vanni
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,893
|
Post by vanni on Feb 16, 2018 16:48:35 GMT
'Well quite. Being raised by heterosexual parents didn't make me attracted to women'.
Well said Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by amberline on Feb 16, 2018 20:05:59 GMT
I'm not sure I understand, why do you need to ask me when you can simply Google it? ok I did that, it made interesting reading. One part of the definition states; "...is easily offended and unable to deal with opposing opinions" So based on your previous response of "If you don't like what I've written then suck it up!" it looks like you're a snowflake too! I guess you're right, this board IS full of snowflakes. You included. ;-) Ha ha! Yes nice try! There was me thinking you'd come back with those little white crystals that fall from the sky! Why did you not quote what else it says? I'm far from offended and I'm certainly able to deal with opinions on this subject, I think I'm dealing with it right now thank you very much - the difference is I just do not agree with it. Snowflakes however are a different matter and they'll take it a league higher throwing bigot, homophobic and racist around like confetti, just as one example, when in many cases it's so far from the truth. So in reality you've got it the wrong way around old fruit, the truly offended are the ones quoting me and what i have said. All's well that ends well. (wink)
|
|
lionel
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,143
|
Post by lionel on Feb 16, 2018 20:39:22 GMT
ok I did that, it made interesting reading. One part of the definition states; "...is easily offended and unable to deal with opposing opinions" So based on your previous response of "If you don't like what I've written then suck it up!" it looks like you're a snowflake too! I guess you're right, this board IS full of snowflakes. You included. ;-) Ha ha! Yes nice try! There was me thinking you'd come back with those little white crystals that fall from the sky! Why did you not quote what else it says? I'm far from offended and I'm certainly able to deal with opinions on this subject, I think I'm dealing with it right now thank you very much - the difference is I just do not agree with it. Snowflakes however are a different matter and they'll take it a league higher throwing bigot, homophobic and racist around like confetti, just as one example, when in many cases it's so far from the truth. So in reality you've got it the wrong way around old fruit, the truly offended are the ones quoting me and what i have said. All's well that ends well. (wink) I don't think you are homophobic and agree with you that you can deal with different opinions. I'm just intrigued as to where you are getting your beliefs from. I sort of feel that you some homes which really work and others which don't work as well. I just don't feel that the gender of parents has a role to play in that- it's more how the parents (whatever gender) conduct themselves.
|
|
|
Post by eltelsgoldtooth on Feb 16, 2018 21:46:59 GMT
Jesus wept
|
|
essjay
Youth team substitute
Posts: 418
|
Post by essjay on Feb 16, 2018 22:10:00 GMT
ok I did that, it made interesting reading. One part of the definition states; "...is easily offended and unable to deal with opposing opinions" So based on your previous response of "If you don't like what I've written then suck it up!" it looks like you're a snowflake too! I guess you're right, this board IS full of snowflakes. You included. ;-) Ha ha! Yes nice try! There was me thinking you'd come back with those little white crystals that fall from the sky! Why did you not quote what else it says? I'm far from offended and I'm certainly able to deal with opinions on this subject, I think I'm dealing with it right now thank you very much - the difference is I just do not agree with it. Snowflakes however are a different matter and they'll take it a league higher throwing bigot, homophobic and racist around like confetti, just as one example, when in many cases it's so far from the truth. So in reality you've got it the wrong way around old fruit, the truly offended are the ones quoting me and what i have said. All's well that ends well. (wink) I know what snowflakes means, I was trying to outline how I disagree with your use of it as some kind of Trump card to ignore and invalidate others opinions. Attack the argument not the person as a wise woman once said.
|
|
|
Post by bouncebounce on Feb 17, 2018 3:09:38 GMT
"It's all to do with people's personal belief as to whether the boy living with two men will be influenced by his adoptive parents. IOW, they believe the boy will begin to show an unnatural interest in other boys from a young age. Or vise versa in the case of a girl.
I don't see it that way. Simply put, if a boy likes girls then that's it, and IMO there's no possibility at all of being influenced by his adoptive parents. And I don't think his parents will try to influence his feelings either as that would be highly unethical and morally wrong"Well quite. Being raised by heterosexual parents didn't make me attracted to women. Whatever people's objections may be - it's happening. These are the times we live in. I think you either move with it or get left behind and open yourself up to accusations of ignorance and bigotry. Andrew But at least you knew which one was which and had the benefit, comfort and ‘normality’ of such. You keep making this about sexuality when it is not. It’s about the child not the adult! The real ignorance is actively promoting something that puts the selfish wants of an adult ahead of the needs of a child. Especially when the impact of such an upbringing hasn’t been extensively and fully researched yet. And as for calling people ‘bigots’ because they disagree just sums up the hypocritical snowflake brigade. We are instinctively and genetically programmed to need both parents, mum and dad. Mums more so than dads especially in the earlier years from anecdotal experience. To deprive a child of any need to meet ones own selfish desire is tantamount to a form of abuse/neglect. Deliberately and knowingly doing this in advance of birth i.e denying the child their mum/dad is very worrying and extremely selfish to say the least. Heterosexual adults/single parents that have no intention of starting a ‘real family’ and staying together but just want a baby/child are also equally ‘wrong’ in my book.
|
|
moose
Youth team substitute
Posts: 558
|
Post by moose on Feb 17, 2018 9:50:45 GMT
Clicked the link in that article - turns out this “comprehensive study” has been discredited by its publisher. Don’t think I’d have taken too much notice of what a Catholic priest pretending to be a “sociology professor” had to say about this stuff anyway. Hardly likely to be studying the subject with an open mind, and they haven’t exactly got the best record of looking after kids have they? Have a proper read of it first before replying. You should be focusing on its variety of points and commenting not rebuffing it due to your pre determined bias. Also have a proper look into Hindawi. They haven’t discredited it they have made an “expression of concern” so as to remove any ‘political’ association. This ‘concern’ was ‘overruled’ so to speak by the STM association and the article as we read it stands. It helps if you read every bit of the article and supporting documents. Regardless of how liberally or open minded you might be, there is just something fundamentally and instinctively wrong about having ‘same sex’ parents. It’s not what nature intended or even biologically ‘allows’ for that matter. Columbia Law School have done a study into scholarly research on same-sex parenting. The article you cite is 1 of 4 that they identify as stating that same-sex parenting presents an increased risk to children. It also cites 75 articles that conclude that the children are no worse off: whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
|
|
|
Post by bouncebounce on Feb 17, 2018 11:34:06 GMT
Have a proper read of it first before replying. You should be focusing on its variety of points and commenting not rebuffing it due to your pre determined bias. Also have a proper look into Hindawi. They haven’t discredited it they have made an “expression of concern” so as to remove any ‘political’ association. This ‘concern’ was ‘overruled’ so to speak by the STM association and the article as we read it stands. It helps if you read every bit of the article and supporting documents. Regardless of how liberally or open minded you might be, there is just something fundamentally and instinctively wrong about having ‘same sex’ parents. It’s not what nature intended or even biologically ‘allows’ for that matter. Columbia Law School have done a study into scholarly research on same-sex parenting. The article you cite is 1 of 4 that they identify as stating that same-sex parenting presents an increased risk to children. It also cites 75 articles that conclude that the children are no worse off: whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/Interesting. First observation is the age of the articles. If you were to take those only in the last 5 years you’d be 3 vs about 15 rather than 4 vs 75. The key issue is understanding what the ‘Columbian law school’ has for qualifying criteria as it states before considering proper judgement. My objections are based more around the surrogacy parenting issues rather than adoption. In irony the negative reports come from the adoption/ not from birth parenting side. I don’t believe in surrogacy or sperm donors for Heterosexuals so I’m not going to support it for same sex couples either.
|
|
moose
Youth team substitute
Posts: 558
|
Post by moose on Feb 18, 2018 0:34:25 GMT
Interesting. First observation is the age of the articles. If you were to take those only in the last 5 years you’d be 3 vs about 15 rather than 4 vs 75. The key issue is understanding what the ‘Columbian law school’ has for qualifying criteria as it states before considering proper judgement. My objections are based more around the surrogacy parenting issues rather than adoption. In irony the negative reports come from the adoption/ not from birth parenting side. I don’t believe in surrogacy or sperm donors for Heterosexuals so I’m not going to support it for same sex couples either. I thought you might wonder about the selection criteria. Here is an excerpt: “We use a strict set of criteria for selecting studies based on credibility, relevance and usefulness. All studies must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal, and directly relevant to the policy question at hand. To make our selections, Project staff survey the universe of peer-reviewed, published scholarship that adds in some way to the world’s knowledge about the policy issue in question. Adding to knowledge does not necessarily mean drawing new conclusions but can include strengthening existing knowledge by corroborating what prior studies have shown. To select included studies, we perform multiple keyword searches using scholarly databases at Columbia Law School and elsewhere, review articles and reports produced by subject experts and professional societies and organizations, and reach out to leading academic experts to ensure we have identified all relevant scholarship that meet our criteria. We assess all relevant studies published since 1985, as that constitutes roughly the most recent generation of scholarship. Studies may include primary, experimental, longitudinal, qualitative and quantitative research in a variety of social science disciplines, as well as meta-analyses and case studies. [...] Our purpose is not to pick and choose research that endorses a particular policy view but to include the broadest reasonable range of relevant scholarship so that users may both obtain an overview of the present state of scholarly knowledge on topics that are currently matters of public debate, and further examine that research directly if desired. We recognize that the peer-review process is imperfect but we operate on the principle that it represents the best method we have for holding research accountable to both good faith and sound methodologies”.
|
|
|
Post by amberline on Feb 18, 2018 6:04:15 GMT
I know what snowflakes means, I was trying to outline how I disagree with your use of it as some kind of Trump card to ignore and invalidate others opinions. Attack the argument not the person as a wise woman once said. Yes you do now don't you . A 'Trump card' hey, how about a factual card. Yes you were certainly trying. When a hole is getting bigger throw away the spade. [Bob the builder]
|
|
|
Post by habinagedu on Feb 18, 2018 11:44:05 GMT
Dan Gleeson really letting himself down on twitter last night. I know footballers don't have a great reputation but to put such an outdated narrow minded view on a public forum is just idiotic. I hope that whatever ties he may still have with our club are now severed. "Wether it's 2018 or 3018 same sex couples should not be allowed kids! All wrong on every level! Mum and mum 🤔 dad and dad 🤔 Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" Unfollowed him a long while ago as he does not come across at all well on there, presenting the image of a somewhat unintelligent individual. It would appear he is also ignorant. If someone holds a different view to you they are unintelligent and ignorant? How pompous and arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by Andrewlang on Feb 18, 2018 15:16:12 GMT
"My objections are based more around the surrogacy parenting issues rather than adoption. In irony the negative reports come from the adoption/ not from birth parenting side. I don’t believe in surrogacy or sperm donors for Heterosexuals so I’m not going to support it for same sex couples either"
What are your objections for hetrosexual surrogacy? You talked of it being selfish to deny a child of a male or female parent in an earlier post which obviously doesn't apply to mixed sex couples.
Andrew
|
|
|
Post by Russ Greaves on Feb 18, 2018 16:56:18 GMT
Unfollowed him a long while ago as he does not come across at all well on there, presenting the image of a somewhat unintelligent individual. It would appear he is also ignorant. If someone holds a different view to you they are unintelligent and ignorant? How pompous and arrogant. No. I unfollowed him before these tweets anyway. Perhaps he is in fact very intelligent and worldly wise. I have to confess I don’t know. But I was clear to state how I felt he presented himself on Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by bouncebounce on Feb 19, 2018 5:56:20 GMT
"My objections are based more around the surrogacy parenting issues rather than adoption. In irony the negative reports come from the adoption/ not from birth parenting side. I don’t believe in surrogacy or sperm donors for Heterosexuals so I’m not going to support it for same sex couples either" What are your objections for hetrosexual surrogacy? You talked of it being selfish to deny a child of a male or female parent in an earlier post which obviously doesn't apply to mixed sex couples. Andrew It crosses the boundary between medical assistance and a blatant interference with nature for me. Are you aware the process involves creating numerous embryo’s before trying to implant one? Using a different host to implant into is just a step too far. The other embryos are then frozen for use as a ‘back up’. If it works all the unneeded/unwanted embryos are discarded like ‘left overs’. If it doesn’t they thaw them out and try implanting a different one repeating the cycle until it does work or they run out of frozen embryos. After processing that, please try and justify how it can possibly be ethical? The ethics alone are enough for a lot of people to raise an objection. And that’s before the surface is even scratched on the moral, political, philosophical and legal side of things.
|
|
|
Post by amberline on Feb 19, 2018 10:37:33 GMT
If someone holds a different view to you they are unintelligent and ignorant? How pompous and arrogant. No. I unfollowed him before these tweets anyway. Perhaps he is in fact very intelligent and worldly wise. I have to confess I don’t know. But I was clear to state how I felt he presented himself on Twitter. of course.
|
|