Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples?

[ElRaja]

I think we are relearning the plot. Feminism, gay rights, anti-racism, sociology, psychotherapy, rave culture, ecology - these are all corrective factors.

Where we went wrong was the proliferation of Abrahamic religion that brought patriarchy, dominator culture, suppression of the female side of the human psyche. This has pushed the human species to the brink of self-destruction but we are finding ways to step back from the ledge. Not a moment too soon.

disagree on this. i am all for individual freedom and liberty, but all these corrective factors you mentioned are no panacea for societal ills. mental illness, depression, etc is a massive problem in western societies because individualism destroys family culture and birth rates.

im not making an argument in favour or against Abrahamic religion but the greatest economic and scientific advances were made during periods when enlightened thinking pushed against the old superstitions of religions to find some balance.

what we have now is not a fight for individual rights, but a fight for individual acceptance, and as a liberal, you have to accept that people have the right to not care about your opinions, thoughts and feelings.

the old religious orders were massive economic sink holes because they held a strangle on a portion of economic capital, and there output was just hot air and rhetoric, and I see many parallels with what they did to enforce their views on the masses, and numerous social rights movements which care very little for the well being of any individual those they are supposed to represent, and believe developing rhetoric with no metric to quantify success or achievement of goals to be a efficient allocation of capital.

 

[Tubs]

Everyone who is against gay adoption- refer to my previous post with the scientific studies. The science is clearly not on your side.

 

[Tubs]

The claim that society (influenced by religion) is based on a patriarchal structure, so what? If one is going to use nature to justify homosexuality, then may i remind you, in nature, the male is the dominant specie - move on. Furthermore, nature has many examples of ‘rape’, ‘murder’, and ‘maiming’ - should these natural acts be justifiable in human society?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

That debunks everything you just said. Nature doesn't dictate what is right.

The question of whether of 2 Homosexual parents are better than hetrosexual because of love, is horespukky. For example, the evidence clearly suggests that the majority of black criminals were raised in a home where the father was absent. Think about it, father was not present, mother loves her child, yet the child turns up breaking the law. What good is love?

I don't think anyone suggesting that 'love' means homosexual parents are better than heterosexual, or that anyone is saying that homosexual parents are better. They are simply saying that homosexual parents are neither better nor worse, which is what the data shows. I have presented that data before. Two homosexual parents is better than a single parent because they can share the parenting workload. It also maximises the income that the household has. This isn't hard.

To add, a child raised by homosexual couples is indeed suffering from confusion. Remember the child walks into his science class where he is taught that a male and female are necessary to procreate, but when said child comes homes, it’s a different ball game.

That is not an argument. They will quickly realise they were adopted. Many children are adopted, and most are adopted by heterosexual parents. You're just trying your best to find a fault in this.

Oh by the way, check the laws and advisory on UK adoption. White parents have more chance adopting white children, than black, and vice versa. Why? If love is all that matters, then why the resistance?

The excuse about love is just that, an excuse; there’s more to parenting than love.

Again, no one is saying that homosexual parents are better. They are just saying they're no worse. You are continually attacking a strawman.

 

[Balthazar]

Adoption- Yes
Surrogation - No

Renting a womb(in most cases women in poor country who uses money for family support) for having their own child is quite moronic and is rightly banned in many countries. There is a documentary on how some Doctors and Gay couples from US were exploiting women in India for surrogacy until govt of India banned it.

They were already poor. It's better for them to become surrogate mothers than actual ones. We should know the fate of those children under poverty. Ofcourse there should be a proper system to oversee this. And that is what is lacking.

 

[Robert]

Lmao, the arrogance on this one. For thousands of years, human civilizations were full of idiots but modern western civilization has figured out the truth now. You've been taken for a ride.

You misunderstand.

For thousands of years we developed systems whereby societies are stratified, there is inequality, slavery, suppression of the female, suppression of love between men, colonialism, industrial warfare, extermination of species, using up resources instead of living in harmony with the planet, to the point where the entire species and ecosystem is threatened.

People everywhere are starting to wake up to this. Environmentalism, feminism, gay rights are symptoms of that awakening, a sort of reset towards harmony.

 

[Robert]

disagree on this. i am all for individual freedom and liberty, but all these corrective factors you mentioned are no panacea for societal ills. mental illness, depression, etc is a massive problem in western societies because individualism destroys family culture and birth rates.

im not making an argument in favour or against Abrahamic religion but the greatest economic and scientific advances were made during periods when enlightened thinking pushed against the old superstitions of religions to find some balance.

what we have now is not a fight for individual rights, but a fight for individual acceptance, and as a liberal, you have to accept that people have the right to not care about your opinions, thoughts and feelings.

the old religious orders were massive economic sink holes because they held a strangle on a portion of economic capital, and there output was just hot air and rhetoric, and I see many parallels with what they did to enforce their views on the masses, and numerous social rights movements which care very little for the well being of any individual those they are supposed to represent, and believe developing rhetoric with no metric to quantify success or achievement of goals to be a efficient allocation of capital.

Well, I think we need to reduce birth rate, there are too many humans. We have ripped up half the world’s wilderness in the last fifty years, to make room for us and our crops and food animals.

I am not saying modern Western societies are best - mental illness due to social separation and dominator culture is a huge problem as you say. It is as though there is some dark shadow in the Jungian collective unconscious of the West, pushing us all to self-destruction.

I am saying that green shoots are emerging, and gay rights are a small part of that counterculture shift.

 

[James]

Don’t get the mindset that says we need to reduce birth rate. We should all have lots of children. The more people the better.

 

[uberkoen]

The first part of your post is very poor. Kids are suffering all over the world, of course they should be helped but this has nothing to do with with topic. Besides there are enough male/femal couples, its not Gays are coming to the rescue lol.



Most parents will not discuss this with their kids at the age of 5/6. Children arent as stupid as you think, they will see their classmates being picked up by mom and dad. They will see their freinds drawing mom and dad, they will then ask why is he/she drawing dad and dad.

The problem with the above posts is it assumes same sex couples are perfectly natural and normal, simply not true.


Please answer this.

We also now have throuples. 3 people living together in an intimate relationship. Should they also be allowed to adopt?

If that was the case we wouldn't have kids sitting in orphanages in this day and age. Fact of the matter is there are not enough parents out there willing to adopt kids.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well, I think we need to reduce birth rate, there are too many humans. We have ripped up half the world’s wilderness in the last fifty years, to make room for us and our crops and food animals.

I am not saying modern Western societies are best - mental illness due to social separation and dominator culture is a huge problem as you say. It is as though there is some dark shadow in the Jungian collective unconscious of the West, pushing us all to self-destruction.

I am saying that green shoots are emerging, and gay rights are a small part of that counterculture shift.

We ripped up half the world's wilderness in the last fifty years due to industrialisation and greed for resources, which also led to our superior lifestyles here in the west. That's a different topic altogether and no easy answers I fear.

 

[OMB]

I once had a dinner in Munich along with a German lady (who was joined by her female lover) and an Iraqi businessman and another German company CEO.
During the discussion this topic came about and it led to all kinds of hello you and some soft arguments.
Eventually after sometime things turned really sour when the CEO basically asked the German Lady -
"What next? You will tell me that you and your dog marry each other and adopt a child? because the Dog will be more loyal to the child"
I am undecided and reserving my judgement as I don't know many gay people that well and have no idea what are they about

 

[Tubs]

I once had a dinner in Munich along with a German lady (who was joined by her female lover) and an Iraqi businessman and another German company CEO.
During the discussion this topic came about and it led to all kinds of hello you and some soft arguments.
Eventually after sometime things turned really sour when the CEO basically asked the German Lady -
"What next? You will tell me that you and your dog marry each other and adopt a child? because the Dog will be more loyal to the child"
I am undecided and reserving my judgement as I don't know many gay people that well and have no idea what are they about

Why do you have to make it sound like they have some nefarious intention? They just want to live and have the same rights under the law.

 

[Technics 1210]

They will pick and choose whatever backs their surface level arguments. There's no depth to their scholarship.

Correct.

If love is the excuse for homosexual couples to adopt, then love can be provided by a single parent, 2 parents, 3, 4, 5 etc.

Love isn't determined through numbers, let alone homosexuals.

This argument is straight up between a man/woman raising a child, compared with homosexuals.

The woke warriors want us to believe a man is naturally identical to a woman, and vice versa. Simply not true.

Love (and religion) are just excuses to defy the order of nature.

 

[Robert]

Don’t get the mindset that says we need to reduce birth rate. We should all have lots of children. The more people the better.

Closing on eight billion humans, using the planet’s resources up at 3x the rate of replenishment.

 

[Robert]

Correct.

If love is the excuse for homosexual couples to adopt, then love can be provided by a single parent, 2 parents, 3, 4, 5 etc.

Love isn't determined through numbers, let alone homosexuals.

This argument is straight up between a man/woman raising a child, compared with homosexuals.

The woke warriors want us to believe a man is naturally identical to a woman, and vice versa. Simply not true.

Love (and religion) are just excuses to defy the order of nature.

The appeal to nature is a weak argument, especially when you consider that some of the higher forms naturally engage in homosexual behaviour within family pods and troupes.

 

[ElRaja]

Well, I think we need to reduce birth rate, there are too many humans. We have ripped up half the world’s wilderness in the last fifty years, to make room for us and our crops and food animals.

are there too many humans? id beg to disagree, but the argument is moot. to get from high population to low population you need negative population growth, and that is completely incompatible with the current economic system which relies on economic growth to run national deficits.

human growth plays a huge role in overall growth levels, in particular for late stage economies which have exhausted avenues of easily economic growth. Japanese population has fallen for the last few years and they have severe economic problems because of it, and china will go the same way, with a young workforce being worked into the ground to support an aging populace who will require greater economic support.

i would much rather humans believed in their own spirit for technical innovation and trust that we will harness means to power (we already have the means with nuclear) and feed an ever growing population, because the developed world in particular, which contributes most to population growth, cannot develop with negative demographics.

I am not saying modern Western societies are best - mental illness due to social separation and dominator culture is a huge problem as you say. It is as though there is some dark shadow in the Jungian collective unconscious of the West, pushing us all to self-destruction.

I am saying that green shoots are emerging, and gay rights are a small part of that counterculture shift.

its the manifestation of unfettered individualism, and its not easy for me to say, as someone who believes the most efficient method of rule is to ensure the rights of the individual to security of health and property, but individualism is inherently devoid of human reciprocity, and that leaves a hole which western society tries to fill, unsuccessfully, either by accident or design, with consumerism.

and i would beg to disagree, what we are seeing now in western society is beyond purely rights, where it seems to me that acceptable social discourse revolves around support counter cultures at the cost of free speech.

people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting someone else or their property, but the right to disagree is part of that.

 

[Technics 1210]

The appeal to nature is a weak argument, especially when you consider that some of the higher forms naturally engage in homosexual behaviour within family pods and troupes.

You just appealled to nature for your own argument.

I was refering to love, and the difference between man and woman.

 

[Robert]

You just appealled to nature for your own argument.

I was refering to love, and the difference between man and woman.

Didn’t appeal to nature, observed nature.

 

[Robert]

are there too many humans? id beg to disagree, but the argument is moot. to get from high population to low population you need negative population growth, and that is completely incompatible with the current economic system which relies on economic growth to run national deficits.

human growth plays a huge role in overall growth levels, in particular for late stage economies which have exhausted avenues of easily economic growth. Japanese population has fallen for the last few years and they have severe economic problems because of it, and china will go the same way, with a young workforce being worked into the ground to support an aging populace who will require greater economic support.

i would much rather humans believed in their own spirit for technical innovation and trust that we will harness means to power (we already have the means with nuclear) and feed an ever growing population, because the developed world in particular, which contributes most to population growth, cannot develop with negative demographics.

its the manifestation of unfettered individualism, and its not easy for me to say, as someone who believes the most efficient method of rule is to ensure the rights of the individual to security of health and property, but individualism is inherently devoid of human reciprocity, and that leaves a hole which western society tries to fill, unsuccessfully, either by accident or design, with consumerism.

and i would beg to disagree, what we are seeing now in western society is beyond purely rights, where it seems to me that acceptable social discourse revolves around support counter cultures at the cost of free speech.

people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting someone else or their property, but the right to disagree is part of that.

There are too many humans if we have become a Mass Extinction Event.

I have heard that we will top out at 11B as the African birth rate stabilises but don’t think we will reach that number as birth rates in more and more countries are not reaching the magic number of 2.1 kids per mother.

Free speech is a misunderstood concept. It doesn’t me that I can be rude to people without social or legal sanction. It means that I can walk into Parliament Square and shout “Boris is an idiot” and nothing happens to me, I don’t disappear in the middle of the night and am never seen again.

 

[Technics 1210]

Didn’t appeal to nature, observed nature.

Just because something is observed in nature doesn't make it right in human society - this is appealing to nature to justify a view.

 

[ElRaja]

Free speech is a misunderstood concept. It doesn’t me that I can be rude to people without social or legal sanction. It means that I can walk into Parliament Square and shout “Boris is an idiot” and nothing happens to me, I don’t disappear in the middle of the night and am never seen again.

it means exactly that to me. the right to offend is a core tenet of free speech. it should not be the police or the legal systems job to evaluate what threshold of rudeness or indignation one should tolerate. its a never ending grey area.

 

[Robert]

it means exactly that to me. the right to offend is a core tenet of free speech. it should not be the police or the legal systems job to evaluate what threshold of rudeness or indignation one should tolerate. its a never ending grey area.

It is exactly the job of the legal system, that’s why we have libel laws and hate speech laws. Calling a person of colour a B-word or P-word is illegal in the UK. The court decides whether such a verbal attack is grey or not.

This is separate from the right to free speech which is there to protect citizens from state tyranny.

 

[OMB]

Why do you have to make it sound like they have some nefarious intention? They just want to live and have the same rights under the law.

Does it sound like that? I don't have a nefarious intention and have nothing against gay people choosing to live their life. They can marry or not marry just like normal couples.

I am only undecided about the adoption law because I don't know much about gay people and whether it will be right for them to adopt a child. I do have some questions in my mind. Let us keep aside the law for time being and let us talk about the social pressure that a child feels at home or school. If she quotes law, what good does that do her or him?

Think like this, the adopted child have a difficult life as compared to non orphans and then if you add being a child of a gay couple it will becomes even more complex. That is concerning more from the child's point of view.
I can probably understand this adoption of gay couple if the child has some say in that. Maybe if the adopted child were about 12 or 14 or elder, then at least it will have made a conscious decision to become an adopted child of a same sex couple and will learn to fight the bias along with her parents.

I don't buy the argument that gay couple adopting orphans will solve the orphans problem. First of all this is assuming that the orphan will remain an orphan and no normal couple one will adopt her. Also, there are miniscule few of gay couples so it has minimal impact.

 

[Tubs]

Does it sound like that? I don't have a nefarious intention and have nothing against gay people choosing to live their life. They can marry or not marry just like normal couples.

I am only undecided about the adoption law because I don't know much about gay people and whether it will be right for them to adopt a child. I do have some questions in my mind. Let us keep aside the law for time being and let us talk about the social pressure that a child feels at home or school. If she quotes law, what good does that do her or him?

Think like this, the adopted child have a difficult life as compared to non orphans and then if you add being a child of a gay couple it will becomes even more complex. That is concerning more from the child's point of view.
I can probably understand this adoption of gay couple if the child has some say in that. Maybe if the adopted child were about 12 or 14 or elder, then at least it will have made a conscious decision to become an adopted child of a same sex couple and will learn to fight the bias along with her parents.

I don't buy the argument that gay couple adopting orphans will solve the orphans problem. First of all this is assuming that the orphan will remain an orphan and no normal couple one will adopt her. Also, there are miniscule few of gay couples so it has minimal impact.

When you said 'I have no idea what they are about', it suggested to me that you think they have some sort of agenda. Perhaps it was just poor phrasing on your part?

You're asserting that the child will have a harder life due to having gay parents- how? Bullying? Well, children could get bullied for their religion, etc. Should parents not raise in a religion which is 'foreign' to the general public out of backlash? No. Same with gay adoption. You're simply asserting it will be harder without evidence. I have linked studies in my previous posts showing how the science indicates that there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual parents in terms of the child's development.

Gay couples are more likely to adopt, due to them not being able to procreate. Despite there being far less gay couples, they will likely be overrepresented in the adoption system. I don't think anyone is saying that gay couples will singlehandedly solve adoption, but they sure as hell will contribute.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I referred to general theism, not Islam exclusively. Stop being a perpetual victim.

Wow. So you didn't even click on the link? The first study went up to early adolescence. Do you not even know what a longitudinal study is? There are no identified 'long-term effects', otherwise gay adoption would easily be made illegal. Whether or not people will bully someone over something is not a reason not to do it. By your logic, parents shouldn't raise their children Muslim because some people could bully them for it.

You also mention in another post that so many cultures are against it. That used to be the case, sure, but that isn't anymore. But that would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so it doesn't even make sense even if it was the case. It's also an appeal to tradition, which is another fallacy. Let's suppose the majority of the world hated Islam, would that justify not allowing for Muslim immigration? Of course not.

Please respect the forum, its been mentioned this is not a religious related thread. You do realise there are athiests or agnositics who are also against this?

Which cultures do you mean? European , American ? Both of these have large amounts of people from all backgrounds which are against this. They are also against these type relationships, please do keep up.

Please answer this.

If two is ok, what a about 3 men living together adopting?

If that was the case we wouldn't have kids sitting in orphanages in this day and age. Fact of the matter is there are not enough parents out there willing to adopt kids.

This will make little difference, so such couples wont change anything in reality. Sure every child out of an orphange is great but this will cause other issues for the child, esp if they are a good age.

If two is ok, what a about 3 men living together adopting?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

We also now have throuples. 3 people living together in an intimate relationship. Should they also be allowed to adopt?

Doesn’t Islam allow this already.

Know of religious mullah types who have 2-3 wives and raise kids together

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Look, there is a lot of gymnastics in this thread - child welfare, straight couples getting preference etc.

Many of us are in straight relationships/marriages - if there was such a concern for child welfare we would be queuing up outside adoption centres.

The reality is that Muslims believe it's impermissible solely from a religious perspective, because it's not permissible to be in a same sex relationship. ANy other argument that is being made in this thread is heavily influenced by this and twisted to suit this belief.

Own the belief instead of making up arguments.

It’s the same thing as when you see some Hindus giving reasons of morality or health for being vegetarian rather than giving the simple reason that their religion forbids consumption of meat

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

wonder woman lol.

A child going to school telling his/her friends he/she has 3 or 4 dads would be laughed at.

And a kid with 4 moms won’t be laughed at?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

It has more rights for females than entire Western realm.

The problem is females having rights in West is loosely translated into "objectification of women for sexual gratification of men".

Cheerleaders, pole dancers, pornogrpahy, nudity, lesbianism, skimpiness, shamelessness is all the result of Western ideology.

What went wrong in those times was female infanticide and no rights for females.

What is wrong now is for everyone to see.

This post just shows the childishness of your thinking.

For people like you feminism entails just skimpy
Clothes and pornography etc. it’s because of the gutter level thought process you have.

Feminism is more about freedom to pursue education, a rewarding career and personal, intellectual development etc. if you think
Conservative Islamic (or any religious) society offers that totally then you are delusional

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Ok I can see where some usual suspects are going to take this thread towards.

This thread is NOT about religious aspects so dont stray towards that side of things.

That’s a tough ask when religion in fact directs the thought processes of most people on this matter

 

[KingKhanWC]

And a kid with 4 moms won’t be laughed at?

Sure will if ALL 4 are being mothers to one child and one father. I dont agree with this either, so it's not a religous issue for me.

One mother and one father is the most healthy combition for any child which is adopted. Usually children who are adopted are a few years old, many of which old enough to know the norm is one of each. It would be difficult for them to fit in at home and in school imo.

Do you have a view of your own at all?

 

[sweep_shot]

Humanity was always about a mother and a father. It was never about two mothers or two fathers.

Gay adoption is not normal and should be discouraged.

 

[wajid]

This post just shows the childishness of your thinking.

For people like you feminism entails just skimpy
Clothes and pornography etc. it’s because of the gutter level thought process you have.

Feminism is more about freedom to pursue education, a rewarding career and personal, intellectual development etc. if you think
Conservative Islamic (or any religious) society offers that totally then you are delusional

Forget religion. If you just feel that traditional notions of marriage, monogamous relationships and family hold any value and are essential for the society then sooner or later these “gutter level” reasonings will arise. People need to be straight in what they advocate for. They desire a social structure based on family and companionship and also want no dependencies and hierarchy in human social order. Not gonna happen.

Funnily enough, all those social equality crusaders are also against perfect economic equality. They consider some sort of economic hierarchy as natural

 

[wajid]

Humanity was always about a mother and a father. It was never about two mothers or two fathers.

Gay adoption is not normal and should be discouraged.

The modern enlightened ones consider light to be made of rainbow. This simple and effective and efficient argument won’t win them. Heck they even now refuse to acknowledge man and woman as valid categories of human gender.

 

[sweep_shot]

The modern enlightened ones consider light to be made of rainbow. This simple and effective and efficient argument won’t win them. Heck they even now refuse to acknowledge man and woman as valid categories of human gender.

This is probably why west is declining. They have turned progressiveness into something else.

 

[Robert]

Humanity was always about a mother and a father. It was never about two mothers or two fathers.

Gay adoption is not normal and should be discouraged.

Always? I think that might be the case for the last 4000 years but humanity is much older than that, maybe twenty times older, and for most of that time the whole tribe would look after all the kids, and there have always been gay relationships.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

If a country is secular than gay couples should absolutely have the same right as straight couples. Anything else is discriminatory.

 

[Tubs]

Please respect the forum, its been mentioned this is not a religious related thread. You do realise there are athiests or agnositics who are also against this?

Which cultures do you mean? European , American ? Both of these have large amounts of people from all backgrounds which are against this. They are also against these type relationships, please do keep up.

Please answer this.

If two is ok, what a about 3 men living together adopting?



This will make little difference, so such couples wont change anything in reality. Sure every child out of an orphange is great but this will cause other issues for the child, esp if they are a good age.

If two is ok, what a about 3 men living together adopting?

You're just asserting that there are people against gay marriage/people in the West... sure, there are, but that isn't the consensus view like you were saying. If the consensus view in the West was that Muslims were bad people, would it be okay to discriminate against them? Of course not.

Again, you make no reference to the studies. The science is on my side, not yours. Anything you say is just an assertion and nothing else.

I am unsure why you are mentioning 3 parents. The whole context of this is between same-sex couples. I trust that you aware that a 'couple' consists of 2 people. The independent variable here is the sex of the couples- homosexual or heterosexual. Any attempt to try and smuggle in more people into the conversation is simply an attempt at obfuscation.

 

[Tubs]

Humanity was always about a mother and a father. It was never about two mothers or two fathers.

Gay adoption is not normal and should be discouraged.

First of all, that is an appeal to tradition fallacy- here is the Wikipedia page if you'd like to learn about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Now that you know that argument is fallacious, what reasons can you give?

Again, 'not normal' is simply an assertion. That is not an argument.

 

[Tubs]

Always? I think that might be the case for the last 4000 years but humanity is much older than that, maybe twenty times older, and for most of that time the whole tribe would look after all the kids, and there have always been gay relationships.

Yep, even old emperor Nero had a gay marriage. I believe he had two.

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

This post just shows the childishness of your thinking.

For people like you feminism entails just skimpy
Clothes and pornography etc. it’s because of the gutter level thought process you have.

Feminism is more about freedom to pursue education, a rewarding career and personal, intellectual development etc. if you think
Conservative Islamic (or any religious) society offers that totally then you are delusional

First of all there is no genuine conservative Islamic society these days. Pakistan has high rates of crime, rape, pedophilia, corruption, etc. and so do a host of other majority Muslim countries so I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.

With regards to the bolded part, yes women should be allowed such rights but a lot of the feminist movement is conservative and general social etiquette out of the window and essentially stripping themselves naked. There is a clear trend and you can't just call it 'gutter level thought process' otherwise you're ignoring what's happening.

On a side note, just off the top of my head, look at that 'My Choice' video of that Bollywood Actress Deepika Padukone. There are many other such examples.

 

[OMB]

When you said 'I have no idea what they are about', it suggested to me that you think they have some sort of agenda. Perhaps it was just poor phrasing on your part?

You're asserting that the child will have a harder life due to having gay parents- how? Bullying? Well, children could get bullied for their religion, etc. Should parents not raise in a religion which is 'foreign' to the general public out of backlash? No. Same with gay adoption. You're simply asserting it will be harder without evidence. I have linked studies in my previous posts showing how the science indicates that there are no differences between heterosexual and homosexual parents in terms of the child's development.

Gay couples are more likely to adopt, due to them not being able to procreate. Despite there being far less gay couples, they will likely be overrepresented in the adoption system. I don't think anyone is saying that gay couples will singlehandedly solve adoption, but they sure as hell will contribute.

When I say 'I have no idea what they are about' I meant I don't know many gay people personally and indeed none in my close friend circle. I am aware of them generally and have no bias against them existing.

My assertion about a child having a harder life was not due to only bullying. Even in a bully proof environment the child will be having this aggravation internally. There will be less aggravation if the adopted child is of an age which allows her to have a say in the whole matter. That is what I was implying.
Isn't that important as the only person who will be the affected most is the child herself?

About the scientific findings, I believe in science too.
but IMO the only science that works is Nature. There are other believable scientific studies which are basically data collated via observations and ultimately based on some empirical studies. That is believable and provable as you can simulate exact studies and you will get same results. for example, science that is used to send rockets into space which to a large extent depends upon the force of gravity. so yeah thank you science.

Unfortunately what you mentioned "science indicates so and so" are different kind of sciences.
I think of them as "Periodical and Momentary Truth" published by scientific researchers using a created sample base. That observation if simulated with different sample subjects in different locations and in different decades will give different results every time.
In a lighter vein, my very scientific research says that "For every research there will be an equal and opposite research", now I just have to find a sample base of 100 people who agree with this and then have necessary expertise to publish and connections to endorse it.
This type of science is difficult to believe.
Check this out, lots of experts have done various scientific studies on far simpler issues such as "Is egg yolk healthy or not?" and we still don't have a consensus.

So the question to ask, why Nature didn't provide an option for a human male or female, alone, to give birth to an offspring? I lean towards the reasoning that it must have something to do with bringing up the very young ones and not just the childbirth.

 

[Robert]

When I say 'I have no idea what they are about' I meant I don't know many gay people personally and indeed none in my close friend circle. I am aware of them generally and have no bias against them existing.

My assertion about a child having a harder life was not due to only bullying. Even in a bully proof environment the child will be having this aggravation internally. There will be less aggravation if the adopted child is of an age which allows her to have a say in the whole matter. That is what I was implying.
Isn't that important as the only person who will be the affected most is the child herself?

About the scientific findings, I believe in science too.
but IMO the only science that works is Nature. There are other believable scientific studies which are basically data collated via observations and ultimately based on some empirical studies. That is believable and provable as you can simulate exact studies and you will get same results. for example, science that is used to send rockets into space which to a large extent depends upon the force of gravity. so yeah thank you science.

Unfortunately what you mentioned "science indicates so and so" are different kind of sciences.
I think of them as "Periodical and Momentary Truth" published by scientific researchers using a created sample base. That observation if simulated with different sample subjects in different locations and in different decades will give different results every time.
In a lighter vein, my very scientific research says that "For every research there will be an equal and opposite research", now I just have to find a sample base of 100 people who agree with this and then have necessary expertise to publish and connections to endorse it.
This type of science is difficult to believe.
Check this out, lots of experts have done various scientific studies on far simpler issues such as "Is egg yolk healthy or not?" and we still don't have a consensus.

So the question to ask, why Nature didn't provide an option for a human male or female, alone, to give birth to an offspring? I lean towards the reasoning that it must have something to do with bringing up the very young ones and not just the childbirth.

Yes because females can breastfeed. We are not talking about infants being adopted, but older children.

If we are saying a male gay couple cannot adopt because there is no mother, we must extend this to single fathers. Perhaps the mother died in childbirth or through disease or accident. As there is no mother on the scene, the child must be taken away from the single father and given to a male-female couple. That will be better for the child, right? Wouldn’t want him bullied at school because he has no mother.

 

[OMB]

Yes because females can breastfeed. We are not talking about infants being adopted, but older children.

If we are saying a male gay couple cannot adopt because there is no mother, we must extend this to single fathers. Perhaps the mother died in childbirth or through disease or accident. As there is no mother on the scene, the child must be taken away from the single father and given to a male-female couple. That will be better for the child, right? Wouldn’t want him bullied at school because he has no mother.

Yes that's what I am saying.
I wrote that "There will be less aggravation if the adopted child is of an age which allows her to have a say in the whole matter. That is what I was implying." We are on same page up till this point.

I never said that a male male couple should not adopt or that a single father or mother cannot raise a child.

I don't get this thing that child without her mother will be suffering from bullying. I think the child will be suffering because of lack of presence of a mother in her life. The only reason we first think of bullying is because we start seeing the child as a victim of circumstance and to be protected. But look at this from the viewpoint of the child herself, she will be more concerned about the lack of a mother figure.
What others do (bullying etc.) will be a secondary problem and which might be overcome by support of the father, the teachers, friends and the community.

Also, we cannot compare single father scenario you mentioned as that happened due to an act of nature and in such a case, the natural born child will almost always choose to be with the surviving parent. The choice should be with the child in all the cases and that is why I said allow adoption of older children who can also voice their opinions.

 

[Tubs]

When I say 'I have no idea what they are about' I meant I don't know many gay people personally and indeed none in my close friend circle. I am aware of them generally and have no bias against them existing.

My assertion about a child having a harder life was not due to only bullying. Even in a bully proof environment the child will be having this aggravation internally. There will be less aggravation if the adopted child is of an age which allows her to have a say in the whole matter. That is what I was implying.
Isn't that important as the only person who will be the affected most is the child herself?

This is all an assertion. There is nothing to back this up, so it can all be dismissed.

About the scientific findings, I believe in science too.
but IMO the only science that works is Nature. There are other believable scientific studies which are basically data collated via observations and ultimately based on some empirical studies. That is believable and provable as you can simulate exact studies and you will get same results. for example, science that is used to send rockets into space which to a large extent depends upon the force of gravity. so yeah thank you science.

By Nature, do you mean the scientific journal, or the natural world? If it's the former, then while Nature is a fantastic journal, it is not the only worthwhile one. If the former, then you are simply doing an appeal to nature fallacy, which renders your argument fallacious. Reading your whole post, you definitely mean the latter. You are obviously ignorant of what the scientific method is if you think it's just 'observing nature'. Science is the iterative process of observing a phenomena, creating a hypothesis, experimenting on that hypothesis, collecting data, analysing data, refining the hypothesis, etc.

Unfortunately what you mentioned "science indicates so and so" are different kind of sciences.
I think of them as "Periodical and Momentary Truth" published by scientific researchers using a created sample base. That observation if simulated with different sample subjects in different locations and in different decades will give different results every time.
In a lighter vein, my very scientific research says that "For every research there will be an equal and opposite research", now I just have to find a sample base of 100 people who agree with this and then have necessary expertise to publish and connections to endorse it.
This type of science is difficult to believe.
Check this out, lots of experts have done various scientific studies on far simpler issues such as "Is egg yolk healthy or not?" and we still don't have a consensus.

You arbitrarily dismiss science that you dislike, that's what you're saying. You think that the work of accomplished PhD researchers is simply conjecture, but you think your uneducated opinion is equal to theirs? One of the studies I showed was a longitudinal study, following young children who were adopted into adolescence, and it showed that homosexual and heterosexual parents had children with similar outcomes. It was verified by qualified academics, using the trusted statistical techniques. It is real science. Your conjecture and assertions are not.

So the question to ask, why Nature didn't provide an option for a human male or female, alone, to give birth to an offspring? I lean towards the reasoning that it must have something to do with bringing up the very young ones and not just the childbirth.

Again, that's an appeal to nature fallacy. The reason that homosexual parents don't have offspring is because that's how humans, and other animals (for the most part, but there are some exceptions) evolved. The capacity to create children is completely irrelevant to whether homosexual parents can be good ones. That is an attempt at obfuscation. We are looking at gay adoption, nothing else.

 

[wajid]

Always? I think that might be the case for the last 4000 years but humanity is much older than that, maybe twenty times older, and for most of that time the whole tribe would look after all the kids, and there have always been gay relationships.

Never understood basis of claims like this. How can you possibly know that “ most of the time the whole tribe would look after all the kids”. In general, while society still looks after all the kids. Infact it never stopped doing so.

Agree on that gay relationships have always been there. But in whatever little history I read, even those gays had to get a wife to create a family. Often gay lovers were a side show like we this practice of baccha bazi in Afghanistan.

 

[Major]

1. The problem with the above post is that it assumes every same sex couple is mentally challenged.

2. 3 people living together has nothing to do with same sex. Polygamy and homosexuality are two totally different aspects.

i have seen people argue regarding homosexual and compare it to pedophilia. So just beware, alot of naïve things do get said in such discussions.

 

[wajid]

i have seen people argue regarding homosexual and compare it to pedophilia. So just beware, alot of naïve things do get said in such discussions.

Why comparing homosexuality with pedophilia naive? Especially considering the fact that the shape and form in which homosexuality was practiced in our part of the world is closely related to pedophilia. Lust of young beardless boys or bacchabazi was the prevalent form.

 

[Itachi]

Why comparing homosexuality with pedophilia naive? Especially considering the fact that the shape and form in which homosexuality was practiced in our part of the world is closely related to pedophilia. Lust of young beardless boys or bacchabazi was the prevalent form.

Those are pedophiles who are attracted to guys/boys. The driven force is pedophilia, not homosexuality.

 

[OMB]

This is all an assertion. There is nothing to back this up, so it can all be dismissed.



By Nature, do you mean the scientific journal, or the natural world? If it's the former, then while Nature is a fantastic journal, it is not the only worthwhile one. If the former, then you are simply doing an appeal to nature fallacy, which renders your argument fallacious. Reading your whole post, you definitely mean the latter. You are obviously ignorant of what the scientific method is if you think it's just 'observing nature'. Science is the iterative process of observing a phenomena, creating a hypothesis, experimenting on that hypothesis, collecting data, analysing data, refining the hypothesis, etc.




You arbitrarily dismiss science that you dislike, that's what you're saying. You think that the work of accomplished PhD researchers is simply conjecture, but you think your uneducated opinion is equal to theirs? One of the studies I showed was a longitudinal study, following young children who were adopted into adolescence, and it showed that homosexual and heterosexual parents had children with similar outcomes. It was verified by qualified academics, using the trusted statistical techniques. It is real science. Your conjecture and assertions are not.


Again, that's an appeal to nature fallacy. The reason that homosexual parents don't have offspring is because that's how humans, and other animals (for the most part, but there are some exceptions) evolved. The capacity to create children is completely irrelevant to whether homosexual parents can be good ones. That is an attempt at obfuscation. We are looking at gay adoption, nothing else.

By same token all you wrote is also an assertion and not to be believed. There is no end to this discussion then.

The studies you quoted are not empirical studies which determine at what temperature the water reaches its boiling point. The studies you quoted are basically data collated over a few years for a small sample base and results will be different every time if the same were conducted in other countries.

I guess I was a bit flippant when I quoted about the way these researches but I still stand by what I know about these studies. They are truth only I’ve r a short period and become false the moment next study comes along. By no means I say they are useless studies as even a wrong research acts a guide for future scientists. So yes I agree I was a bit dismissive of all the hard work and that was not my intention.

My main point was that let the child be old enough to have a say in her adoption.

 

[wajid]

Those are pedophiles who are attracted to guys/boys. The driven force is pedophilia, not homosexuality.

How can we determine the driving force to be pedophilia? As it ascribes specifically to teenage boys.

 

[Itachi]

How can we determine the driving force to be pedophilia? As it ascribes specifically to teenage boys.

Otherwise all homosexuals would have been pedophiles had it was homosexuality which was the driving force.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You're just asserting that there are people against gay marriage/people in the West... sure, there are, but that isn't the consensus view like you were saying. If the consensus view in the West was that Muslims were bad people, would it be okay to discriminate against them? Of course not.

It is the consensus, if you ask most people from any nation would a mother/father be better than 2 fathers , they would say yes.

Again, you make no reference to the studies. The science is on my side, not yours. Anything you say is just an assertion and nothing else.

Think before you google search for confirmation bias. The study you posted is not solely about adoption.

Many other articles point to children being bullied , socially not accepted.

But use a bit of common sense, adopted children can be any age. Take a 10 year old to a same sex couple, the child iteslf will be confused or embarrased as he/she has known parents are usually a mother and father.

I am unsure why you are mentioning 3 parents. The whole context of this is between same-sex couples. I trust that you aware that a 'couple' consists of 2 people. The independent variable here is the sex of the couples- homosexual or heterosexual. Any attempt to try and smuggle in more people into the conversation is simply an attempt at obfuscation.

We can expand as now we have throuples, which is 3 people living together or you ok with 2 men raising a child but not 3 men? If not why not?

 

[Robert]

Never understood basis of claims like this. How can you possibly know that “ most of the time the whole tribe would look after all the kids”..

.

We look at modern hunter-gatherer societies and extrapolate back.

 

[Balthazar]

How can we determine the driving force to be pedophilia? As it ascribes specifically to teenage boys.

Pedophilia was a normal practice in most of the religious cultures. And some heterosexual males still pray on teenage girls. So where is your scepticism for religions and heterosexuality?

 

[Tubs]

By same token all you wrote is also an assertion and not to be believed. There is no end to this discussion then.

The studies you quoted are not empirical studies which determine at what temperature the water reaches its boiling point. The studies you quoted are basically data collated over a few years for a small sample base and results will be different every time if the same were conducted in other countries.

I guess I was a bit flippant when I quoted about the way these researches but I still stand by what I know about these studies. They are truth only IÂ’ve r a short period and become false the moment next study comes along. By no means I say they are useless studies as even a wrong research acts a guide for future scientists. So yes I agree I was a bit dismissive of all the hard work and that was not my intention.

My main point was that let the child be old enough to have a say in her adoption.

Your analogy is flawed. The correct analogy would be why the boiling point of water at x degrees, with the measure being 100 degrees. So, the study was to test whether there was a difference between heterosexual and homosexual parents, given the data that was received. However, I am also unsure what your definition of empirical data is? Empirical data is data generated from an experiment, which these studies were. You saying that the results will be different every time is, again, an assertion.

Again, your second paragraph is more of the same, saying that the results will be different when they're not. Sample size is an issue, sure, but the science is repeated again and again, since science is an iterative process.

And how old must the child be to make the choice? You usually can't consent to things until you're 18. That will obviously be too late. Please, why don't you just tell us the real reason you don't want gay people to have children?

 

[Tubs]

It is the consensus, if you ask most people from any nation would a mother/father be better than 2 fathers , they would say yes.

Proof? And again, that is an argumentum ad populum. Would the majority of people disliking black people, Muslims, Jews, etc make it appropriate to expel them from those nations, or at least reduce their rights within that country?

Think before you google search for confirmation bias. The study you posted is not solely about adoption.

Adoptive Gay Father Families: A Longitudinal Study of Children’s Adjustment at Early Adolescence

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief

These are the names of the studies I showed. Do you have any evidence its not solely about children being adopted and/or raised by gay couples?

Many other articles point to children being bullied , socially not accepted.

But use a bit of common sense, adopted children can be any age. Take a 10 year old to a same sex couple, the child iteslf will be confused or embarrased as he/she has known parents are usually a mother and father.

More assertion yet again. You mention these articles (not studies), but don't show any.

'Common sense' is not an argument. An argument from intuition is fallacious- you love using fallacious reasoning it seems. Even if someone feels embarrassed about their family, that doesn't give it grounds to make such a family illegal (again, would a child being embarrassed by certain cultural practices mean that the cultural practice should not be allowed? Of course not).

We can expand as now we have throuples, which is 3 people living together or you ok with 2 men raising a child but not 3 men? If not why not?

Again, we are on about something which is legal, and allowed in much of the Western world, and whether it is moral and permissible. You are again trying to obfuscate using an abstract example. People are raised by multiple people all the time, the only issue here is the relatively new phenomena of a homosexual, >2-ouple. Unless you are against grandparents, uncles/aunties and other adults also raising a child, then you should have no issue with this strawman you're trying to create. Please refute my points without appealing to some apparent studies that you can't seem to reproduce.

 

[Robert]

It is the consensus, if you ask most people from any nation would a mother/father be better than 2 fathers , they would say yes.




Think before you google search for confirmation bias. The study you posted is not solely about adoption.

Many other articles point to children being bullied , socially not accepted.

But use a bit of common sense, adopted children can be any age. Take a 10 year old to a same sex couple, the child iteslf will be confused or embarrased as he/she has known parents are usually a mother and father.

We can expand as now we have throuples, which is 3 people living together or you ok with 2 men raising a child but not 3 men? If not why not?

Three, seven, as long as it’s a loving home I see no problem.

 

[sharmaji]

I have gay friends in USA and India and I have observed a few things about them:

1. They seem super sweet, enjoy romance and have a great taste in food, art and fashion, but spend a little time with them, you'll see that they are bitter about society which they have to constantly fight against. I am not saying it's their fault, but it is a general observation. Now this can be the case in heterosexual couples as well, but would you want a child to grow up in a bitter/angry household?

2. Gay couples definitely share love and affection, but I suspect that for them, marriage is less about sancticty of institution and more about societal acceptance. So (and this is a pure hypothesis), when issues come up in a marriage, as they are bound to in every monogamous relationship, I doubt the perseverance among gay couples to stay married. (While I say this, I understand that this is more of a western society issue. As divorce rates are going up in the west between hetero couples, this concern won't be limited to gay couples only)

I believe a married couple is better suited to raise a child, foe economic, social and emotional security. If gay couples stay married, then this should not be a problem.

3. Nature has designed (again, I understand there are exceptions to this) mother to be nurturing and father to be protective/provider. Between them, they share a balance of kindness (feminine) and strength (masculine). I think they are both required for a child to grow in a healthy way.

Generally gay couples are mimicking heterosexual couples (2 gay men in a marriage assume the role of 1 husband and 1 wife and same with 2 gay women) which is going a roundabout way but it's still the right thing to do. But if that is not the case (i.e, if both men in the marriage act as wife), then one side (usually kindness/softness) weighs in more than the other for the child.

Once again, as I write this, I realise it is not about gay couples; almost all the modern heterosexual relationships/marriages, influenced by the west, have erased the boundaries of husband and wife (in a traditional sense, i.e), with soft/effeminate husbands and strong/dominating wives (nothing wrong with that btw).

 

[OMB]

Your analogy is flawed. The correct analogy would be why the boiling point of water at x degrees, with the measure being 100 degrees. So, the study was to test whether there was a difference between heterosexual and homosexual parents, given the data that was received. However, I am also unsure what your definition of empirical data is? Empirical data is data generated from an experiment, which these studies were. You saying that the results will be different every time is, again, an assertion.

Again, your second paragraph is more of the same, saying that the results will be different when they're not. Sample size is an issue, sure, but the science is repeated again and again, since science is an iterative process.

And how old must the child be to make the choice? You usually can't consent to things until you're 18. That will obviously be too late. Please, why don't you just tell us the real reason you don't want gay people to have children?

Ok brother, you can hold on to your opinion. I see flaws in your arguments and in your conclusion too.

Flaw in your conclusion :
You are very quick to conclude about what I feel and are asking "real reason". Did I say I don't want gay people to have children? Quote me.
Read what I said, and don't interpret what you think but interpret what I meant to say.

Flaw in your argument :
Regarding the second paragraph of my previous post, think like this.. your quoted scientific study is fine and I have said so in one of the posts that it is a momentary truth in a periodic fashion and not an absolute truth. What I said was it is basically a survey conducted over a small sample base over a long duration. If you vary the sample base and move it to a different regions (try a Middle-East country instead of USA), the results would be different because of what we call PESTLE effect.
My example of Science like that boiling point of water experiment is a definitive experiment where result can be relied wherever such experiments are conducted. Did you see anybody ever having an argument over it? Is the argument of this thread topic definitive at all? It seems it is heavily argued and majority results are exactly opposite of what you feel.
What I said in my second paragraph of previous post is right that way.

I do agree with some parts of your discussion and I accepted where I was wrong like I was a bit flippant about the way your quoted studies were conducted. I have a lot of respect for people who work hard and PhD is that but I am sure that doesn't mean that it is accurate. Such things always have a fine print.

==
Your quoted studies shows why I don't accept such scientific findings

ref : Adoptive Gay Father Families: A Longitudinal Study of Children’s Adjustment at Early Adolescence
The disclaimer from the authors : "Findings are presented from the second phase of a UK longitudinal study of 33 gay father, 35 lesbian mother, and 43 heterosexual parent families when their adopted children reached early adolescence. Participants predominantly lived in urban/suburban areas and were mostly white and well-educated"

ref : Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief
Another disclaimer : Importantly, our indicator of whether a child lived in a same-sex couple household lacked detail to determine how and when the same-sex couple household was formed. This limitation has plagued the development of research on the well-being of children in same-sex couple families (Manning et al., 2014;Reczek et al., 2016). Indeed, children may have come into these households in several different ways, including by being adopted by two same-sex partners, by traditional or gestational surrogacy, by being born to different-sex parents whose relationship later dissolved, by being born to an unpartnered mother who later began living with a partner of the same sex, or by being born to a biological mother and her coresidential same-sex partner who resided in the home at the time of interview.

At least the authors were truthful and have disclosed the limitations of their studies. Maybe it suits you fine but I am based far away and in a different world and don't believe this publication is a truth.
Once again, I am not discounting their study as it may have taken lot of hard work and analysis but I can see it is only useful for a small society where the authors wanted the result of their findings to be used.

So I am not buying this.

 

[Technics 1210]

Three, seven, as long as it’s a loving home I see no problem.

Why loving home, and not a loving environment? Like an orphanage?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Again, we are on about something which is legal, and allowed in much of the Western world, and whether it is moral and permissible. You are again trying to obfuscate using an abstract example. People are raised by multiple people all the time, the only issue here is the relatively new phenomena of a homosexual, >2-ouple. Unless you are against grandparents, uncles/aunties and other adults also raising a child, then you should have no issue with this strawman you're trying to create. Please refute my points without appealing to some apparent studies that you can't seem to reproduce.

This is why I dont take your seriously. You seem not to know basics yet rush off to google for your confirmation bias.

In some states in the US, its perfectly legal to have 3 dads on the birth certificate. Why dont you agree with 3 fathers? If you now do, do you agree with 5 gay dads?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Three, seven, as long as it’s a loving home I see no problem.

7 gay men all being dads will have no impact on the mind of an adopoted child?

Not sure why you think this would be seen as normal and correct?

Thanks for a straight forward answer, you're the only who supports this motion and hasnt run off from this point.

 

[Tubs]

Ok brother, you can hold on to your opinion. I see flaws in your arguments and in your conclusion too.

Flaw in your conclusion :
You are very quick to conclude about what I feel and are asking "real reason". Did I say I don't want gay people to have children? Quote me.
Read what I said, and don't interpret what you think but interpret what I meant to say.

Flaw in your argument :
Regarding the second paragraph of my previous post, think like this.. your quoted scientific study is fine and I have said so in one of the posts that it is a momentary truth in a periodic fashion and not an absolute truth. What I said was it is basically a survey conducted over a small sample base over a long duration. If you vary the sample base and move it to a different regions (try a Middle-East country instead of USA), the results would be different because of what we call PESTLE effect.
My example of Science like that boiling point of water experiment is a definitive experiment where result can be relied wherever such experiments are conducted. Did you see anybody ever having an argument over it? Is the argument of this thread topic definitive at all? It seems it is heavily argued and majority results are exactly opposite of what you feel.
What I said in my second paragraph of previous post is right that way.

I do agree with some parts of your discussion and I accepted where I was wrong like I was a bit flippant about the way your quoted studies were conducted. I have a lot of respect for people who work hard and PhD is that but I am sure that doesn't mean that it is accurate. Such things always have a fine print.

==
Your quoted studies shows why I don't accept such scientific findings





At least the authors were truthful and have disclosed the limitations of their studies. Maybe it suits you fine but I am based far away and in a different world and don't believe this publication is a truth.
Once again, I am not discounting their study as it may have taken lot of hard work and analysis but I can see it is only useful for a small society where the authors wanted the result of their findings to be used.

So I am not buying this.

The term 'absolute truth' is a bogus one when applied to science. That is a huge philosophical debate, but we don't use that in science. We make scientific inferences all the time. Your experiment analogy is far too reductionist. And just because it isn't disputed, that isn't the reason it is true. It's verifiable, over and over again. This is the case with gay adoption studies. I only showed you two, but there are many.

https://medicalresearch.com/author-...es-in-children-adopted-by-lgbt-parents/29168/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615103946.htm

Again, 2 more, but there are so many. You haven't shown any studies to suggest otherwise. And even if you do, you need to see the totality of evidence. And the consensus is that same-sex parents are at least as good as heterosexual ones.

Showing limitations that the researchers acknowledged doesn't mean you can throw them out the window. That shows an ignorance of science. Those are just considerations to be made, and lead to other questions that other studies can try and answer. However, the conclusion is still the same- no difference between same-sex and heterosexual adoption when it comes to child outcomes. Again, find studies to substantiate your claim. You just want to find anything to nit-pick, despite the science being against you.

 

[Tubs]

This is why I dont take your seriously. You seem not to know basics yet rush off to google for your confirmation bias.

In some states in the US, its perfectly legal to have 3 dads on the birth certificate. Why dont you agree with 3 fathers? If you now do, do you agree with 5 gay dads?

First of all, you would know that the US usually follows the 'rule of 2'. Stop being dishonest and pointing to edge cases. You can call me owning you with science 'Googling', but I know that you're insecure in your lack of comprehension of science, so I'll let you off.

You haven't at all substantiated why you're against gay marriage without committing fallacies. Why don't we discuss the gay adoption question before you try and divert the conversation away because you know you're losing the argument?

 

[Yossarian]

There's always exceptions to every case no matter what the topic under discussion. And using these exceptions, one can make the case for anything and everything. However, exceptions by their very definition are not the 'norm', they are deviations from the norm.

Similarly, when it comes to human procreation, the 'norm' is for a man to impregnate a woman with his sperm during heterosexual intercourse, resulting in a child (or children, eg twins) being born approx. nine months later. The man who impregnated the woman is then the 'father', and the woman who gives birth is the 'mother'.

There are no mother/mother, father/father, father/biological mother/surrogate mother, and a multitude of other combinations when it comes to the 'norm'. It's just mother/father.

Like I said above, you can make all sorts of arguments by using 'exceptions' (ie deviations) to the 'norm'. However, if the exceptions are deviations from the 'norm', then so are the arguments based upon them.

There is nothing 'normal' about a child having a father/father, as opposed to having a mother/father.

 

[OMB]

The term 'absolute truth' is a bogus one when applied to science. That is a huge philosophical debate, but we don't use that in science. We make scientific inferences all the time. Your experiment analogy is far too reductionist. And just because it isn't disputed, that isn't the reason it is true. It's verifiable, over and over again. This is the case with gay adoption studies. I only showed you two, but there are many.

https://medicalresearch.com/author-...es-in-children-adopted-by-lgbt-parents/29168/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615103946.htm

Again, 2 more, but there are so many. You haven't shown any studies to suggest otherwise. And even if you do, you need to see the totality of evidence. And the consensus is that same-sex parents are at least as good as heterosexual ones.

Showing limitations that the researchers acknowledged doesn't mean you can throw them out the window. That shows an ignorance of science. Those are just considerations to be made, and lead to other questions that other studies can try and answer. However, the conclusion is still the same- no difference between same-sex and heterosexual adoption when it comes to child outcomes. Again, find studies to substantiate your claim. You just want to find anything to nit-pick, despite the science being against you.

Who is nitpicking? No one.
Do you dispute the fact that limitations of the research is clearly mentioned by this those scientists (actually researchers IMO).
If their conclusion is based on a small sample size then how can it be believed as applicable for the rest of the world? Apply it to that part of
the world and it may be partly true if the research stands the test of the time.

You know what the studies mentioned about sample size. Study was conducted in UK for about 100 or 120 such mixed families.
If I say the sample size is small, you will call me nit picker. I don’t know why you consider it a small detail to be ignored and the you want to apply the conclusion to the ROW. Extrapolations don’t work that way.

You also didn’t mention anything about “ flaw in your conclusion” of my previous post. Please read it before replying. You didn’t acknowledge your mistake and stay silent on that.

I don’t have trouble discussing anything objectively as long as the other person also follows the same. If I make a mistake I see no harm in acknowledging it and have done so.

 

[KingKhanWC]

First of all, you would know that the US usually follows the 'rule of 2'. Stop being dishonest and pointing to edge cases. You can call me owning you with science 'Googling', but I know that you're insecure in your lack of comprehension of science, so I'll let you off.

You haven't at all substantiated why you're against gay marriage without committing fallacies. Why don't we discuss the gay adoption question before you try and divert the conversation away because you know you're losing the argument?

It is now legal in some US states for 3 gay men to be listed as fathers.

Your college may help you out here but do you or do you not accept 3 gay men adopting? Yes or no will do.