GAY adopter kills child within weeks.

[pErvinalia]

Therefore gay men are more likely to kill their adopted children?

[Brian Peacock]

Men have a lot more testosterone, and women have more oestrogen.

How do the relative levels of these hormones, which both men and women have in different amounts, impact on the skills, capacities and motives of parents to make women naturally better parents than men when it comes to performing the role of the primary career for their children? What's the impact on women's parenting when they have a relatively low level of oestrogen or a relatively high level of testosterone, and what is the impact on men's parenting when the reverse is true? The levels of both these hormones decline with age in men and women, so what impact does that have on the parenting abilities of older parents compared to the abilities of younger parents?

[pErvinalia]

None of that's important. All that matters is that gay people are different, and therefore scary.

[cronus]

I say it isn't natural and if you go against nature there are likely to be issues. Note, I'm not saying gay relationships are not natural. I'm saying bringing up a kid within a gay relationship is not something humans are hard wired to do and nurturing the very young, is a hard wired activity. The stress is massive, it is a process that requires almost complete self-sacrifice to look after the young - the architecture in a gay relationship is not coded for...unless you have unfathomable wealth like Elton John and can afford nannies and so forth to reduce the chronic stress the situation will bring, it will very likely bring major issues.

[JimC]

You are normally not so prone to hysterical over-reaction, Crumps...

[pErvinalia]

I'm saying bringing up a kid within a gay relationship is not something humans are hard wired to do

Respectfully (or not), how the fuck would you know? Where's your evidence for this extrusion?

and nurturing the very young, is a hard wired activity. The stress is massive, it is a process that requires almost complete self-sacrifice to look after the young - the architecture in a gay relationship is not coded for

Again, your opinion is nice and all that, but it's utterly empty of any evidence.

[pErvinalia]

You are normally not so prone to hysterical over-reaction, Crumps...

He's probably got some dark vision of the AIDS virus or something..

[cronus]

It's a reasonable conjecture even without evidence. Studies haven't been done. The climate of political correctness, means they are unlikely to happen this side of a major social upheaval.

[Hermit]

It's a reasonable conjecture even without evidence.

There is nothing reasonable about saying "if you go against nature there are likely to be issues" without evidence to back the conjecture up with. It's pulling stuff out of your arse or at best basing an assertion on hidden assumptions. Yours seem to be that the nuclear family is based on nature, that no other structures for raising offspring exist in nature, and if they did, there would likely to be issues.

[pErvinalia]

It's a reasonable conjecture even without evidence. Studies haven't been done. The climate of political correctness, means they are unlikely to happen this side of a major social upheaval.

So basically, it's just a feeling you have. I contend that your feeling is based on conservatism as opposed to anything real.

[cronus]

I'm not saying the nuclear family is natural. In part my thinking is that we are living in unnatural times which places two much stress on 'nuclear care givers' which leads to emotional/physical abuse & neglect etc. The evidence from history is that extended fluid families are the natural order for human beings. In that setting gays no doubt can and have played their part in raising the next generation, you only have to look how society is becoming more dysfunctional with each generation - especially here in the West - to realise there is something wrong with the social dynamic...going on.

[pErvinalia]

Can't tell if you are a homophobe, or trolling.

[mistermack]

The level of debate on this subject is pathetic.
The question is factual, but the posts are emotional. You bleeding hearts FEEL that because gays have been discriminated against in the past, it should stop now. And the welfare of tiny defenceless babies isn't going to get in your way.
It's really pretty disgusting, but luckily, on here the question is just academic.

The sad thing is that the same stupid emotional response to the question by people who DO have some power has lead to the death of this baby.
Many heterosexual couples would have been glad to adopt her, but the social services, against the better judgement of probably most of the nation, gave her to a gay couple because of "equality".

I've spoken to people trying to adopt, and the reasons for rejection can be stunning, like not enough church-going, etc. etc. (in the past, that I hope might have gone now). The tiniest thing will turn them off you.
But apparently, having a cock and balls isn't clue enough that you're not a real woman.

I'm pro the right to marry, it doesn't affect me, and I don't give a fuck if some wankers are offended on religious grounds.
But being married to a man doesn't make you a woman. And just because some men CAN perform the task of motherhood, it doesn't mean that all must be trusted equally to women. That is bollocks, but it's what people on here seem to be pushing.

Just because one schizophrenic qualifies as a brain surgeon and does ok, it doesn't mean that we must trust EVERY schizophrenic equally, to operate on your tumour. Especially if another one slices a brain to bits within weeks of starting work. It would give most people cause for reflection.
Fuck their rights. I would want a normal one for my brain operation.

But it wasn't your baby girl. Imagine if it was your child. Taken from it's mother to "protect" it, and given to this so called "family".
But you lot don't give a fuck, because she was someone else's.

[pErvinalia]

The level of debate on this subject is pathetic.

Says the guy who has presented absolutely no evidence to back up anything he's said, and who's argument consists of a never-ending stream of logical fallacies.

The question is factual, but the posts are emotional. You bleeding hearts FEEL that because gays have been discriminated against in the past, it should stop now. And the welfare of tiny defenceless babies isn't going to get in your way.
It's really pretty disgusting, but luckily, on here the question is just academic.

Ironically it is actually you who is operating on feelings and not on factual evidence. You are afraid of what you don't understand. Us, on the other hand, adopt a default position until evidence to the contrary presents itself. There's no evidence to suggest that gays are more likely to kill children than straight people. You can squeal all you like that no one takes your conservative feelings seriously, but until you present evidence all you've got is prejudice and fear.

The sad thing is that the same stupid emotional response to the question by people who DO have some power has lead to the death of this baby.
Many heterosexual couples would have been glad to adopt her, but the social services, against the better judgement of probably most of the nation, gave her to a gay couple because of "equality".

Another baseless assertion. Where's your evidence for this?

I'm pro the right to marry, it doesn't affect me, and I don't give a fuck if some wankers are offended on religious grounds.
But being married to a man doesn't make you a woman. And just because some men CAN perform the task of motherhood, it doesn't mean that all must be trusted equally to women.

Provide evidence that "all [gay men] must be trusted equally to women", or learn the fucking difference between your inherent instinctual conservatism and a well reasoned argument.

Just because one schizophrenic qualifies as a brain surgeon and does ok, it doesn't mean that we must trust EVERY schizophrenic equally, to operate on your tumour.

Who says we have to equally trust every gay person? What orifice are you extracting this stuff from??

But it wasn't your baby girl. Imagine if it was your child. Taken from it's mother to "protect" it, and given to this so called "family".
But you lot don't give a fuck, because she was someone else's.

Who says we don't give a fuck? You are confusing our disdain for your irrational conservatism with not giving a fuck. Learn to think properly, and then you might have a hope.

[Brian Peacock]

I say it isn't natural and if you go against nature there are likely to be issues. Note, I'm not saying gay relationships are not natural. I'm saying bringing up a kid within a gay relationship is not something humans are hard wired to do and nurturing the very young, is a hard wired activity. The stress is massive, it is a process that requires almost complete self-sacrifice to look after the young - the architecture in a gay relationship is not coded for...unless you have unfathomable wealth like Elton John and can afford nannies and so forth to reduce the chronic stress the situation will bring, it will very likely bring major issues.

Two things here. First, how does being wealthy doesn't make you better at parenting? Second, how does not being 'hard-wired' for good parenting make you gay? Does it mean all bad parents are in the closet?