Asklemmy

I live in a country with a relatively similar political climate as Poland (highly religious, post-communist, wannabe central Europe). And I used to use the same argument when I was surrounded by more conservative people. The argument is IMO frequently invoked not by people who are truly worried about children (which I'll write about below), but by conservatives who need a civilised, "agnostic" argument for their homophobic stances. But ofc it's better to assume good intentions, at least if you don't know anything about the person using the argument (as e.g. here).

The biggest problem with the argument is that it's purely reactive and, under the hood, disingenuous. Children bully each other horribly already for a million stupid reasons - their shoe brand, their phone brand, their behaviour, etc. or just so, for no detectable reason at all. They also bully their teachers and professors. What is done against all this? Absolutely nothing, as far as I see (and I've seen and heard plenty while I was growing up). It is never brought up as a problem in public discourse, nobody seems to care too much. Bullying somehow becomes a big problem and relevant for the lawmaking only when gay parents are a possibility.

In general, from what I've seen, bullies will find just about any reason to target a kid. Adding one more to the roster seems borderline trivial. E.g. a lot of existing bullying is class-based - my younger sister was mildly ostracised in the primary school for a while because she wore the clothes my mother sewed for her, without a brand or anything, suggesting we don't have the money to buy "proper" clothes. Should we, then, try to separate poor kids from the rich kids, so the poor don't get bullied? Or just forbid poor kids from going to school?

Thus, instead of doing anything against the actual problem – that is, bullying as such – the laws of the state, the fundamental right of a child to a family, etc. should all buckle down before some child bullying? A child should be denied growing up with a potentially good and loving family with LGBT parents, and instead be adopted by a potentially inferior heterosexual family (assuming the adoption centres have some sort of system to judge the adopters in advance), or stay without a family at all indefinitely, because someone could/will bully them based on their most intimate and safe space, that is their family? Just as it would be monstrous to forbid poor kids from going to school to "protect" them from bullying, it is monstrous to propose "to protect some kids from bullying, we'll deny them from having a family". The whole argument is actually (or should be) an argument for aggressively rethinking and reworking your educational system , parenting and culture in general.

because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight

Under the current system they're also victims and involved in this same war - a part of their potential adopters is denied by default, and they stay without a family for longer. Are they not victims here? (Not to get into the issue of measuring potential benefits of having a family against the potential negatives of bullying, it's purely arbitrary and depends on the given culture too.)

On the other hand, I do think the whole discussion has been derailed by overly focusing on this as an LGBT issue rather than an issue of children without families. So there's some merit at least in the general approach of the argument you present (the children are those whose well-being is most important here), but it leads to the wrong conclusion, usually because it's invoked by people who really just want to get to that conclusion one way or another, rather than helping the kids.

Do you have a better solution? Progress always requires people to fight for the things they believe in and want to change, we don't go anywhere unless people actually do something.

Your intention is good, but that's not the way to fight this problem. Limiting LGBTQs' ability to adopt children so society doesn't pick on them is akin to disallowing knives because people can use them for stabbing purposes: it works, I suppose, but you're removing a lot of benefits. Like cutting an arm when you have a cut, instead of treating the cut.

I'll admit, I don't know what the real solution is, and if it's even possible to have a tolerant society and untraumatized children at the same time, but opposing the law entirely isn't it.

Down votes are for comments that detract from the topic. Having an unpopular opinion on a thread that's asking for your unpopular opinion is exactly what up voting is for. It's too bad you can't down vote the down votes in these apps.

I ussually dont like to get into LGB+ shenanigans (specially T&Q) since it allways devolves into slapfighting, virtue signaling and raiding (by both parties btw) , but im gonna risk it by sticking my nose in here and say that you have a really good point in the fact that the kids are getting forced into a political fight thats harasher than what they are prepared for and preferably shouldnt even be involved in and become a target themselves. But i dont think the solution should be banning it althogeter, maybe just having harsher penalties for constant attacks against them for that in particular (specially from adults) and with the children i say that they are still gonna get picked on for being orfaned so thats really not something thats gonna get solved by legislation, but an aspect of the fact that school fucking sucks, period, and the only solution is for schools to enforce protection on children in special circunstances.

But all that kinda goes down the toilet when you realise that child protection services sucks monkey ass and will leave kids with fucking satan if he manages to check enough boxes for the requiremnts to get orphan kids and their goberment paychecks.

As someone who has lived in Poland, this is definitely true for the eastern side of the country. Not sure if a ban is the right solution, but they would definitely get bullied to hell for that if anyone found out.