Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

So if there should be no difference with 100% male represented...

First 119 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
vertigo

11,416 Posts.

350

20/07/17

07:45

Post #: 25971183
Share

Originally posted by greenhart ↑

"Just as an aside, if two couples equally met the requirements to adopt, would it be right or wrong as a tie breaker to give more weight (however slight) to the married couple as opposed to the unmarried couple?"

That's not up to us, but the appropriate authorities. All things being equal, there should be no difference. But in the current society a case could be argued that, without any other considerations, the child with hetero parents would be less discriminated against, at school at least.

Expand

So if there should be no difference with 100% male represented as parents, then there should be no difference with 100% male representation in our parliament, and all those calling for more equal representation are wrong bigots?
2 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

LAM

Laramide sniffs prime Kazakh uranium, with agreement over 6000 square km land position

QML

Metallurgical testing shows saleable copper and pyrite from QMines' Develin Creek project

RMX

Red Mountain Mining: record gold prices, two projects, two greenstone belts

As Nvidia cools, we're looking to Aussie AI

Week 36 Wrap: AI hype wave tested again; Oz per capita recession continues; AirTrunk’s $40B+ payday

PRU

Perseus Mining boosts stake in Predictive Discovery to 19.9% as latter's flagship project stalls

BIT

HotCopper users blunt as Biotron sinks -35%; long-awaited COVID drug results same as placebo

SBW

Shekel Brainweigh investor presentation webinar – the future of retail automation

CBA breaks trading record on strong day for Aussie financials

OCC

Orthocell kicks off collagen-based dental bone repair product sales in Canada; eyeing next stop Brazil

There are more pages in this discussion • 3 more messages in this thread...

First 119 Last