in another thread, I tried to downplay it this time so as to not look like I’m always trying to talk myself up.

So take your ad hominem attacks and conservative grump tone elsewhere... son.

'How about showing us the depth of your intellect for a change...or is it beyond the bounds of credulity for some of us to surmise that it's there somewhere?'

you Poirot are uncapable of recognising any depth of intellect. You have proven it many times over. You would do well with the sisterhood and her dogmas on the front bench of the Labour party.

Fascinating.

So far, comments have been running about four to one, four little cracked fruities and hurt feelings to every one on-topic.

Do people say 'crack a fruity' any more ? What a bunch of sooks, is what I meant.

Back to topic, please.

[On how to start a fire-storm of cracked fruities: Lesson 1. ...... ]

Joe

Good on you AJ Philips if you are satisfied that branding as a moral pontificator anyone who questions your great interest in yourself and ideas. You probably need to reinforce your superiority all the time.

No skin off my nose. Must say I was chuffed to be the 'straw' that made you reveal your weakness, though. :)

Shadow Minister, "I find the whole debate about the rare parenting problems in gay couples to be trivial"

I agree, however the broader topic is also trivial.

This thread topic and others are being raised repetitively by gay activists and supporters to keep claimed gay issues and gay activism topical.

That is the problem with activists - they become addicted to the buzz they get from forcing decision-makers, authority and 'society' to back down and bend over. Any news is good news. In that the ABC would have to be one of the worst offenders. It is a very rare Q&A where the array of 'Progressive' topical values narratives, and gays is a good example, isn't given prominence.

Of course spinning about claimed superior values is easier than addressing the serious and complex issues facing Australia.

Mark Latham is right,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?

“We didn’t hear anything.

“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>

Easy sensationalist headlines, that is why.

ttbn,

That's some pretty blatant misinterpretation there.

<<Good on you AJ Philips if you are satisfied that branding as a moral pontificator anyone who questions your great interest in yourself and ideas.>>

Nothing I said suggested that that was the case. My comment regarding "moralistic pontification" was specifically in regards to your lecturing on the need to address people directly (when the most cursory glance at my posting history would have suggested that there was no need for such advice: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49348&show=history).

Nor, for that matter, did I indicate any great interest in myself or my "ideas", or demonstrate a need to "reinforce [my] superiority". In fact my efforts to not make a big deal of my qualifications on this occasion should have suggested this.

<<Must say I was chuffed to be the 'straw' that made you reveal your weakness, though.>>

No, you weren't. Unless you view a lack of tolerance for stupidity a significant weakness, or believe your own crap about some need on my behalf alleged to distract from your own display of ignorance.

Runner, I have never said anal sex was a healthy pursuit, just as other legal activities like smoking, drinking alcohol, or eating unhealthy foods. However, people will continue to indulge in these legal activities if it is pleasurable to them. It does not make me or anyone else 'perverted' if they acknowledge gay men their right to have sex in their own way.

Your little article from the mad paper you cited above does not show that the Urologist was sacked because he spoke out against the health problems suffered by gay men, but rather that he ranted about the evils and morals of homosexual behavior on the hospital intranet, which is not appropriate for a staff member to do....it was clearly discrimination against some members of the community.

You were just putting your own perverted stance onto the hospital's actions against a homophobic doctor.

Foxy,
I think approval of adoptions is done by Community Services Dept.
Considering the way all these cases against priests and others are
coming up 20, 30 years later would you as a public servant think twice
or even three times about allowing a couple of homosexual men to adopt
a boy or a girl ?
Would you be laying yourself open to a charge of incompetence at the
least and/or of placing a child in danger.

It would appear to me to be the height of stupidity by such a public servant.

Hi Suse,

You might be onto something: anal sex, heavy smoking or drinking are not illegal, even if those behaviours present some dangers, but many people get pleasure out of one or more of those. They shouldn't be stopped legally from doing so.

So, how far does one go with that right (and that analogy) ? Are heavy smokers and heavy drinkers are allowed to get married ? Yes, if one is male and the other is female. Are they allowed to foster children ? I don't know. Are they allowed to adopt children ? I don't know. Should they ? I'm not so sure.

Can single people, i.e. an unmarried couple, de facto couples, foster or adopt ? ? I don't know. Somebody in the business might know.

In other words, what restrictions are already in place, in terms of 'character', behaviour, habits, etc., which hedge people's rights to foster or adopt children ? And should those restrictions be lifted specifically for a particular situation ?

Just trying to get back on track :)

Joe

You just proved what I said. You can't imagine anyone not seeing you the you the way you see yourself and, along with that, I'm obviously stupid because you say so, but you do not have a weakness because I say so.

And despite you deeming me not to be chuffed, I assure you I was and am.

Terence wrote: I am a man; I find nothing human uninteresting. 23 centuries later, and AJ Philips comes up with: I am man; I find nothing about me uninteresting.

Most posters here don't feel the need to announce what what they "know a bit about", and by default intimate that means other's opinions are wrong. I'm not going to BS about my credentials, save to say that you ate straight out of a textbook.

AJ, The difference in the way we've calculated our figures isn't significant, the survey I cited also came up with over 20% of respondants claiming to have at some time felt attracted to a person of the same gender but never acted upon those feelings, all of the people who'd had that passing phase identified themselves as heterosexual.
Homosexual attraction is a juvenile fancy in most cases, young people still trying to work out the boundaries between friendship, intimacy and love. Studies of adults over the age of 18 show a much lower percentage of passing same sex attraction, it was only when the study was extended to include 16 year olds that the figure jumped up to over 20%.

Poirot, none of your sources are reliable, the pro refugee sites and The Guardian lie about this issue all of the time and omit data from their releases when it doesn't suit their agenda, show me actual numbers broken down by age at time of detention. The only figures I can find are from 2012 and they show that 87% of detainees are male, 87% are over the age of 18 and of those under the age of 18 only 20% are female. When we talk about men in this context it's anyone of fighting age, so from 15 to 60 though a boy of 12 or 13 from the Third world is technically a man capable of taking on adult responsibilites, despite what bleeding heart leftists say.

Hi Loudmouth, this evening after work I looked up about criteria needed to adopt kids in Australia. I found the official website and was surprised at how relaxed they seem.
It did say the wait for a baby was years long.

https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/FosteringandAdoption/AdoptionAndHomeForLife/Pages/AllAboutAdoption.aspx

Certainly the age, health, relationship stability, culture, religion, race and education of prospective adoptive parents are taken into consideration. However, it does say they will agree for single people and gay couples to adopt kids, if the relinquishing parents are open to that.

It seemed to me that one main reason prospective adoptive parents are knocked back is if they are too old. Apparently they must be well enough and young enough to be likely to still be active and alive for their adopted child in 20-25 years.

So, I would imagine that smokers and/or heavy drinkers would have no chance in adopting a child, given that they must have strict medical assessments before they can be chosen to adopt a child.

There were no special health considerations re gay couples mentioned at all.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

In my view, the State is already too intrusive in the private lives of individuals.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates :

« 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. »

Private life includes an individual’s physical and psychological integrity, personal or private space, the collection and publication of personal information, personal identity, personal autonomy and sexuality, self-development, relation with others and reputation.

Family includes engaged couples, cohabiting couples and same-sex couples, relationships with siblings, foster parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates :

« Article 2 : The Convention applies to all children, whatever their race, religion or abilities; whatever they think or say, whatever type of family they come from. It doesn’t matter where children live, what language they speak, what their parents do, whether they are boys or girls, what their culture is, whether they have a disability or whether they are rich or poor. No child should be treated unfairly on any basis.

Article 3 : The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children. »

.

ttbn,

Still misrepresenting what I say, I see.

<<AJ Philips comes up with: I am man; I find nothing about me uninteresting.>>

Where did I say or imply anything of the sort?

<<Most posters here don't feel the need to announce what what they "know a bit about"...>>

Actually, they do when it's relevant. And so they should too. Off the top of my head, we have two retired police, a nurse, a few scientists, several small business owners and a lawyer, and all mention their credentials to explain to armchair experts like yourself that they do actually have some idea of what it is that they're talking about when it adds necessary weight to what they say.

It can be a real time-saver.

<<I'm obviously stupid because you say so...>>

Whether or not you are is independent of what I think. There’s also acting stupid and being a stupid person.

<<...but you do not have a weakness because I say so.>>

I have already confessed to a low tolerance for stupidity, if it makes you any happier.

<<...save to say that you ate straight out of a textbook.>>

Nope, I've seen and analysed a lot of data; I've read others' interpretations of what various datasets are saying; and I've conducted my own secondary research in meta-analyses. A damn sight more than sitting in an armchair.

There's nothing wrong with textbooks either.

Jay of Melbourne,

I don't know of any studies that show figures as stark as this...

<<…it was only when the study was extended to include 16 year olds that the figure jumped up to over 20%.>>

The ones I saw on the Wiki link you provided didn't seem to suggest any such trend. Even if that is the case, though, it's really not an argument for or against anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that most might grow out of (a form of (probably just curiosity and experimentation and not actual homosexuality)) same-sex attraction, adds nothing to the debate and nor does it say anything about the rightness or goodness of homosexuality.

AJ Philips,

I meant that YOU/YOUR PERSONALITY came out of a text book. As in you as a case. You are pretty slow on the uptake for someone who calls other people stupid.

ttbn, I don't think anyone's personality has any bearing on the subject of this thread, There is no way you can know anyone's personality by merely reading their posts to this forum.
I have no doubt that many people misrepresent themselves and their lives anyway, under the cover of anonymity.

What is a textbook personality anyway?
Do you think all personalities are strange except people like you?
You must feel humble in your own presence.....

I don’t see how this renders me slow, ttbn.

<<I meant that YOU/YOUR PERSONALITY came out of a text book. As in you as a case.>>

I think you are just making it up as you go now to save face.

Here’s the full quote: “I'm not going to BS about my credentials, save to say that you ate straight out of a textbook.”

I don’t think there are any idioms or metaphors involving eating out of anything, let alone eating straight out of a textbook, that are meant to imply that someone has a particular kind of personality. Being a textbook case of something? Yes, and even then, you'd need to specify what they were a textbook case of. But eating out of a textbook? No.

To “eat out of something” could, however, be loosely be interpreted as gullibly “swallowing” something, so my slightly more literal interpretation appears to have been the more reasonable one.

[How that follows from not BS-ing about one's credentials, though, I don’t know.]

<<You are pretty slow on the uptake for someone who calls other people stupid.>>

I didn’t actually call anyone stupid, but I'm tempted to now after that last effort. I did refer to what you did/said as stupidity though. In retrospect, perhaps I should have just referred to what you did as clumsiness or foolishness? Does that sit better with you?

Either way, this is just one big attempt to distract from the fact that your armchair-expert opinion had already been discredited before you even said it.

Would someone tell A.J. Philips, the scientific facts of the reproductive organs, and why there are two genders. As all alternatives are a perversion of the physical reality. He does not want to face the scientific facts as it weakens his emotive argument, as long as there is an orifice a penis can penetrate it is OK by him. That might be his choice but it is not based in the reality of biological or medical fact.

I wouldn't allow A.J Philips to teach my children, yes I am discriminating because I believe in biological reality.

Are most effeminate homosexuals developed from how they were toilet trained? Do Bike gangs that practise homosexual acts do it for brotherly bonding not from being born homosexual?

' Would someone tell A.J. Philips, the scientific facts of the reproductive organs, and why there are two genders. '

Pseudo science is AJ's speciality

Would somebody tell Josephus that human sexuality and biology are a little more complicated than just reproduction and its results?

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=origins+of+homosexuality
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/300145?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf

Of course, as a creationist, and someone who thinks that he has been informed otherwise by the creator of the entire universe, that’s going to be very difficult difficult.

<<I wouldn't allow A.J Philips to teach my children, yes I am discriminating because I believe in biological reality.>>

You may “believe in biological reality”, but for your beliefs to be accurate, you first need an understanding of biology that extends beyond ‘Where Did I Come From?’

<<Are most effeminate homosexuals developed from how they were toilet trained?>>

No, there is no credible evidence for that. And even if that were the case, it wouldn't say much for the all-powerful being that you get your information from.

<<Do Bike gangs that practice homosexual acts do it for brotherly bonding not from being born homosexual?>>

They may wear tight pants, but that’s for good reasons and just because the tight Lycra gear is a little emasculating, that is in no way indicative of their sexuality.

But if you mean "biker" gangs, then I'm afraid you're a little confused. The videos you've been watching actually belong to what is referred to as the "Gay bear" scene. They mostly only dress like bikers.

But hey, there's nothing to be ashamed of, Josephus. America's deep south is the most Christian part of the country and they're the biggest consumers of gay porn in America (http://wtvr.com/2014/03/13/bible-belt-states-watch-the-most-gay-porn-stats-show).

In fact those who are the most vocal against homosexuality tend to be the ones wrestling the most with feelings that their religion is telling them they shouldn't be feeling (think Ted Haggard). Off the record, I reckon it has something to do neutralising a guilty conscience. But that's not a professional opinion.

//the scientific facts of the reproductive organs, and why there are two genders//

Oh dear. Here we go again.

Hey Josephus, have I ever told you the joke about the sadistic necrophiliac with a taste for bestiality, or that would just be flogging a dead horse?

//As all alternatives are a perversion of the physical reality.//

It is bad enough that you keep spouting nonsense about biology and that I have to keep putting you back in your box. But biology isn't really my favourite branch of science.

If you start talking shyt about physics, I will go super saiyan and you will cry foul like you always do after you've provoked people.

//He does not want to face the scientific facts//

There's the pot calling the kettle an excellent absorber of visible EM radiation.

//I am discriminating because I believe in biological reality.//

No you don't: we've been over this. You believe that mammals sexually reproduce, except for one special case of parthenogenesis about 2000 years ago. I agree with the first bit; the parthenogenesis argument is still hotly debated. You don't believe that homosexuality is a natural behaviour of many mammalian species including homo sapiens. On that point you are clearly incorrect: homosexuality is biological reality.

//Are most effeminate homosexuals developed from how they were toilet trained?//

WTF?

//Do Bike gangs that practise homosexual acts do it for brotherly bonding not from being born homosexual?//

I'll give you half my life savings if you walk up to a bikie and tell him you think he's a poof. That should cover the funeral costs and leave some left over for your poor grieving widow.

Toni Lavis,

The whole toilet training bit is an old discredited Freudian idea. I used to use it too when I was a Christian.

Suse,

With training, you can learn a lot about people's personlities by how they express themselves. I now know enough about AJ Philips to realise his problem, and that there is no point in engaging him any longer.

ttbn,

Thank you for once again demonstrating that your entire rebuttal has been nothing more than one big ad hominem in lieu of any evidence for your claims. Not the least being your original claim.

To your credit, though, I think it is at least wise of you to now quit while you're... well, before you make things any worse for yourself anyway.

Or perhaps you are simply "taking your ball and going home"? (You see? Now that IS an idiom.)

While I have been breeding cattle for 39 years of my life, it is BS that two bulls will give equal results or two cows produce a herd. AJ is not informed on the natural order of biological reality, or for his sake created reality.

Like I said earlier, Josephus, rational discussion with you on this topic is not possible.

You believe that a celestial magician created everything to be a particular way, and so any data that suggests that people can naturally deviate from that must necessarily be wrong, according to you.

This is why you can ignore what others tell you and the research they link you to, and continue to make your irrelevant point about the birds and the bees and invent your own psychological analyses, without even the slightest bit of embarrassment or moment’s pause to consider the possibility that there may be something you’re not taking into account that extends beyond reproduction.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Here is an additional element of reflection …

Wards of the state: the foster care crisis :

« Almost 20,000 Australian children are living in foster care, removed from their biological parents for their own safety, and as the number of children in need of foster care rises, the number of carers is dwindling.

The long term prospects for many of the children are not good, with high rates of imprisonment and homelessness, and poor education outcomes.

A number of states are looking at how to attract more foster carers, including paying carers a tax free wage starting at around $55,000 per year and extending the age of support for children in foster care until a child turns 21. » :

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2013-11-17/5086254

.

.

« I will engage with you if you engage with me ! »

Posted by Sells, Thursday, 28 May 2015 12:34:51 PM

« Waiting for Godot ... »

.

//While I have been breeding cattle for 39 years of my life, it is BS that two bulls will give equal results or two cows produce a herd.//

Poe's Law: without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.

Well you've convinced me, Josephus: mammals reproduce sexually, therefore homosexuality must necessarily be a con trick invented by Rotary to sap our precious bodily fluids.

Maybe you should a few more layers of tin-foil to your beanie, Josephus.

The use of sarcasm indicates you have lost a logical argument.

Josephus,

That's a little rich given that you are yet to explain how your lone argument involving reproduction negates anything anyone else says.

<<The use of sarcasm indicates you have lost a logical argument.>>

Sarcasm can be a tool used to highlight the absurdity of a position by analogy. It can also be a way of having fun when the futility of any further serious discussion becomes apparent.

ttbn,

Since this thread has gone quiet now, I just thought I'd ask what this training is that you have had enabling you to determine an individual's personality from one comment?

The quickest method of assessing an individual's personality, that I know of, would probably be the Briggs Myers' personality test, but even that has its limitations.

The only way you could really get an accurate picture of an individual's personality would be to follow them around for a few months and gauge their responses to different stimuli to identify trends over time. Since that's impossible, researchers would instead do a longitudinal study of cross-sectional data gathered using questionnaires at certain intervals.

I don't think you have had any training at all in this area.

Furthermore, if I were to, say, give some dodgy handyman advice on OLO, then someone who is actually a qualified tradesman in that area should be able to highlight their credentials when correcting me (to prevent an unnecessarily long back and forth exchange) without me accusing them of some sort of insecurity or character flaw.

I can assure you that you have figured out nothing about me.

//you have lost a logical argument.//

Josephus, that necessarily presumes I was engaged in a logical debate (argument). Since I've yet too see you advance any logical arguments - you just keep pointing out that mammals sexually reproduce (which I've known for a lot longer than I've been reading your posts) and pretending that that constitutes an argument - I it is reasonable to conclude that none of our discussions can be considered logical arguments. They won't be until you learn what logical argument actually entails, and I'm not holding my breath.

Toni Lavis,
I recognise you see physical reality as illogical, and you believe you can do it better.

AJ Philips, You can sum a person up by what they actually believe is reality. I did two years study in 1960 - 61 which included psychology, and 75 years of relationship with people. What one actually believes influences their behaviour, i.e. you see nothing abnormal in anal intercourse.

Josephus,

You keep harping on "physical reality"...

Can you explain to me the "physical reality" of Jesus being conceived and born of the Virgin Mary - without the agency of a human father?

Thanks.

Josephus, I doubt that unless they are male homosexual (or perhaps a kinky heterosexual!) the other contributors to this discussion would not consider anal sex 'normal'. However, it IS normal for gay men to consider it normal.

I can't imagine how you don't get this basic concept after all the posts written on this subject on this forum. No one is suggesting you should feel the same way, or that you should partake in rampant anal sexual activity if gay marriage was made legal.

Poirot, you are heading into deep waters with questions like that one about the supposed 'virgin birth'. I once asked a nun that very question and she yelled at me to immediately go to confession, because I might otherwise go straight to hell!

What amazes me is the constant requests to pray to a god for divine help, but if you loudly voiced your prayers and inspirational discussions you supposedly had with God out in public these days, you would be 'sectioned' for being schitzophrenic and hearing 'voices'!
Years ago, such as in the days Jesus walked the Earth, you were considered a holy saint if you did this.....

//I recognise you see physical reality as illogical//

Well somebody just let the cat out of the bag. And you were doing such a good parody that you had me and everyone else around here fooled.

But you know I love physics because I just told you a few posts ago, and you're almost certainly well-educated enough to know that lot of physics-loving people share Galileo's view that 'mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe', so your crack about me seeing 'physical reality as illogical' is too obvious of a wind-up.

It's clear, from Poe's Law and from the way you conduct yourself, that you've never actually believed anything you've posted on this forum. You were just doing a very, very good job of parodying some bible-bashing old misanthrope.

Well, you had me fooled. Bloody good job. Now that you've been rumbled, I would love to talk to the man behind the brilliant character that was Josephus.

//Josephus, I doubt that unless they are male homosexual (or perhaps a kinky heterosexual!) the other contributors to this discussion would not consider anal sex 'normal'. However, it IS normal for gay men to consider it normal.//

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Suse. Have you seen this documentary? It's brilliant. Be sure to watch out for Pastor Marlay (spelt phonetically, I may have the name wrong). I'm pretty sure he posts on this forum.

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/stephen-fry-out-there/ZX9731A001S00

It was fascinating to me that in cultures as diverse as Uganda and Australia, the vehement homophobes always fixate on anal sex to the total exclusion of everything else. It's also fascinating how they stick their head in the sand the moment anybody brings heterosexual anal intercourse.

Josephus,

Either you’ve forgotten a lot since the course you did in the early 60s, or they were really naive back then.

<<You can sum a person up by what they actually believe is reality.>>

And I don’t think they were quite that naive, despite knowing relatively little back then.

There are a seemingly infinite combinations of beliefs about what reality is and I can assure you that no-one has charted out what each combination says about a person.

<<What one actually believes influences their behaviour>>

Now this is correct. I even remind those, who ask me what the harm in religious belief is, that our beliefs inform our actions and that our actions have consequences. But this doesn’t mean that one can sum a person up by what they believe reality to be.

<<...you see nothing abnormal in anal intercourse.>>

Whether or not I do depends on how you’re defining “abnormal”. According to the Oxford definition (i.e. deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying), no, I don’t think it’s abnormal. But if you are defining “abnormal” as that which does not result in the fertilization of an ovum, then yes, I guess it is abnormal. But then so is oral sex, and we’ve all engaged in that in one way or another.

Whether or not anal sex is normal, however, has nothing to do with the wrongness or badness or otherwise of homosexuality. Nor does it have anything to do with whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Hi Everybody,

My apologies for not responding earlier but I've
had a few personal problems and wasn't able to
reply to anyone.

I'll try catching up - after I've had a chance to read
the posts.

For now - Thanks to everyone for all your contributions.

Well I've managed to browse through most of the posts
on this controversial issue - and goodness me what a
wide variety of opinions there are.

This issue is being discussed from so many angles -
from religious viewpoints, to individuality, to sex,
to paedophilia, to all sorts of things. Everyone sees
things according to their own viewpoints and I guess
that's to be expected and is a good thing.

My viewpoint if still undecided.
I'm for same-sex marriage - I suppose because that's a
decision that will be made between two consenting adults.
However - when children are involved I hesitate.
Simply because I guess I need to look at this issue from
what would be best for the child. And I'm still not
convinced that having same sex couples as parents would be.

I know that there are so many children in foster-care who
would jump at the chance of a happy loving home - and I
don't doubt that same-sex couples can provide that. However,
I still hesitate.

And I can't fully explain why.

Dear Foxy,

Perhaps it may help you to decide if you note that there are two different questions here:

1. Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children?
or rather its opposite:
1a. Should homosexual couples be prevented from adopting children?

2. Is it a good thing when homosexual couples adopt a child?

I believe those questions to be unrelated.

Hope things are getting back on track for you, Foxy...

"However - when children are involved I hesitate. Simply because I guess I need to look at this issue from what would be best for the child. And I'm still not convinced that having same sex couples as parents would be."

'Best for the child' is such a high ideal that to achieve it should require all prospective parents to be accredited before they create children because all of the "so many children in foster-care who would jump at the chance of a happy loving home" that you know of come from opposite-sex couples - and that does not begin to account for the untold numbers of children still in unhappy, unloving and abusive opposite-sex homes.

"However, I still hesitate. And I can't fully explain why."

I accept the honesty of your hesitation... Whilst you are considering it, maybe we could discuss what opposite-sex parents are doing that is not "best for the child" in society? They have, after all, created the need for adoption and fostering in almost all cases.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Now you've thrown a spanner in the works.

It never occurred to me to think about the issue of
preventing homosexuals from adopting children. I went
on the assumption that not every homosexual couple
would be interested in adopting children - therefore
I was asking the question - that those that wanted to -
should they be allowed or not?

However - I believe that those two questions are inter-linked.
You can't have one without the other.
How can you say yes homosexual couples should be allowed
to adopt children and then turn around and say - but they
should be prevented from doing so.

I'm going to keep on working my way through this conundrum.

Parents play a major role in the lives of their children.
Children must have years of physical care, including food,
shelter, and protection from harm. Love and affection are
also necessary to stimulate children to learn and mature.
This love should come from a person or persons with whom
the children can develop a lasting attachment.

Youngsters who have been raised in institutions and haven't
received enough individual attention or love often experience
problems in forming personal relationships later in life.
They may also fail to achieve other kinds of normal growth
and development, even though they have received the
necessary physical care.

Parents therefore play a major role in a process called socialisation
by which children learn to become independent members of
society. For example, parents train their youngsters to speak,
to dress themselves, and to perform other basic activities.

Girls and boys also learn sex roles - that is, the roles they
are expected to play as adult females or males - by identifying
with the parent of their sex. With a same sex couple -
this may become a problem.

Children are born with great individual differences in
intelligence, physical ability, and temperament, and so they
vary greatly in talent, personality, and other characteristics.

As you can see - I certainly don't have the answers.

Dear Foxy,

The questions (1) and its opposite (1a) are simply two different ways to ask the same question: either we allow adoption by homosexual couples, or we prevent it.

Now lets concentrate on the second question: is it good to have homosexual parents adopting?

Yes, children have so many needs and the average parents are unable to provide them adequately, so if you find a couple that can provide say 90%, then I think you've got a good bargain.

One need you mentioned is: "Girls and boys also learn sex roles - that is, the roles they are expected to play as adult females or males - by identifying with the parent of their sex."

I disagree. I believe that the best we can do for our children is to teach them that sex is unimportant and creates unnecessary problems, that life is too precious to spend their time and energy on sex and if stupid others expect it of them, then they should just ignore them. I wish I had this training myself as a child!

It seems that gays in general would, on this particular issue (which is of course just one factor among many), be inferior parents because sex is an important and overemphasised feature of their life. Obviously this is not necessarily true for all homosexuals, yet likely so if they identify with being "gay" rather than simply lead a normal life with their partner which happens to be of the same gender.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your response.

There's much to think about - and I am still
undecided on this issue.

Here's a few more thoughts on the subject:

All children will have to face people outside
the home. They could remain defenceless when stepping
outside the family into the outside larger society
which is still increasingly complex
and is based on the principle of gender complementarily.

If a child's emotional, mental, and spiritual integrity
is jeopardised, their welfare is at risk.

Children should not be the means of enlightening society.
A child can benefit from both male and female sides -
this is important for the child's development and it will
help them grow aware of society as it exists rather than
human excuses.

Just thinking out loud - and tending to lean more towards
the answer - NO (at present) on this issue.

.

Homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality.

As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out:

« No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue. »

Boeckman observes social advantages to the free expression of homosexual behaviour and adds :

« It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. »

http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/

Religion historically regards homosexual sex acts as sinful, based essentially on an erroneous understanding of "natural law" (the law of nature) as shown by the results of the zoological research mentioned by Petter Boeckman.

Religious dogma is constantly proven wrong in its interpretation of nature by scientific research.

There is a perfume of "déjà vu" regarding the current debate on homosexual marriage, e.g., Galileo's condemnation for heresy when he declared in 1610 that the earth revolves around the sun.

Homosexual behaviour has never been noted to be a possible cause of the diminution or disappearance of any animal or plant species :

http://www.webofcreation.org/Earth%20Problems/species.htm

There is no objective reason to discriminate against either heterosexual or homosexual behaviour as regards the adoption and raising of children.

The role of the State should be limited to the public - not the private – sphere, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “Right to respect for private and family life” :

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Convention_ENG.pdf

.

//Girls and boys also learn sex roles - that is, the roles they
are expected to play as adult females or males - by identifying
with the parent of their sex. With a same sex couple -
this may become a problem.//

But it could never be a problem when kids are raised by a single parent. Basically the equations go like this:

Mum + Dad = Good
Dad = Good
Mum = Good
Dad X 2 = Bad
Mum X 2 = Bad

Why are twice as many dads/mums worse than half as many? Buggered if I know. But apparently they are.

If it makes you feel better, Foxy, don't think of it as two men/women raising a child: think of it as one man/woman raising a child - which is commonplace and socially accepted - with a backup unit in case the primary unit is incapacitated due to illness or misadventure.

Foxy,

As I mentioned earlier, the sexes of parents don't seem to make any difference. They're are far more important factors that influence a child's wellbeing. I provided a link to the results of a Google Scholar search earlier that had a lot of the peer reviewed literature on this topic if you're interested in it.

Yuyutsu is right with regards to sex roles. The importance society places on them actually does more damage than good.

Everyone is different. Some children may actually respond better to two parents of the same sex. It is presumptuous to assume that all children would be better off with two parents of the opposite sex, or that it even matters at all. It sounds like it should make sense, but reality is sometimes counter-intuitive.

.

A major study conducted by University of Melbourne researchers has concluded that same-sex parents actually raise children slightly better than straight couples.

The new research is a major blow to social conservatives who argue that gay and lesbian couples will raise gender-confused, worse-off children and blows the lid off the argument that every child "deserves" a father and a mother.

The research team surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 300 children, the largest such study on non-heterosexual parenting ever conducted. Multidimensional measures of child health and well being were performed, with the children of gay couples scoring about 6% higher than kids in the general population on measures of health and family cohesion. The results line up with previous international research taken on smaller sample sizes.

"That's really a measure that looks at how well families get along, and it seems that same-sex-parent families and the children in them are getting along well, and this has positive impacts on child health," lead researcher Simon Crouch told ABC. He elaborated that the study found same-sex parents "take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes," and the result is a "more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and well being." :

http://mic.com/articles/92945/a-major-study-reveals-what-happens-to-children-raised-by-same-sex-couples

.

This isn't a question of making me feel better as one
poster suggested.

This is a question of doing what's right for the child.

One size does not fit all - I realise that.
And that's why a blanket yes or no - I'm not to
happy in giving either one way or the other.
That's why I am having difficulty in coming to grips
on where I stand on this issue. I'm not entirely sure
what is best for the child. Your arguments are sound.
And -

I respect your opinions, but perhaps in this matter I still
am undecided due to predominantly the fact that the child
will have to face people outside the home and be judged
accordingly. I also feel that a child can benefit
from both male and female sides in its development.

To me there doesn't seem to be one set answer.
Perhaps it depends on each individual case.
I really don't know. I would love to say - yes homosexual
couples should be allowed to adopt children.
But in all honestly - I can't say that and mean it.
Perhaps I am more conservative than I realised.

I've just learned that the US High Court has voted four
to one to approve same-sex marriage in all the states
and when questioned Christopher Pyne said that Australia
should follow suit before the end of the year.

If this does happen then adoption should no longer be a
issue for same-sex couples.

"Christopher Pyne said that Australia should follow suit before the end of the year"

There you go, the LNP could deliver you and ors what you have been demanding for years and remove a tiresome time-waster that has allowed the Greens Protest Party and slack Labor politicians to compete for headlines and has consumed too much time of the parliament, House of Reps and the Senate.

All disposed of prior to 6 August 2016 and well before 14 January 2017.

otb,

I have not been demanding anything of the kind.
What I have been suggesting is to have a conscience
vote/referendum on the issue.
Why on earth do you make this personal.
And why turn this discussion into a political one.
The comment by Christopher Pyne does in no way
reflect what the rest of the politicians think of
this issue - on
any side of the political spectrum. The only way to
judge that would be to have a conscience vote on the subject
and find out.

Foxy,

You have my sympathies regarding this recent discovery that you hold a conservative belief. At least you're trying to do something about it though. A bit of reading on what the literature actually has to say on the topic and I'm sure you'll bop it on the head in no time.

Without wanting to sound patronising, I think I can understand the headspace you're in at the moment. I don't know how conservative you may have once been, but when I was a Christian, I had the trifecta of objections. I was against abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality. When I lost my faith, I still believed that these three things were wrong. It wasn't too long before it occurred to me that these three things I disapproved of may have just been leftovers or the dregs from my Christian days. After reading different opinions and facts on these topics, one by one, I eventually realised that I could no longer justify my objections to them.

Even after coming to accept homosexuality as a normal part of reality, I was still uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage for a while there. But it didn't take long before I realised that my discomfort with the idea (which no longer exists) was not a rational reason to be against it, as so many of OLO's conservatives seem to think it is.

I appreciate your concern for the welfare of children. And unlike everyone else who pulls the, "Won't somebody please think of the children!" card, I believe you're actually sincere in your concerns. But for the reasons I pointed out earlier, I think they are unfounded and this is what the studies suggest too. I think what wmTrevor had to say helped put things into perspective too.

Should we have barred black parents from adopting white children because it may have resulted in bullying from other children? To what extent do we stoop to such discrimination because of the immaturity/bigotry of others?

AJ,

"It is presumptuous to assume that all children would be better off with two parents of the opposite sex...."

All children are better off with parents of the opposite sex and to assume so is not presumptuous at all, in fact they wouldn't exist without such parents.

Is Mise,

You appear to have missed a lot of the discussion that has gone on in this thread. So rather than repeating myself yet again, please, enlighten me as to why all children are better off with two parents of the opposite sex?

Dear A J Philips,

I don't really know what to say to you so I'll start
by Thanking You for your advice. I am not against abortion,
euthanasia, or homosexuality. And I can't really explain to
you why I am having such difficulty with same-sex couples
being allowed to adopt children.

Perhaps this will pass as you suggest once I do more
research into the issues involved.

I'll let you know.

Again Thank You for your understanding.

Dear Foxy,

As a heterosexual, I really don't give much of a toss about issues relating to homosexuals, any more than I would to heavy-drinkers or -smokers: yes, it's legal, but I don't have to like it. And I certainly don't have to go in to bat for it, there are so many other issues which are far more important: the protection of the Mary River cat-fish, for example.

As well, being rather simple-minded, I assume marriage is between a man and a woman. End of. If people want some sort of marriage-like relationship, and they are not a man and a woman, then invent another term. It can't be that hard.

As for homosexuals adopting, it should be no real issue for lesbians: one or both of them can go off and have a fling, come back pregnant, have their babies and raise them together. End of. I wish them well, I really do.

As for homosexual blokes adopting, that really doesn't make the slightest sense to me: is it yet another wedge to broaden out the break-up of modern Enlightenment/capitalist society ? I don't know, and don't care that much. I simply don't see the point - given that adoption is so difficult for normal couples - ['normal'? go for it], I don't see how it arises. Play the game, cop the rules.

There are fifty million refugees around the world, through no fault of their own, often totally destitute - and some comfortable white middle-class intellectuals want to f@rt around about same-sex adoptions: for Christ's sake, get a grip on reality.

Thank you, Foxy,

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't see myself as - some "middle-class intellectual,"
but Thank You for the compliment.
I simply thought this would be an interesting topic
for a discussion - that's all.

So you're more concerned about the preservation
of the Mary River cat-fish than the issue of same-sex
couples being allowed to adopt?
Fair enough.

However, Thanks for coming here and commenting anyway.
you betcha!

A J Philips, "Some children may actually respond better to two parents of the same sex. It is presumptuous to assume that all children would be better off with two parents of the opposite sex, or that it even matters at all"

The limitations of the research you cited were not discussed. It is expected that over time other researchers will endeavour to test the conclusions. Although the conclusions are always far more limited and cautious that is reported in the media and by advocates.

However the results may question the accepted positive stereotype of women as always the best parents and carers of offspring, and the negative stereotyping of fathers by feminists as being far less concerned about, emphatic to, or able to care for their offspring than mothers.

There are feminist posters here who would argue that fathers should never be expected to have the same bond with their progeny as mothers. Further, that it should not matter to a man that he was misled on fatherhood, whereas a mother (and the child!) is certain to be seriously affected and harmed if and where her biological child was ever accidentally swapped for another (even for minutes).

There will be interesting times ahead.

otb,

Prejudiced thought always involves the use of a
stereotype - a rigid mental image that
summarises whatever is believed to be typical
about a group. Be it about gender, feminism,
or - OLO posters.

As has been stated many times on this forum some people
tend to think in terms of general categories, if only
to enable them to make sense of the world by simplifying
its complexity.

Good parenting is not easy as we know at the best
of times. Dr Benjamine Spock pointed out some
years ago in his book - "Raising Children in a
Difficult Time," what is still relevant today -
and that is - that we still have mounting criticism
of marriage and the family.
That Divorce rates are growing, and perhaps more
serious is the amount of tension and hostility in many
of the families in which the parents are still living
together. Our high levels of delinquency, crime, alcoholism,
drug abuse, mental illness, and suicide partly reflect
the unsatisfactory state of our family life.

Many critics put much of the blame on the isolation of
today's nuclear family (consisting only of father, mother, and
children). Spoke tells us that -
In previous generations grand-parents, aunts,
uncles, and cousins lived nearby and participated in the care
of the young. They constituted the so-called extended family,
which provided mutual support and love for the various
members and diluted the tensions between parents and children.

Spock predicted that in a considerable majority of the cases
in which partners had no ongoing commitment to each other or
to their children and who were giving each other no
continuing emotional support, the children would suffer from
emotional neglect and would have impaired personalities
the rest of their lives. The best of foster care would not
make up for this deficiency.

His summation was that if a couple was not willing to strive
for a permanent relationship for their children's sake
(whether or not they can achieve it), they should not have
children.

Fox,

As Peter Hitchens observed upon being bushwacked by the ABC - when he appeared on a Q&A panel only to find that the other panel members and the compere himself were lined up opposed to him - the culture war has been lost by conservative opinion such as his own and the 'Progressives' have won.

So the 'Progressives' cannot blame anyone but themselves for the negative consequences of their social experimentation.

This is the subject Q&A,
http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

That said, BTT.

Returning to my reply to A J Philips, (my post: onthebeach, Sunday, 28 June 2015 12:23:34 PM), it highly likely there will be a split of opinion in 'Progressives' over the 'best interests of the child' standard. The standard positively stereotypes women (mothers) and negatively stereotypes men (fathers) to such an extent that rulings on child custody have always favoured the women (mothers).

Regarding gay adoption or child custody where there is a gay (male) relationship, it is easy to suppose that the negative stereotyping of men will act against gay couples and favour lesbian couples. Will 'Progressives' see anything wrong in that?

otb,

You continue to put forward your opinion as fact.
If you want to argue with me kindly stop doing that.
You continue to preclude fruitful discussion by
nothing more than mere labelling.
That is simply not good enough.

AJ,

"You appear to have missed a lot of the discussion that has gone on in this thread. So rather than repeating myself yet again, please, enlighten me as to why all children are better off with two parents of the opposite sex?"

Because without them they would not exist, simple really.

Dear Is Mise,

I do not think that biology is the most important
aspect of the foundation of the family.

What is more important is the actual relationship
that parents have with their children, whether or
not there are biological ties.

Foxy,

"I do not think that biology is the most important
aspect of the foundation of the family."

I do and so do scientists, doctors, midwives et al, without the biological foundation of a man and a woman the children of a family (whatever the makeup of a family) cannot exist.

Dear Is Mise,

I think that we are talking about different things
here.

Let me say it again.

Biology is necessary to produce a child - be it
naturally or through IVF. But as I stated earlier
that is not the most important aspect of the
foundation of the family.

What is more important is the actual relationship that parents
have with their children, whether or not there are
biological ties.

And this opinion is shared by doctors, sociologists,
and many other experts.

However, if you don't believe it to be true.

You are entitled to your opinion - but not your facts.

@Fox, "What is more important is the actual relationship that parents
have with their children"

Then you'd be saying that the traditional 'best interests of the child' standard that has always favoured women (mothers) over men (fathers) in rulings on child custody is flawed and wrong?

General comment

Children take a lot from their early experiences of family into their later lives. Children need consistent (effective) mother and (effective) father role models to develop. That applies to girls and boys. Girls need their father as do boys. The girl learns how to be successful as a woman and how to successfully build and sustain a relationship with a man.

onthebeach,

The limitations of the research would depend on the individual study. The Google Scholar link I posted earlier had thousands of results. As I mentioned earlier though, one limitation of the research so far is that it has predominantly involved lesbian parents.

Is Mise,

Cute. But that has nothing to do work what I was talking about. By your reasoning, no-one has same-sex parents and so there is nothing further to discuss.

otb,

Our modern society is individualistic and in it
men and women do not necessarily follow the gender restrictions
of the past. Today men and women can explore a wide variety
of possible roles. There are fewer constraints today.
Couples choose the path that suits them both.

One size no longer fits all.

AJPhilips,

Those aren't the only limitations. It is a controversial report. See here,

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/samesex_adoption_not_as_harmless_as_portrayed.html

<The method used in the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) is the biggest obstacle to taking its outcome seriously.

Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, research associate at its Population Research Center, has analysed the ACHESS's methodology both when an interim report appeared in 2012 and now, after the completion of the research.

He is concerned by the sampling approach of the interim report:

Initial recruitment will . . . include advertisements and media releases in gay and lesbian press, flyers at gay and lesbian social and support groups, and investigator attendance at gay and lesbian community events

And by this part of the study's methodology section:

Three hundred and ninety eligible parents contacted the researchers.

This is not a random sample, but a self-selected sample. Randomisation is one the most crucial parts of scientific research. The sample here is not representative of average same-sex households with children:

To compare the results from such an unusual sample with that of a population-based sample of everyone else [which is random] is just suspect science. And I may be putting that too mildly.

The ACHESS includes a disproportionate number of children born in new ways: 80% of those with female parent(s) were born through home insemination or assisted reproductive technology (ART), and 82% of those with male parent(s) were born via surrogacy.

Most families who can afford the expense of ART and surrogacy are likely to belong to the homosexual socioeconomic elite, the only kind of people this study's sample was likely to comprise. Also significant: when compared to a random sample of all other families, there were few unplanned pregnancies among the ACHESS parents...>

Not necessarily a disinterested opinion, onthebeach. Would that be the same Mark Regnerus whose own research is described thus?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

"Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest."

Regnerus should know about research concerns, though...

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/200-researchers-respond-to-regnerus-paper/

onthebeach,

Again, the snippet you've provided only seems to be talking about one study. There have been many. It's also from a conservative wingnut publication, so of course they're going to object. Worse still though, there are no citations or reference list i can use to follow up any of the other claims they've made. I'm sure there's many articles like that out the there. Without even looking, I bet James Dobson would have a lot to say on the issue. It would all be cherry-picked half-thuths of course.

This is why I only link to scholarly articles. If the reader doubts what they're being told, they can check the sources, and then their sources, and then their sources. Or save time and only read the primary studies, then work their way forward if they doubt their interpretations.

There's still some more work to be done. And if there is a difference in the outcomes for the children, it's likely very small; positive even - like the article Banjo Patterson linked to suggests. But I don't think it will be detrimental to any measurable degree. If it were, then we'd probably have noticed trends by now, like the ones we see with low socioeconomic status, postcode (social disorganisation), and marginalisation.

Foxy,

Without the biological union of a man and a woman no one can come into existence therefore that is the most important step in the formation of a family.

It's like making a cup of tea, without the boiling water and the tea leaves there is no tea.

AJ,

The penny dropped.

Is Mise,

What penny has dropped? So do you not consider adoptive patents to be real parents then? I think a lot of adopters and adoptees would have something to say about that.

Dear Is Mise,

As one society after another has industrialised over
the course of the past two centuries, there has been
a major, global change in family patterns.

What has happened is that we are increasingly tolerant of a
variety of alternative marriage and family styles.
The reasons are primarily linked to the nature of our
post-industrialised society. A hallmark of which is its
economic and cultural diversity, combined with a highly
developed sense of individualism.

In this environment, people tend to make decisions about
marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like
in terms of what they, personally, want - rather than in
terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or
the other impersonal pressures that previous generations
unquestioningly accepted.

Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfilment, or responding
to the social and economic predicament in which they find
themselves, many people are modifying the family system to
suit their individual needs.

Significantly enough, some of the variant patterns are
being recognised, formally or informally, by such official
agencies as the Census Bureau, State and Federal
Courts, the Taxation Office, and government welfare departments.
Variants on the nuclear family are simply being taken
for granted.

Dearest Foxy,

Okay, so gay marriage.

Then the right to adopt.

Then what ?

Then what ?

Then what ?

A hundred dollars to your favourite charity if adoption is the end of it.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't understand your point.

What are you suggesting?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

If by your question - "then what?" you're
referring to what will same-sex couples demand
next. Then I think that you're deliberately
being facetious. They will demand all the entitlements
that other couples have in our society.
To be treated equally. And that is only fair - is it not?

AJPhilips,

You and WmTrevor have not acknowledged nor have you dispelled the limitations of the research methodology at the foot of the study cited by Banjo Patterson.

The lesbian couples were self-selected and it was done by self-reporting. Those serious limitations and others were outlined here,

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/samesex_adoption_not_as_harmless_as_portrayed.html

by this PhD,
Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based Philosophy graduate, author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L’Espresso, La Repubblica. She is in the Executive Council of the UK’s party Liberty GB.

@ Fox, Monday, 29 June 2015 1:18:13 PM

Once again, it would have shown principle if you had been frank and admitted your already iron-clad opinion in your OP. You should have declared your commitment up-front and provided your argument in support, instead of leading everyone on a (fox)chase.

Foxy,

So being born is not the first requirement of being part of a family?

How quaint.

otb,

What on earth are you talking about now?
You have to be more specific.

Dear Is Mise,

Now you're being silly.
Nice try at stirring though.

I would like to take this opportunity to
Thank all those who have contributed
to this discussion. For me it has now run
its course.

There are both pros and cons
to the question of whether same-sex couples should
be allowed to adopt children. I've tried to weigh
in on both sides of the issue.

Personally, I am still undecided on where I stand -
and I may well be for quite some time.

Still I daresay that when same-sex
marriage is allowed in this country - adoption will
no longer be an issue.

The nest step is polygamy as it has higher incidence than same sex. Then it will be anything goes and women will again become the property of men, as men fight to own a wife.

onthebeach,

Yes, self-selection and self-reporting can be a big problem, but sometimes they're unavoidable and those problems may be reduced through control mechanisms, like the one’s implemented by the authors of the study. As they note, more could have been implemented, but they would have reduced the sample to an unreliably small size had they implemented them (the full paper can be found at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-635.pdf). The biggest limitation was actually the fact that the same-sex couples were of a higher socioeconomic status, but there were measures in place to help control for that too.

Sorry if it appears I’ve been deliberately evasive on that point. I’m just not that concerned about it because, as I have been suggesting/hinting at, the majority of the literature suggests that there is no discernible difference between same-sex parenting and opposite sex parenting, and they don't have such glaring limitations as ones you’re pointing out. That’s certainly not the only study on the topic. Here are some others…

http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2004.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://squareonemd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Same-Sex-Parenting-Meta-Analysis-Crowl-Ahn-Baker-2008.pdf
http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/CounselingCenter/PDFs/SAFEZONE%20Resources/Children%20of%20gays%20and%20Lesbians.pdf
http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/patterson_2007.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v32n02_02
http://www-tandfonline-com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1300/J082v32n02_02
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/Same-Sex-Parenting-and-Child-Development.pdf
http://www.jaapl.org/content/14/1/81.full.pdf

By the way, there is no need to follow up a professional opinion with a three line description of the expert’s qualifications unless you want to be accused of committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy. There are many people just as qualified, who would disagree with them. Tetyana Obukhanych, for example, is up to her eyeballs in qualifications and she's the author of 'Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health'. She denies that herd immunity is a scientifically valid concept.

Josephus,

Thank you once again for serving up the Slippery Slope fallacy. You're like a broken record sometimes. I believe it was you who offered us our last Appeal to Nature Fallacy too. Nice work.

Josephus, are polygamous relationships really more common than gay relationships in Australia, or did you just make that up?

I may well agree on allowing plural marriages in any case, as long as it is also legal for women to marry more than one man as well. (Not that I personally would be keen on that though!).

Isn't it great that all 50 of the American states have allowed gay marriage now?
Australia will follow soon.

AJPhilips,

Including an author's supplied short bio is not 'appealing to authority'.

You could be accused of going on to poison the well against the author with your false comparison with Tetyana Obukhanych. That was unnecessary.

A reminder that it was you who recommended the study you now agree has 'glaring limitations'.

Foxy,

"Let me [Foxy] say it again.

Biology is necessary to produce a child - be it
naturally or through IVF. But as I stated earlier
that is not the most important aspect of the
foundation of the family."

It isn't?

How silly.

"You and WmTrevor have not acknowledged nor have you dispelled the limitations of the research methodology..."

Not what I was trying to do, onthebeach. As AJ Philips has tried to explain that was not necessary since the limitations were included in the research paper.

Further, you seem not to be clear that limitations (glaring or otherwise) are different from falsification, incorrect assertions and conclusions contradictory to the methodology and evidence of the research.

I pointed out that the appeal to the authority of Enza Ferreri's column of Regnerus is tainted by his anti-same-sex parenting NFSS report's history of falsification, incorrect assertions and conclusions contradictory to the methodology and evidence of his own research.

You then doubled-down with repeating the link to Enza Ferreri's column with its egregious headline [cf. Same-sex Adoption: Not as Harmful as Portrayed] - again without saying it does not say the ACHESS report was wrong in its conclusions.

"Including an author's supplied short bio is not 'appealing to authority'" It sort of is. As is granting her a Phd.

But you might have better research available. I can't even confirm if 'Dr.' Ferreri is still Liberty GB's Press Officer, though I can confirm she is not on their Executive Council.

However, it was not a complete waste of time since Ferreri's citation of Loren Marks' "Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting" is a more useful meta-analysis which, by the time you get down to page 14 says:

"We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that
provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading
of the same-sex parenting literature, the author [Marks] cannot offer a high confidence, data-based ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response to this
question."

Which, you surely must agree, has consistently been AJ Philips' point?

It is also consistent with my reminding people that "the traditional marriage-based family" is the source of all the current problems we are ascribing to children and yet there is no argument being 'waged' against heterosexual couples having and/or adopting children.

Regardless of the number, gender, race, religion or other circumstances good parenting is just that... good parenting.

onthebeach,

Far from "recommending" the study, I only made a passing mention of it once (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6899#210530). Up until then I hadn't referred to it, and for two reasons. Firstly, I hadn't read it yet; and secondly, it somewhat strayed from everything that I HAD read which says that there appears to be no difference between the outcomes of the children in either family types.

It was actually your pointing to its limitations that prompted me to read the study to see if they were as detrimental or dishonest as you were implying. As it turns out, they weren’t. Furthermore, the authors had declared the limitations and warned that the study needed to be read in light of them, and controlled for them the best they could. That‘s the beauty of scholarly works. At worst, the study acts merely as a platform with which to base further studies.

I have been extremely cautious with my wording on this topic precisely because I know how easy it can be to get excited about a study that looks favourable to one's position, only to be made a fool of later on because it is an incomplete area of research and something else out there contradicts your authority. That being said, and going by what I know of developmental criminology and psychology, I think we are beyond the point of discovering that same-sex parenting is detrimental to any great extent. I think it's likely to be found, in the end, to have no differences beyond negligible advantages and/or disadvantages.

Is Mise,
Some do not recognise that it takes male and female genes to produce a child, homosexual activists and supporters prefer to ignore this.

Selfishness destroys a society.
As society denies the reality of the parenting birthright of children to have their mother and father as carers and children displaced for some selfish personal reason the bonds that hold family together will diminish, as is evidence today with single gender parent households. Ask any female teacher how the boys behave in her class from single parent households. Pro homosexual unions will become common place and casual family structures will lead to more insecure children. Wealth and intellect alone does not produce balanced children, It might produce product consumers and high achievers but not real stable families that make a stable society.

AJ Philips,

Gay research seems to be following in the tradition of feminist 'research'(sic).

//Some do not recognise that it takes male and female genes to produce a child, homosexual activists and supporters prefer to ignore this.//

Good one, 'Josephus' ;)

Toni Lavis,
And they actually come from donor persons called biological parents, who in the design / evolution of nature are nurturers for them.

//in the design / evolution of nature//

I'm not sure if it really suits the 'Josephus' character to be having an each way bet like that. I think the character would be more realistic if you dropped the whole 'evolution' thing and just played him to the hilt as a creationist nutter.

Just a suggestion. I'm still a big fan of your work :)

There is deliberate genetic design in nature whether one believes it accidentally or deliberately occurred. The scripture teaches the Creator of the universe empowered the basic chemistry of water, earth and air to produce life in all its forms as we know it. Those that fail to recognise this principle will suffer consequences as we already see in chemical pollution of our water, soil and air. The human genome is weakening in every generation from disease and there are severe consequences ahead.

Suse,

"Isn't it great that all 50 of the American states have allowed gay marriage now?"

Actually they don't yet and there is a fight in the offing.
The position is that the States have been told to allow same sex marriage.

"County clerks in Texas who object to gay marriage can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite last week's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring states to allow same-sex marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Sunday.

The nation's top court said on Friday that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to wed, handing a victory to the American gay rights movement.

Paxton said in a statement that hundreds of public officials in Texas were seeking guidance on how to implement what he called a lawless and flawed decision by an "activist" court.

The state's attorney general said that while the Supreme Court justices had "fabricated" a new constitutional right, they did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-texas-idUSKCN0P900F20150629

Is Mise, regardless of what some lone voices in the political wilderness in America say, the writing is on the wall.

Josephus, you still haven't answered my question above.
Did you make up your assertion that there were more polygamous relationships in Australia than there were Gay relationships?
Just wondering....

onthebeach,

I was waiting to see how long it would take you to pull the conspiratorially-minded 'biased academic' line. To your credit though, you held in there far longer than any other conservative I’ve discussed anything with.

It is at this point that I no longer feel any need to defend anything I've said on this topic. And what would be the point in doing so anyway? Anyone who assumes that there must be something wrong with the methodology, or acts of academic misconduct, before they’ll entertain the possibility that they may be wrong, will only ever believe what they want to believe.

If I were like that, then I’d still be a conservative Christian arguing that gay people are “caused” by their parents’ toilet training methods (not being bisexual myself, I never assumed that their homosexuality was a choice they made like some of OLO's fabulous homophobes).

Suse,

You said ""Isn't it great that all 50 of the American states have allowed gay marriage now?"

That statement was clearly incorrect as they were told to allow same sex marriage by the Supreme Court.

"Is Mise, regardless of what some lone voices in the political wilderness in America say, the writing is on the wall."

The writing may well be upon the wall but it will take a lot of time and not a few appeals before everyone heeds it.
The Governor of Texas is hardly a 'lone voice in the political wilderness' and if the relevant authorities in Texas are prosecuted for non-compliance with the Supreme Court then there is bound to be a backlash.

I recommend that you read this piece on the inevitable consequences for civilization because of same sex marriage.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/jun/29/same-sex-marriage-ruin-civilisation-science

There really are rights conferred by the First Amendment to be overcome.

AJ Philips, "I was waiting to see how long it would take you to pull the conspiratorially-minded 'biased academic' line. To your credit though, you held in there far longer than any other conservative I’ve discussed anything with"

That reply betrays your own tactics.

What tactics, onthebeach? And how are they betrayed?

Suseonline,
When you add the number of Mormons men and Muslim men in Australia plus live in extra lovers you will find the percentage greater than homosexuals who wish to register their marriage. Many homosexuals prefer to live separate and quiet lives and not commit to marriage.

//When you add the number of Mormons men and Muslim men in Australia plus live in extra lovers//

Brilliant! ROFLMAO

I particularly like the flourish of faux-ignorance about contemporary Mormon practices. Everybody who hasn't lived under a rock for the last 20 years knows that Mormons do not only refrain from practising polygamy, they actively excommunicate those who do.

You do a damn good impression of a man who has lived under a rock for the last 20 years, 'Josephus'.

Lol Josephus, you never cease to amuse me!
Where are your statistics for these crazy accusations?
There is no point saying such things without at least some evidence.

At the end of the day, adults who want to have more than one lover aren't breaking any laws, and as long as all those involved are content, where is the harm?
Of course some of those mad polygamous religious sects in the U.S. who were charged with illegally marrying underage girls to old men are another story, but that remains illegal.

To my mind, those religious groups are no worse than the many Catholic clergy and others from church run institutions and organisations all over the world who have been charged and jailed for having sex with underage boys and girls....

I lived and worked for a Mormon in the 1950's who had a legal wife and and a woman according to his legal wife, whom he spent time with each week as a Mormon wife.

AJ Phillips...well, in their own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h5pI7KASjU
Here again we see the disconnect between the popular, politicised view of homosexuality and the real world, if you actually sit down and ask Gays how they came to be that way they'll tell you.

Jay of Melbourne,

I haven't asked any gay people how they became that way, but knowing many myself through my brother-in-law and a friend from high school (and I actually do know many, unlike some of the conservatives on OLO who allegedly have all these mysterious gay friends while simultaneously abhorring everything about who they are and what they stand for) and have heard quite a few recollections from some of them about when they realised they were gay. The answers tend to vary from, “I always knew”, to, “I did date [insert opposite sex here] because that’s just what I thought was expected from me, but being with the same sex is more emotionally satisfying.”

I have never heard anything like, “Yeah, I got raped by some other bloke and now I’m gay”, or, “It just seemed so hip”, or, “Yeah, I liked how homosexuality is despised by so much of the population and thought it would be really cool to be part of a disadvantaged minority where having family is near impossible.” Furthermore, some gay men (I haven’t discussed this with lesbians) are actually repulsed by the thought of female genitalia. My brother-in-law, for example, shudders when they’re discussed in front of him and tries to change the subject. To him, they look like aliens and the fact that they self-lubricate and develop a musky odor when aroused is nauseating. Doesn’t sound like there’s much choice being exercised there.

Did you know that a single episode of Crossing Over with John Edward took a full eight hours to film because he had so many misses? I wonder how many hours, days, or weeks that video took to film? The video was hardly scholarly. The subjects were pretty damn drunk too.

Continued…

...Continued

At the risk of stereotyping, did you notice the guys in the film tended to be a little more effeminate? If homosexuality were a choice, then you’d expect see a more evenly distributed variety of people. Perhaps the sample size wasn't big enough? It WAS pretty damn small, come to think of it. You didn’t see, for example, some butch, muscle-bound bloke with an occa Aussie accent saying, “Yeah, just thought I’d go for a bit o’ sausage for a change and never turn back, if ya know what I moin. Don’t mind me-self some ‘airy bums, I don’t.”

I’ve always been sus on this argument that sexuality was a choice. As I said earlier, even as a Christian I never claimed that it was, because I have always considered myself to be exclusively heterosexual and knew that I myself could not choose to be gay and so I didn’t assume that others could either. So my advice to you, Jay of Melbourne, would be to embrace your bisexuality. Don’t fear it. There’s nothing wrong with you. Human sexuality is not binary, it’s a spectrum. And hey, your options are effectively double mine. You can enjoy a greater variety of sexual experiences and you don’t need the lights on in an orgy.

Suse,

I recommended that you read a piece on the inevitable consequences for civilization because of same sex marriage, and gave a link; did you ever read it?

JOM... "if you actually sit down and ask Gays how they came to be that way they'll tell you."

Usually it helps if the question is better phrased. But my own experience matches that of everyone with whom I have discussed the issue over four decades.

AJ Philips, the direct answer to the question, "When did you choose to be gay?" is "When I chose to stop pretending I was heterosexual."

The preceding stages of emerging sexual attraction always matched those of heterosexuals. Although heterosexuals do this without the opprobrium of familial/cultural/religious pressures for conformity.

What has been consistent with my experience, without exception, is the certainty that one's sexual attraction is innate.

Just as it is self-reported as being so by heterosexuals.

The most entertaining and scientifically accurate explanation I can find is this 5 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJxVnaLig0

WmTrevor, "What has been consistent with my experience, without exception, is the certainty that one's sexual attraction is innate"

Always born gay, you say? A one way trip once they realise their gayness?

You must disregard the abundant evidence to the contrary. Such as the well publicised flip flops in sexual preference of celebrities.

What more public example could there be but the previous lesbian love of the century of Ellen DeGeneres, Anne Heche? Anne Heche is now married without the need for SSM. Proof too that it is all BS that homosexuals are not denied marriage 'rights'. - Gay Pride just want to redefine it to borrow the gold standard to legitimise their own choices.

Here is Anne Hecke, married with children. Sure looks happy and fulfilled. Her choice, as was her lesbian relationship with deGeneres.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/zeBrYKCNVXl/Celebs+Shopping+Grove+LA+2/Bvh7-BenmrJ/James+Tupper

What is also interesting from the DeGeneres example is the small circle that lesbians and no doubt gays move in. Most seem to know one another in the biblical sense too. Doubtless SSM, where the Marriage Acts are changed, will very quickly stretch the understanding of marriage as short term and likely including multiple partners in and out of marriage.

Speaking of multiples, it is already happening,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html

Those homosexuals whose flip flop sexual preferences become public knowledge would only be the tip of the iceberg.

However you were not aware of any. You are now though and need not say that anymore. You live and learn, eh?

Remembering the Hecke example, it is just as likely that environmental effects and sad experiences in childhood that would definitely affect and mar adolescent sexual development determine sexual choices. Hecke for instance says that she was sexually molested for years as a child by her homosexual father. More challenges to your B&W thinking on gay or not gay?

My, "Proof too that it is all BS that homosexuals are not denied marriage 'rights'",

should be,

"Proof too that it is all BS that homosexuals are denied marriage 'rights'".

Wn Trevor,
I've heard Gays give that explanation, in person before, I don't buy it, it's a cover up and when you dig deeper and get to know them better there's always something there, childhood trauma, family dysfunction and lifestyle factors which influenced their decisions, even if at a subconscious level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mPKnUJcT9I
Families also play a part I've known two sets of brothers where the older sibling has been sucked into the Gay life in his late teens and then drawn the younger brother in while they were still in puberty. My friend Stuart told me while he was drunk one night that he'd been raped at 13 when he sneaked off to a party with his Gay older brother, two other men I know were drawn into the life by their Gay older brother and have both had violent and chaotic lives as Gays, ironically the older brother is now married to a woman and has a young daughter. All, as in 100% of the bisexual men I knew in my twenties are now either married with kids or have settled down with a woman, and note that during that decade almost all the males I knew and worked with in hospitality were not straight.
AJ Phliips,
The "latent homosexual" slur is just another myth based on Freudian pseudo science, it's statistically improbable as this article explains:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201507/examining-arousal-and-homophobia

It doesn't help to refer to every homosexual person as "gay" - only a minority makes a big deal of their sexual orientation and those who do not should feel offended by that dubious title.

The main feature of the gay lifestyle is the accent on sexuality and body-looks: which gender(s) one is attracted to is only secondary.

I found the following in dictionary.com, which I like:

8. Older Use. sexually unrestrained; having loose morals: In the 1930s movie, the baron is referred to as “a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.”.

So while there is nothing wrong about homosexuals adopting children, I think that it's not a good idea for gays to be in custody of children, regardless whether they happen to be homosexual-gays or heterosexual-gays.

Yuyutsu,
It goes back further than that, the "Gay life" was slang for the street life of the inner city, the world of hustlers, prostitutes and criminals and yes, the homosexual couples I know of with children are all Lesbians but to my knowledge they don't have anything to do with the Gay milieu. My old uncle lives next door to one of the very rare male same sex couples who have kids and they are so non Gay in outlook that he goes over for a beer with them of a night, they don't have any Gay friends either and moved way out to the country to raise their adopted kids.