Aww Isn’t it Cute


The anti-gay are out in the UK.

And they have a little billboard out.

Dear anti-gays…

Gay People can get married in all but name prior to the new Gay marriage bill in the UK. Now they can call it “Gay Marriage” rather than civil partnership.

You are here a little too late for this fight. And your argument is daft.

You see Children do best with people who love them. Love is what children needs. A parent is not just someone who’s DNA you carry but someone who loves you. And I know there are some bad parents out there. I am ashamed by mine but they weren’t terrible.

Now there are a variety of implications.

Gays will get married and adopt children. Oh No!

Let us assume that this billboard is correct. That the BEST parents are a man and a woman who’s DNA made up the child.

What about Orphans? Are these kids doomed? Why not let the GLBT couples raise them as loving parents. Unless you are suggesting the series of foster homes and an unstable environment is superior to having two dads/mums.

Or does the Billboard imply that gay marriage will lead to children being taken from “loving, competent birth parents” and given to the GLBT couples? Because that’s not how adoption works.

Or are they saying that gays getting married will increased the divorce rate?

“Cynthia? I am leaving you for Reginald the milkman. The GAY MILK MAN! Yes. Gay marriage is legalised and I realised that our marriage is a sham and I love the cock! Cheerio!”

Won’t someone think of the children.

There are 70,000 odd children in the UK Foster Care system. Unlike our notions of how foster system works the major problem is not the attention these kids receive (AKA we think of Foster Homes like Dickensian workhouses mixed in with the Child Snatcher’s Castle rather than temporary homes provided by people who want to help) but the lack of permanence in their lives. They don’t call these places “home”.

If these children, if even some of these children can find someone who can love them then isn’t that a good thing?

There are so many of them, they aren’t all going to loving heterosexual couples who only have sex with their eyes closed once a year. Some of them are going to people like myself who know where the G-spot is… surgically. I mean face it. The biggest fear is that these kids are being adopted by the GLBT and they may be perverts.

To which I will say this. The biggest selling book in the UK is 50 Shades of Grey and it’s not the GLBT buying it as much as “bored housewives” (what they are bored with is boring vanilla sex).

It’s just such an unfounded fear.

It’s sad to see it in the UK, where we have moved forward and tried to make for a more tolerant world. Have we not learned from the past?

Comments

  1. Francisco Bacopa says

    One of the biggest total logic fails I have ever seen. I do not doubt that it is true that children do best with married birth parents on average. I am sure that if you did almost any kind survey on how different groups of children were doing, children of married birth parents would be at or near the top. But why? Maybe because growing up with married parents correlates with family wealth, delayed marriage of the parents, or some other factor that correlates with children doing better. There really are no mysteries here.

    So what? How does this mean that gay marriage should not be allowed? It’s almost like I said something like “The sun rises in the east. Therefore, I have a cat”. I mean, the sun really does rise in the east, but what does that have to do with my having a cat or not?

    BTW, nice pic of Turing. Would have been cool of he could have been open about his sexuality and not had to sneak around like he did and sometimes run afoul of a shady character as he did. That’s what led to his prosecution, “treatment” and eventual suicide. The closet kills. It killed one of my uncles by means of HIV, a closeted bisexual and father of two, back in the 80’s.

  2. Aliasalpha says

    Oh that’s lovely, huge open areas for creative vandalism. I’d suggest that someone put an ^ between the word ‘evidence’ and ‘shows’ and let people write their own

    “Evidence (by which I mean bullshit) shows”

    “Evidence (and totally not bigotry) shows”

    “Evidence (which we pulled out of our arse) shows”

  3. unbound says

    Yeah, many of the “anti” crowd really seems to believe in a fantasy world where children only exist as a result of fine, loving married couples. Point out teenage pregnancies, and their minds magically jump to “Well, those are just 1 in a million and the teenager’s parents are so loving that they’ll make sure the kid is taken care of with lots of love too”.

    There are over 400,000 kids in the foster system in the US (2011 stats – the most current I can find). Nearly half of those kids are in homes of non-relatives. A thinking and caring person concerned about children would be concerned about getting nearly 200,000 kids into loving homes period. If you are anti-gay or anti-abortion, you really need to shut your pie hole until you address that situation. Otherwise, you clearly don’t have any real interest in the welfare of the children you are dangling out for your ridiculous arguments.

  4. M can help you with that. says

    Saying that “children do best with married birth parents” is, of course, misleading. There’s no way to statistically sort out every possible combination of factors; we can’t really talk about “best” so much as making comparisons that suggest a “better”.

    So “children do better with married birth parents”, sure, but better than what?

    When the heterosexual-supremacists can be bothered to cite research at all, it’s usually something that compares married birth parents to an amalgamation of every other arrangement. Which is, of course, utter crap; if group A does better than the average of all sub-groups of group B, it’s a straight-up middle-school-level fallacy of division to insist that group A must do better than every sub-group of B.

    Because when more specific comparisons are made — children with two married parents do better than children who don’t have two married parents, and the sex of the parents is just noise compared to non-gender-specific factors like stability and security.

    And, hell, it’s not like we should (or could) ban parenting by people at a statistical disadvantage (single parents, lower-income parents, etc.) — it just means that we need to put more effort into giving those kids (and their parents and caregivers) the same opportunities for a good environment. Having kids raised by married couples just makes that process easier where the option is available — and marriage equality makes that environment available to more kids.

  5. says

    Avicenna, I think you missed a point: it still apparently still needs to be made clear what an impressively transparent lie the billboard is.
    _
    For example, here’s what the American Academy of Pediatrics has to say:

    There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

    _
    I assume similar statements from UK groups are available?
    _
    So why do people continue with the same old lies? (That was largely a rhetorical question – I know that time often matters more than the evidence when it comes to people changing their minds.)

  6. Acolyte of Sagan says

    What a waste of ink that poster is.
    While we’re on the subject, now that same-sex marriage is legal, can I assume that ‘gay wedding’ can revert to meaning ‘a jolly nice wedding in which a very happy time was had by all – irrespective of the gender of the pair marrying?

  7. Acolyte of Sagan says

    Oh, forgot to add; it’s the quality of parenting that matters, not the gender of the parents. As an erstwhile foster carer I’ve seen more than my share of children all-but wrecked by their ‘married birth parents’.
    And never mind the sexuality angle, that poster doesn’t say a lot for adoptive parents either. In fact, the whole ting is so poorly thought through, one could almost swear religion was behind it…….

  8. Acolyte of Sagan says

    DAMMIT! No edit. I meant, ‘married, one male, one female, adoptive parents’.

  9. annonymous for obvious reasons says

    As a person raised by her biological mother and her pedophile, rageaholic biological father who molested and beat her, I feel pretty confident this statement is 100% bulllllllllshhhhhhhiiiiiiiittttt.

    FYI, i regular post under a non-pseudonym and your system is really not ok with that, I guess because it’s asking me to use a different email. Hopefully this one will go through.

  10. annonymous for obvious reasons says

    uhghg, obviously, that should be, “regularly” not “regular”.

  11. jaggington says

    If you look at their advertisement in the Times, it included 10 good reasons why the House of Lords should say No to the same-sex marriage Bill

    The implications of their points go beyond opposing gay marriage, however. Presumably the next stage is to bar Social Services from removing children from birth parents, whatever the circumstances; next comes a forcible ‘refamiliation’ of children who had been removed from their birth parents, or who have been given up for adoption by their birth parents, and a ban of fostering and adoption when either / both birth parents are still living, whatever the circumstances; a ban of IVF and surrogacy; eventually culminating with a banning of divorce and compulsory marriage of unwed parents.

    Actually, I also get the impression they would like to ban logic and only allow circular reasoning.

  12. oursally says

    My sister was a foster parent in the UK for years. She took in children whose (married, hetero) parents had so destroyed their lives that kids had to be taken away to survive. Their stories break your heart. Their stories make you want to go and break their parents’ arms. The kids still in nappies at 5 years old. The kids unable to speak at 8 years old. Kids who had never had a bath. Kids who had never used knives and forks. A little girl of 9 who didn’t attend school because she had to look after her baby brothers.

    When their parents came back from rehab or jail or hospital, the kids were given back to them at once. Because Birth Parent. Sometimes they started beating them before they even got in the car. It broke her heart once too often and she gave up.

  13. Acolyte of Sagan says

    oursally, if I didn’t know better I’d swear your sister was also my wife. We found fostering to be rewarding and heartbreaking in equal measures, but it was only our own ill-health that forced us to give it up, though we were close to despair at the time and probably wouldn’t have continued much longer anyway.

    The people who spout the nonsense such as that in the OP, in my opinion, should be denied a voice; democracy and free speech notwithstanding.

  14. says

    Hey There. I found your blog the use of msn. That is
    a very well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of
    your helpful info. Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>