Council 'Shut That Door' of a normal life for a ch

[VikingHumpingWitch]

So we have no real reason to think the kids will be any worse off, we did it once before re smacking and that was fine, but this is Wrong anyway because, you know, it just is, it's different.

Righty ho.

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 15:53:33 GMT VikingHumpingWitch said:

So we have no real reason to think the kids will be any worse off, we did it once before re smacking and that was fine, but this is Wrong anyway because, you know, it just is, it's different.

Righty ho.

We have reason, however anecdotal (tens of thousands of years of near universal cross cultural experience), to think that kids do best with a mother and father. Other family units we have normalised are proven to have worse outcomes on the whole.

Before embracing further models I don't think it's absurd to wait a couple of decades to see if they have worse outcomes.

Smacking is still a massive debate in parent circles by the way, precisely because there is no evidence or concensus. People still do it and defend it, including many fantastic parents. To convince either group to change will be most successful if you can conclusively show that it is not to the detriment of the child to do so.

[norfolkdumpling]

I was born in 1947 to a single mother. She fought hard to keep me. Her father had kicked her out when she was pregnant. When I was a few months old he allowed her to go home and take me with her. When I was about 2 years old she became mentally ill. It was Manic Depression with an element of schizophrenia, now known as Bi-Polar Affective Disorder. There was no effective medication then. While she was in hospital, I stayed with my Aunt and Uncle where I was very happy. Mother got me back many months later when I was nearly 4. This pattern was repeated every 2 years or so until I was 10. Then I went to live with my Grandfather while mother worked as a nurse, when she was well enough. I then stayed at home with Grandfather while she was in hospital. On the whole, I preferred being on my own with him, as Mother was temperemental and unpredictable. I was scared of her when she was ill. She could be pretty violent if I disagreed with her. When I was 17 she pushed me into marrying my boyfriend because she "wanted to get you off my hands" She was very strong willed and insisted the marriage go ahead despite my boyfriend's father wanting to call it off the night before. Why he didn't go ahead and call it off anyway I don't know.
I would have been happy to have gay adoptive parents of either sex.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Sweden outlawed smacking overnight in the 70s. Millions of Swedish children survived, even though it is what Swedes had, presumably, been doing since time immemorial. Just because we always did it does not mean we always have to or should.

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 16:21:49 GMT VikingHumpingWitch said:

Just because we always did it does not mean we always have to or should.

Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. But the great thing is you can actually prove me wrong by just waiting for the evidence to back you up. But doing it without the evidence, in the knowledge that the evidence could go either way, and in the past has not supported new family models, is surely arrogant and foolhardy?

[norfolkdumpling]

I wasn't smacked but hit hard around the head and anywhere else she could reach, she beat me once with a stiletto heel shoe. She didn't need a reason.

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 16:26:10 GMT norfolkdumpling said:

I wasn't smacked but hit hard around the head and anywhere else she could reach, she beat me once with a stiletto heel shoe. She didn't need a reason.

Obviously your situation sounds awful Norfolk, but it's not an arguement for gay adoption. It's an argument that better that than being beaten with shoe etc.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Jan 29, 2009 16:26:09 GMT dwad said:

Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. But the great thing is you can actually prove me wrong by just waiting for the evidence to back you up. But doing it without the evidence, in the knowledge that the evidence could go either way, and in the past has not supported new family models, is surely arrogant and foolhardy?

Aha, I see the plan here. Tell us we can't do it because there's no evidence it is a good thing, and then tell us it can't be a good thing because there's no evidence that it is. Which there won't be because part 1 precludes us from acquiring the evidence requested for part 2.

Clever. But not fiendishly clever enough that I don't spot the flaw.

[Deleted]

Sweden outlawed smacking overnight in the 70s.

Do you think it axtually stopped smacking though? I haveto admit to being a bit fascinated as to why other countries don't seem to have the same problems with discipline that we do.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Jan 29, 2009 16:33:15 GMT @baloo said:

Sweden outlawed smacking overnight in the 70s.

Do you think it axtually stopped smacking though? I haveto admit to being a bit fascinated as to why other countries don't seem to have the same problems with discipline that we do.

Pretty much but obviously not entirely. Most Swedes around my age recall the one and only time they ever got a wallop (when they were really really acting up) and how shocked they were. What it has done has changed perception - telling a Swede that you think it's ok to discipline your kids with a gentle smack is like telling them you think it's ok to rape your kids if they've been particularly naughty. My advice is don't.

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 16:29:57 GMT VikingHumpingWitch said:

Jan 29, 2009 16:26:09 GMT dwad said:

Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. But the great thing is you can actually prove me wrong by just waiting for the evidence to back you up. But doing it without the evidence, in the knowledge that the evidence could go either way, and in the past has not supported new family models, is surely arrogant and foolhardy?

Aha, I see the plan here. Tell us we can't do it because there's no evidence it is a good thing, and then tell us it can't be a good thing because there's no evidence that it is. Which there won't be because part 1 precludes us from acquiring the evidence requested for part 2.

Clever. But not fiendishly clever enough that I don't spot the flaw.

No, no, nothing so fiendish. Such families are beginning to form naturally, as I have said, through "accident" (as opposed to design). Families where a partner has come out or changed preference and so on. But it's a very recent phenomenon. Let's just let those families play out for a generation. We have some very basic small data on lesbian couples which would support you, but why rush - can't we just let the social experiment hold until we have a strong idea of how it will work?

[VikingHumpingWitch]

I don't know. Is it ok to keep discriminating against people for no reason other than that there might possibly be a reason that we don't yet know of and can't imagine? Is it good for kids needing foster parents to stay in a home just in case that's less damaging than being sent to gayers?

[Victor Meldrew]

Aha, I see the plan here. Tell us we can't do it because there's no evidence it is a good thing, and then tell us it can't be a good thing because there's no evidence that it is. Which there won't be because part 1 precludes us from acquiring the evidence requested for part 2.

But that's been your argument as well throughout this thread, except in reverse. This is all getting too much now.

I haveto admit to being a bit fascinated as to why other countries don't seem to have the same problems with discipline that we do.

I would have to agree here. We do seem to have greater social problems than most other European Countries. Whether it be gangs, knives, guns, whatever, our street violence and fatalities rates seem higher than anywhere else. When was the last time someone was kiiled by a gang in Sweden because they wanted the bottle of wine he was carrying?

Maybe we have more kids from broken families than anywhere in Europe? (That should put another five pages on this thread, surely)

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 16:43:40 GMT VikingHumpingWitch said:

I don't know. Is it ok to keep discriminating against people for no reason other than that there might possibly be a reason that we don't yet know of and can't imagine? Is it good for kids needing foster parents to stay in a home just in case that's less damaging than being sent to gayers?

But if we know there is a chance that it is doing harm, and by waiting we can confirm either way, I don't think it is discrimination. I think it's common sense. The answer would be to improve fostering or adoption in the meantime.

I don't see that it's even a big deal. You have something that has been the status quo for the enitre existance of mankind and suddenly we think it might be wrong. We have no evidence now but if we wait a generation we will have some. If we make the decision now it may be okay, but we may do irrevocable damage for the rest of the history of mankind - where's the rush?

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Actually there was a case a year or so ago of some teenagers in Stockholm who beat a 15 year old to death following an argument at a party. It sparked mass demonstrations against street violence. The guilty kids were from really very well to do families.

Sweden has one of if not the highest divorce rates in Europe, I very much doubt that broken homes play any role.

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 16:33:15 GMT @baloo said:

Sweden outlawed smacking overnight in the 70s.

Do you think it axtually stopped smacking though? I haveto admit to being a bit fascinated as to why other countries don't seem to have the same problems with discipline that we do.

Are we actually worse or is this a grass is greener thing? I mean to comparable nations like France, Spain, Italy, Germany for example.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Jan 29, 2009 16:48:21 GMT dwad said:

But if we know there is a chance that it is doing harm, and by waiting we can confirm either way, I don't think it is discrimination. I think it's common sense. The answer would be to improve fostering or adoption in the meantime.

But we know kids being in social care rather than family homes is damaging. Surely to Christ we can agree that gayers are better than that and if there are only gayers wanting to foster then that would be the best option? (Leaving aside this specific case obviously.)

[jonren]

I have missed part of the debate but have scanned quickly. I notice that the term smacking a child has turned into beating a child. Beating is a very emotive word and deliberate conveys the wrong impression. I will not enter this debate again, as last year it was 'beaten' to death. I will ask one question. Since corporal punishment was banned in schools, why have teacher assaults went off the scale and why are teachers, especially females, leaving the profession in droves? Puffin may care to add her knowledge of 'nervous breakdowns' and the incidence of missed days because the teacher in question simply could not face going in.

[Deleted]

I'm still waiting for Larry Grayson to turn up.

[dwad]

Jan 29, 2009 16:50:25 GMT VikingHumpingWitch said:

Jan 29, 2009 16:48:21 GMT dwad said:

But if we know there is a chance that it is doing harm, and by waiting we can confirm either way, I don't think it is discrimination. I think it's common sense. The answer would be to improve fostering or adoption in the meantime.

But we know kids being in social care rather than family homes is damaging. Surely to Christ we can agree that gayers are better than that and if there are only gayers wanting to foster then that would be the best option? (Leaving aside this specific case obviously.)

There are a lot of variables though. And basically I would still rather wait. Once this decision is made it can not realistically ever be overturned - no government will ever pass a law taking children back off parents unanimously like that. We are weighing up the risk of passing a law that could damage kids forever. There's no doubt in my mind that some children are in situations now where gay parents would be better than their current situation, for sure, but you can't make this decision on a few one-off cases as it will apply to every case forever from the moment it is made.