Crystal..Discus
Well-Known Member
So constant, relentless, demoralising ridicule is "no key, major, or harmful" to a child and it has no possibility that it would stunt their social developement? I love the patronisation, too. Things are lost in translation over the internet, using caps to highlight a point can be useful, if it is done in a way that isn't rude.
Fine, I'll use a quote from a study released in the states, just to make sure "nothing gets lost in translation."
And do tell, where will this "relentless, demoralising ridicule" come from? How is it any different from children who are already unabatedly teased for the smallest insignificant thing? For being fat? For wearing glasses? For being a redhead? For being too short, for having big feet, for being a different race, for being different?"Our findings challenge received notions about the importance of children having both one female and one male parent. In this sample, regardless of whether they had one mother and one father, two mothers, or two fathers, children were thriving. Our findings are also at odds with the notion that only heterosexual adults make capable parents and that lesbian and gay parents are somehow ineffective or harmful. Inasmuch as there were no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment, our results are consistent with notions that two parents of the same gender can be capable parents and that parental sexual orientation is not related to parenting skill or child adjustment. [...] From a policy perspective, our results provide no justification for denying lesbian and gay adults from adopting children. Indeed, barring adoptions to prospective lesbian and gay parents seems likely to produce a number of undesirable outcomes.[...] In jurisdictions that bar same-sex couples or lesbian and gay individuals from adopting, fewer children were adopted from foster care. Thus, it appears that more children could potentially benefit from having permanent homes with capable parents if lesbian and gay adults were allowed to adopt in the U.S. and elsewhere."
You have no valid argument, because otherwise we should just start banning people from having children that look different, that are different, simply because their children might get teased?
Last edited: