Debate: - Gay Parenting [Archive] - Page 2

Askthepizzaguy

02-18-2011, 12:25

Actually, I'm not sure I ever said that. What I said, ad what I will continue to say, is that this has nothing to do with the parents, it has everything to do with the kid. And, for ump-teenth time, a kid is better off with a mother and a father.

I know you've said it before, Beirut. But saying it umpteen times doesn't make you any more correct.

There are well more kids waiting for adoption than there are parents waiting to adopt, if I am not mistaken. Every straight couple who meets the criteria who wants a child will get one. I believe every gay couple who meets the criteria should as well.

Even then, there will still be kids without parents, sorry to say.

I do not believe it is the false choice you're making it out to be. Gays are not going to stop straights from adopting. They aren't going to get preferential treatment, either. And, sorry to say, there will likely be bigots in the adoption agencies who rarely ever allow gay couples to adopt, even if the law says they should be treated equally.

You're probably going to get your wish even if the law is changed to reflect equality. But I think it's still a shame.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child, And though it really pizzes some people off to hear this, it is normal as well. It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father. The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

I am unmoved by arguments related to "normalcy". The child has already lost their parents and is sitting in some orphanage or foster home. Their lives are far from normal.

I don't like how the only way they can be happy, now, is that they have to have the perfect 50's-style nuclear family with 1.5 other kids in the house, 1 dog and 1 cat, and a father who smokes a pipe and a wife who cleans house and bakes. And while you're not arguing for that, you are basically saying the only way you'll permit these kids to be happy is if they are raised by parents you find fit, when the data and real life experiences show that parents you don't think are as good as the ones you prefer, do just as fine a job raising the kids.

Sorry, I feel you are wrong, even if your heart is in the right place. Normal isn't a moral value, it's argument from popularity. And I really gotta tell ya, I've never found popular opinion to be all that enlightened.

The kids have all the rights and kids have a right to a mother and father.

Yep, and if their new mother and father are both women, that is infinitely better than staring at a wall in an orphanage and getting no presents on Christmas. And I am very, very unconvinced that the fact that they are both women makes them unworthy of consideration, when there is a male and female as the alternative. I don't see it, even if you do, and I am still unmoved by the soaring rhetoric about how only men can teach you how to play catch, and only women can show you how to bake, and how a child has a god-given right to learn how to play catch and bake cookies.

I don't buy it. I think it is sexism.

Askthepizzaguy

02-18-2011, 12:30

It isn't about me and what I think, I actually agree with you lot. But how it should be and what just isn't is not up to me, for now just do what is best. I think it's selfish not to.

It's your way of approaching things. I don't begrudge you for it. But I feel there will be less pain on children today if they are adopted, and less pain for children raised by gay parents now and in the future, if it becomes more commonplace sooner rather than later.

I am not willing to let the fate of these children to be decided by people who do not want what is best for the children, and merely hate gays.

The children want a family, the adoptive parents want a child. What's holding it back are the sentiments of those who hate, and those who might genuinely think they're looking out for the kids by denying gay couples the right to adopt.

Me, I appreciate your good motivations, but I disagree with your decision to wait, I don't actually think it's better for the kids, and I believe the data backs me up on that. I would in fact be more willing to wait if I saw credible data that said children are miserable under gay parents, didn't want to be adopted by them in the first place, or something similar, in spite of my idealism. I am also as pragmatic as you are when push comes to shove, but I don't feel the data supports compromising our principles here.

Right now, the only thing standing between children and a hopeful future is fear that treating gay couples the same will turn out for the worst. I don't see that happening, and I don't give in to such fear when I think it's totally unwarranted.

Fragony

02-18-2011, 12:47

Askthepizzaguy

02-18-2011, 12:56

I'm not that easily offended don't worry about begrudging me. If a kid gets a loving home all is good, and since I'm against abortion I would make a total fool of myself to deny gays from parenting. I agree with Beirut but for different reasons (although the gut says he's right, but I don't and can't know).

But I begrudge you for STILL having more posts than me, you evil, evil.... [much harsh language deleted]

:clown:

I will get you eventually, but man you make it difficult.

Fragony

02-18-2011, 13:02

Most of them are pretty gay

Askthepizzaguy

02-18-2011, 13:04

Most of them are pretty gay

There's nothing gay about waking up with the King. It just means you're hungry for a mouthful of meat.

Mmmm..... soooo juicy.

Fragony

02-18-2011, 13:24

http://www.answerology.com/index.aspx/question/1586216_Bloodninja-Pizza.html

wasn't me

Riedquat

02-18-2011, 14:50

There's not much to understand. His opinion is that it's "common sense" that gays are inferior parents to straight parents.

Thats the whole point you keep making up! That is not what he is saying, or at least not what I interpret from what he is saying! Nobody is telling they are inferior or bad parents, you are looking at the problem from the wrong side of the street, gay couples can be the more loving and caring parents in the entire world but that is beside the point, the common sense point is directed at what is more natural for the child, an imposed (by the state/government/laws/whatever) mother who biologically is a man or an imposed mother who biologically is a woman, (same could apply to the imposed father) and please try to see this with the child eyes... thats the point, the important point to consider, the common sense, the natural view.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have biological children all the time.

No!? Really? the wonders of nature! And? Whats the point of that point? I didn't say they not deserve to be parents, nor that they aren't... I'm lost... :dizzy2:

Where is this right, and how is it guaranteed? My parents divorced when I was 4.

Do you keep one at a time didn't you? Not both at same time but at least both were alive...

What right did I have to a father? What if my parents died? Does my right to a mother and a father bring them back to life?

Ufff...!!! What are we talking about? Of course that right isn't wrote in stone, honestly don't know where it is in my own country laws, know in our constitution is mentioned the right of child to be happy but not much more, and of course there is no guaranty. What I think? I think every child in the world has the right to be happy with his family and if for any reason they lack both fathers they have the right to get the best father possible the society can bring...

How is a child being raised by a gay couple not a family, if a child being raised by a straight single parent is a family?

Where on earth did I say that? :inquisitive:
A single person independent of his/her sexuality can be a good father? yes of course; the number of parents doesn't matter, the importance is about the quality not quantity, quality in a sense beyond the mere meaning of the world; again, don't know how are things there but here singles can adopt, don't know if as a single you are requested to inform about your sexuality... and don't think it matters anyway. But we keep mixing things, stop looking under the carpet for weird examples, we are talking about orphans...

Yes, people have said they shouldn't.

Bah! Fachos! Guess you call them bigots...

How about a million couples, and ten million unwanted children?

Are you saying you're going to deny the child a family because you don't like gay people?

Uh? UH!!?? Do you think/believe I've said that?? Perhaps if i write in Spanish you will understand me better.... :help:

I don't know there but here orphanages (sp) are full of kids, there are not enough people wanting to adopt, the adoption process is slow as molasses, the bureaucracy behind the process is sick, usually couples wanting to adopt end abandoning the legal system and getting the child from other sources (a majority!). So the few who wants to adopt are discouraged for the system, the same system that is about to collapse... ||Mental pause... posting from work sucks big time... diluting brain fart|||

Everyone goodhearted with the will to adopt should be given the opportunity

Fragony

02-18-2011, 16:34

You are a child of nature, I like.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-18-2011, 17:35

"Gays aren't inferior parents, straight people are just better parents"

:help:

Riedquat

02-18-2011, 18:26

Please tell me you are not inferring that from what I've said!

Edit: I'm good at moderating myself, take my word on that! ;)

PanzerJaeger

02-18-2011, 19:40

What I said, ad what I will continue to say, is that this has nothing to do with the parents, it has everything to do with the kid.

Obviously not. Your continued attempt to frame this as a kids versus gay rights issue is particularly disingenuous.

If this was really about the kids and not you clinging to some outdated conception of what the family should look like, you would take the time to read the studies instead of dismissing them outright. You would take the time to read the history of family structure beyond the relatively new and limited Western model. You would read the conclusions of every major psychological and children's health group in the Western World. You would read the vast amount of literature published by the children of gay couples themselves on the subject. You would listen to your own words.

I have no doubt gay people can be great parents. And I don't care.

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child, And though it really pizzes some people off to hear this, it is normal as well. It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father. The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

None of this has anything to do with gender.

Since you dodged the question before, I'll ask it again.

Maybe it would be more productive if you shared some specific problems that you believe arise from same sex parenting. What can a mother and father give (materially, mentally, emotionally, or any other way) a child that two fathers or mothers cannot? How exactly is it an inferior family situation?

Riedquat

02-18-2011, 21:53

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

For what its worth I bought it... But again, I'm not saying not give children to gays, or that they are bad fathers or not good enough than heterosexual couples... Obviously what I understood as common sense all my life is not the same thing for you...

Beirut

02-19-2011, 02:30

I know you've said it before, Beirut. But saying it umpteen times doesn't make you any more correct.

I was correct the first time as well as the ump-teenth time. :smiley:

Yep, and if their new mother and father are both women, that is infinitely better than staring at a wall in an orphanage and getting no presents on Christmas. And I am very, very unconvinced that the fact that they are both women makes them unworthy of consideration, when there is a quateach you how to play catch, and only women can show you how to bake, and how a child has a god-given right to learn how to play catch and bake cookies.

I don't buy it. I think it is sexism.

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

Besides, I don't think I ever said children should not be adopted by gay parents, only that a kid should go to a mother and father first if a mother and father are are available because a mother and father are inherently better for a child than a father and a father.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 02:46

Obviously not. Your continued attempt to frame this as a kids versus gay rights issue is particularly disingenuous.

Says you, and you be wrong on all counts.

If this was really about the kids and not you clinging to some outdated conception of what the family should look like, you would take the time to read the studies instead of dismissing them outright. You would take the time to read the history of family structure beyond the relatively new and limited Western model. You would read the conclusions of every major psychological and children's health group in the Western World. You would read the vast amount of literature published by the children of gay couples themselves on the subject. You would listen to your own words.

So I should go Net hunting for anti-gay parent studies, post the links, and yell "Eureka!" because I found a scientist who shares my views?

Nahhhh. I don't need a scientist to tell me that a bear ***** in the woods or that the sun rises in the east or that a kid is better off with a mom and dad than with a dad and dad. I know it already.

Instead, you would keep kids languishing in the system while you sit back and claim to be on their side. Instead of placing them with loving, 'great parents', you'd sentence them to a far worse fate simply to enforce your old and outdated conception of what a family should look like that is admittedly based on absolutely nothing but your own common sense. In your common sense world, an orphanage, group home, or the foster system are as close as these kids will ever get to a loving home.

So you can cut the 'it's for teh children!' BS. Nobody's buying it.

Good Lord, man, get a hold of yourself and read my posts as they are written, not as you think they are written.

None of this has anything to do with gender.

It has everything to do with gender.

Since you dodged the question before, I'll ask it again.

I wasn't dodging you, just ignoring the unimportant parts of this thread. But I already answered your question anyway and you responded, "None of this has anything to do with gender." I submit that not only are you wrong, but wrong on a cosmological level.

miotas

02-19-2011, 05:16

People who want to throw their ideology at other people can always find "scientists" who will say "Oh, it's true because my study says... ".

I suggest you read the thread more closely. The position of a lot of the posters here seems to be that sexual orientation or gender is unimportant when considering how "good" a parent someone is. You are the one throwing the ideology that homosexual parents aren't as good.

But in real life there are gut feelings and intuitions and things that simply make sense. And people who disregard gut feelings, intuition, and common sense because the "scientific study of the week" says that wet is dry, tall is short, and fat is thin, are disregarding something very important: real life.

Sometimes real life is worth taking into consideration.

I haven't read those studies, but my "intuition" is that a child needs guardians that love them far more than they need a family that fits the ideal nuclear family of the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Askthepizzaguy

02-19-2011, 11:12

I was correct the first time as well as the ump-teenth time. :smiley:

Says you, and you be wrong on all counts.

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

:idea2:

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 13:54

I suggest you read the thread more closely. The position of a lot of the posters here seems to be that sexual orientation or gender is unimportant when considering how "good" a parent someone is. You are the one throwing the ideology that homosexual parents aren't as good.

And I suggest you read my posts more closely as you are not speaking to the issue I am speaking to. Though perhaps you think you are.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 13:55

:idea2:

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

And you were expecting... what?

Beskar

02-19-2011, 14:22

:idea2:

"No, you are wrong."

-"No, you are wrong."

Repeat ad infinitum. This is getting nowhere.

And you were expecting... what from Beirut?

Rhyfelwyr

02-19-2011, 15:18

Of course it is sexism. The sexes are different. Haven't you noticed?

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

For some reason, it is OK when liberals say that when presented with a scientific study, but when anyone else does it is is "anti-intellectual".

Beirut

02-19-2011, 15:42

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

Exaggerate gender differences?

They don't need to be exaggerated, they are different enough already.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 15:51

And you were expecting... what from Beirut?

Perhaps something other than the new age Dr. Pixiedust internet studies you lean on to support your feel-good idea of the week.

Ironside

02-19-2011, 16:54

And I suggest you read my posts more closely as you are not speaking to the issue I am speaking to. Though perhaps you think you are.

Simply to make you clairify your position:

It's shortage of families that adopt compared to the number of children, while not certain that it continues that way.
Gay adoption allowed, yes or no?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-19-2011, 18:25

No, you are forgetting that it only appears that way because scientists have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

For some reason, it is OK when liberals say that when presented with a scientific study, but when anyone else does it is is "anti-intellectual".

Rhyf, gender is the social construct and used in contrast to biological sex differences. Everyone says there are big gender differences, but people who know something about history don't take them seriously, because there's nothing to stake a claim of legitimacy on (as if "natural" is a great place either, but that's another story) given how drastically they change with time and culture. Don't try and create smug straw men and misuse terminology at the same time :mellow:

I'm fairly confidant that I've read much more than you have about the scientific study of it, so really you are just taking a page out of beirut's book here. In science the results and worth of studies are argued about. You are promoting bad science because you like the conclusion, and equating our reasoned disagreement with it to beirut's automatic rejection of science about which no methodological complaints have been raised so that you don't have to defend it.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 18:28

Simply to make you clairify your position:

You're going to make me?

Will there be dinner and wine before the domination begins?

Gay adoption allowed, yes or no?

If a mom and a dad cannot be found for a kid, then yes. But if a mom and a dad can be found, the gay parents must always be second in line.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 18:38

Rhyf, gender is the social construct and used in contrast to biological sex differences. Everyone says there are big gender differences, but people who know something about history don't take them seriously, because there's nothing to stake a claim of legitimacy on (as if "natural" is a great place either, but that's another story) given how drastically they change with time and culture. Don't try and create smug straw men and misuse terminology at the same time :mellow:

I'm fairly confidant that I've read much more than you have about the scientific study of it, so really you are just taking a page out of beirut's book here. In science the results and worth of studies are argued about. You are promoting bad science because you like the conclusion, and equating our reasoned disagreement with it to beirut's automatic rejection of science about which no methodological complaints have been raised so that you don't have to defend it.

Ah, but sasaki, books and studies do not raise children - people do.

Less books, sasaki, more real life. :smiley:

PanzerJaeger

02-19-2011, 19:26

So I should go Net hunting for anti-gay parent studies, post the links, and yell "Eureka!" because I found a scientist who shares my views?

YES! Bring your sources and I'll bring mine and we'll see which have more credibility.

It would at least be something, anything, other than your expert Flat Earth Society endorsed opinion.

I wasn't dodging you, just ignoring the unimportant parts of this thread. But I already answered your question anyway and you responded, "None of this has anything to do with gender." I submit that not only are you wrong, but wrong on a cosmological level.

I understand now. It was so vague and unsupported, I just assumed it was more backwoods, lumberjack common sense and not an actual argument. Let's dig deeper.

The observation of, and the input from, both genders in their roles as parents is crucial for a child

Gender roles. Ok. Let's establish some parameters before we go any further. Can you specify which roles the female plays in the family and which roles the male plays?

It is healthy and normal for a child to see a mother and father love each other, and is it also healthy and normal for a child to watch the conflicts, reasoning, and reconciliation between a mother and father.

It is indeed important for a child to observe the interworkings of a healthy relationship. What is different about the way gay couples express affection, cooperate, reason, and resolve conflicts between each other than straight couples? What specifically makes straight relationships more valuable to children's development than gay ones?

The learning from, and the interaction with, a mother and a father is how a kid learns to deal best with real life because real life has both sexes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that either children raised by gay couples are not as prepared for real life as those raised by straight couples and/or children raised by gay couples are less prepared to deal with the opposite sex of their parents.

Obviously both notions have been completely discredited by scientific studies, but since you don't believe in science I suppose we'll have to approach this from a different direction.

What specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-19-2011, 22:16

Ah, but sasaki, books and studies do not raise children - people do.

Less books, sasaki, more real life. :smiley:

Every post of yours has been "Nuh uh! :smug:".

It's childish.

Beirut

02-19-2011, 22:32

Every post of yours has been "Nuh uh! :smug:".

It's childish.

We are taling about children. :smiley:

Beirut

02-19-2011, 23:01

YES! Bring your sources and I'll bring mine and we'll see which have more credibility.

So the issue of parenting should be brought to the level of who finds what on the Internet?

God save our children.

It would at least be something, anything, other than your expert Flat Earth Society endorsed opinion.

If you are implying that thinking a mother and father is best for a child is akin to saying the Earth is flat, den da world she be in ruff shape.

I understand now. It was so vague and unsupported, I just assumed it was more backwoods, lumberjack common sense and not an actual argument.

Backwoods lumberjack common sense is a great argument.

:book: "...add two parts chain oil to three parts eye of newt and blend for... "

Gender roles. Ok. Let's establish some parameters before we go any further. Can you specify which roles the female plays in the family and which roles the male plays?

Certainly.

The female plays the role of mother and the male plays the role of father.

It is indeed important for a child to observe the interworkings of a healthy relationship. What is different about the way gay couples express affection, cooperate, reason, and resolve conflicts between each other than straight couples? What specifically makes straight relationships more valuable to children's development than gay ones?

Answered (to your satisfaction or not) below.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that either children raised by gay couples are not as prepared for real life as those raised by straight couples and/or children raised by gay couples are less prepared to deal with the opposite sex of their parents.

I'm saying that there are advantages for a child to be raised by a mother and a father as the child experiences input from both sexes while growing up as well as being able to observe the relationship between the mother and father.

Obviously both notions have been completely discredited by scientific studies, but since you don't believe in science I suppose we'll have to approach this from a different direction.

I am a great fan of science. But this "dad & dad is as good as mom & dad" stuff is psychological alchemy.

What specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

Life.

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

Fragony

02-20-2011, 10:46

'Psychological alchemy', I like. Trying to turn everything into gold, can't do that. I wonder how many of the howlers wouldn't make the exact same decision I would absolutely make.

Andres

02-20-2011, 13:16

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

~:confused:

In all honesty, I didn't learn how to interact with the opposite sex from watching my parents.

I just, well, interacted with girls as I grew up. Like everyone else, I played with girls as a child and consdered them, well, girlish (they played with dolls instead of playing soccer or playing with miniature cars or lego :inquisitive: ???).

Then I became a teenager and my heart got broken a few times and I probably broke some hearts as well. My parents have always been there to support me and there was always a shoulder to cry on or somebody to kick me in the butt (ha, usually, my mum was the one kicking me in the butt and telling me to man up and my dad was the more sensitive one; so there goes the stereotype btw), but the interaction with the opposite sex in itself, I learned through experience with... the opposite sex, not from sitting in a chair and watching mum and dad.

Beirut

02-20-2011, 14:12

In all honesty, I didn't learn how to interact with the opposite sex from watching my parents.

We learn far more than we realize just being with them, listening to them, seeing them act and interact. It's not a single issue or a simple thing at all. It's a very big complicated deal. A kid spends critical years picking up on the world and it's workings from his parents, and as the world is a male and female world, involving all kinds of different levels of male female interactions, a kid having a mother and father is best.

This not to say gay couples cannot be good parents, I'm sure they can be. But mom and dad is better for a kid than dad and dad.

Beirut

02-20-2011, 14:14

'Psychological alchemy', I like.

Glad you liked it. You had a gem of a phrase a few posts back and I thought I would return the favour. :sunny:

PanzerJaeger

02-22-2011, 00:44

So the issue of parenting should be brought to the level of who finds what on the Internet?

God save our children.

You seem to be confused by the internet. It is simply a conduit to share information. The studies themselves were conducted by psychiatrists and children's health experts following standard scientific procedures. If you have any issues with the methodology or processes of any of the studies that I have linked to please share them.

If you are implying that thinking a mother and father is best for a child is akin to saying the Earth is flat, den da world she be in ruff shape.

I am implying that dismissing overwhelming scientific consensus that same sex couples can be just as effective as straight ones because it doesn't jive with your version of common sense is akin to saying the Earth is flat.

Certainly.

The female plays the role of mother and the male plays the role of father.

Can you please specify what you believe the role of the father and the role of the mother to be in the modern family?

I'm saying that there are advantages for a child to be raised by a mother and a father as the child experiences input from both sexes while growing up as well as being able to observe the relationship between the mother and father.

Can you specify what inputs are unique to males and which are unique to females?

I am a great fan of science. But this "dad & dad is as good as mom & dad" stuff is psychological alchemy.

Do you have any evidence to base that on?

Life.

"Life" is not a specific example.

Again, what specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

Whether the kid is a girl or a boy that kid will have a chance to observe and learn from someone of its own sex and how that person deals wth the opposite sex, and how all of that fits in with life in general. it's important how the kid learns about him/herself and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, mother to father to son to sister, etc. It's not a question of one or two issues, it's the whole enchilada. It's... life.

If that is the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific situations where a child raised by gay parents is at a disadvantage in dealing with the opposite sex compared to children raised by straight parents. Further, it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific male and female roles or interpersonal traits that are unique only to them. Please do so.

Beirut

02-22-2011, 03:55

You seem to be confused by the internet. It is simply a conduit to share information. The studies themselves were conducted by psychiatrists and children's health experts following standard scientific procedures. If you have any issues with the methodology or processes of any of the studies that I have linked to please share them.

The issue I have is that if they say dad and dad is just as good for a kid as mom and dad, then they are wrong. That's a good place to start.

I am implying that dismissing overwhelming scientific consensus that same sex couples can be just as effective as straight ones because it doesn't jive with your version of common sense is akin to saying the Earth is flat.

I'm well aware that the Earth is round. And just as aware that kids are better off with a mom and dad than with a dad and dad.

Can you please specify what you believe the role of the father and the role of the mother to be in the modern family?

The role of the mother is to be the female parental unit the child relates to and the role of the father is to be the male parental unit the child relates to. As a child is best off with a mother and father, both sexes are required and these are the roles they fill.

Can you specify what inputs are unique to males and which are unique to females?

You just answered you own question. That they are male and female is the whole point.

Do you have any evidence to base that on?

Yeah, real life and common sense. Now I understand that real life and common sense pale in relation to new age feel-good psycho-babble, but real life and common sense are tools I prefer to work with.

"Life" is not a specific example.

Life is all we've got and all there is.

Again, what specific elements of 'real life' are children of gay couples not prepared for? Can you give an example of an area of life where a child raised by a gay couple would not be able to function properly?

They have lacked the crucial input of being raised and taught by both of the sexes. Humans have only two types; male and female. It's not like it difficult to see the situation clearly. It isn't Baskin-Robbins and 31 flavours, half of which nobody likes , it's just two; man and woman. And we need both. And for a human child to have the best upbringing to function in that world of male and female, the child should be raised by a male and female.

If that is the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific situations where a child raised by gay parents is at a disadvantage in dealing with the opposite sex compared to children raised by straight parents.

See above.

Further, it shouldn't be difficult to name some specific male and female roles or interpersonal traits that are unique only to them. Please do so.

Seriously, fella, if you don't know the differences between men and women - lose the keyboard, make the scene, and grab yourself a honey. You have much to learn.

Textbook psychology and Internet studies are well and fine; getting laid, living with a woman, and raising kids is better.

Like I said - Real life. :yes:

Askthepizzaguy

02-22-2011, 04:08

In conclusion, what some people consider common sense, that others disagree with, trumps all data indicating otherwise, based entirely on the premise that you "know" you're right? Anything which disagrees with you is simply "new age" mumbo-jumbo, not worth looking at, because you said you were right, and that settles it?

That might be fine for you, but it's hardly debate-worthy, and entirely unconvincing to people who don't already agree with you.

PanzerJaeger

02-22-2011, 08:25

That was, quite possibly, the longest non-answer I've ever read here on the .org. Usually people with no real position pick out one or two statements they believe they have a decent counter to and ignore the rest, hoping the points will be dropped. You, in contrast, addressed each one of my statements without ever really saying anything at all. Quite impressive.

Seriously, fella, if you don't know the differences between men and women - lose the keyboard, make the scene, and grab yourself a honey. You have much to learn.

Textbook psychology and Internet studies are well and fine; getting laid, living with a woman, and raising kids is better.

Like I said - Real life. :yes:

This is the crux of the matter. You are apparently an expert on the differences between men and women, but you seem either unwilling or unable to name specific roles, attributes, or differences that are wholly unique to either of the sexes in relation to raising children.

Apart from genitalia, what specific roles, attributes, or differences can only be replicated by females? Which can only be replicated by males?

If you're going to put certain families at the end of the line in adoption proceedings, you'll have to base it on something more substantial than some vague and wholly unsupported theory about 'life' and tired and bigoted platitudes ripped straight off of Focus on the Family's website about mom and dad being better than dad and dad.

(And again with the 'internet studies' tripe? These are not 'internet studies', they are peer-reviewed research findings published in major, mainstream psychological and medical journals that have also been posted on the internet. I think you know that.)

Samurai Waki

02-22-2011, 11:28

Beirut

02-23-2011, 01:54

I have to say Beirut, you really seem out of character on this one. Usually your posts are very considerate, and well thought out; and this just seems messy for you. Like playing Devil's Advocate. Maybe I'm wrong here, but usually your "common sense ain't that common" approach seems to be biting back at you pretty hard. Just my thoughts.

Thank you for the civilized note. :bow:

I admit to being really stunned by people's reaction to all this. It's not just that a lot of people disagree that a kid is better off with a mother and father, but are really quite angry that someone would be such a blatant ******* as to actually say in public that a kid is better off with a mother and father. It's truly odd.

It's so basic, so fundamental, so normal, so clear, and yes, so full of good old fashioned common sense, that I cannot for the life of me understand what these people are thinking and why they are so hostile. I never said that same sex couples could not be good parents, I said only that a child is better served by having a mother and a father. From the reaction it's like I hauled Rosa Parks out of her seat, beat the crap out of her, and threw her off the bus.

That hyper-reaction is one of the reasons I smell the stink of an agenda far more than the scent of true caring for the children. It really looks like people are pushing a gay rights agenda by using babies as tools. You have a baby born to a mother and father, but none of that matters because Joe Enlightenend is standing in front of those parents, waiving this week's feel-good science study, saying that one of the two people required to make the baby simply isn't relevant anymore. It's absolute bovine scatology and defies the most basic tenets of real life.

Beirut

02-23-2011, 02:02

That was, quite possibly, the longest non-answer I've ever read here on the .org. Usually people with no real position pick out one or two statements they believe they have a decent counter to and ignore the rest, hoping the points will be dropped. You, in contrast, addressed each one of my statements without ever really saying anything at all. Quite impressive.

Thank you. :smiley:

This is the crux of the matter. You are apparently an expert on the differences between men and women, but you seem either unwilling or unable to name specific roles, attributes, or differences that are wholly unique to either of the sexes in relation to raising children.

Apart from genitalia, what specific roles, attributes, or differences can only be replicated by females? Which can only be replicated by males?

I am of the opnion that you have a lot to learn about real life.

If you're going to put certain families at the end of the line in adoption proceedings, you'll have to base it on something more substantial than some vague and wholly unsupported theory about 'life' and tired and bigoted platitudes ripped straight off of Focus on the Family's website about mom and dad being better than dad and dad.

"Mom and dad" is a bigoted platitude?

Seriously - get off the computer, get a woman, and live a little. I wasn't kidding when I said you have a lot to learn about real life.

(And again with the 'internet studies' tripe? These are not 'internet studies', they are peer-reviewed research findings published in major, mainstream psychological and medical journals that have also been posted on the internet. I think you know that.)

I know what you say they are. And I know that you like to haul them out and wave them from the grandstands yelling "Proof! Proof!". But I wonder if you have actually read what you wave around, and if you really understand it, and if you have the life experience to correlate that data with the real world.

I think you are ignoring the real world in favour of what someone with a title told you to think.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-23-2011, 02:18

Beirut, your difficulty here is that you keep desperately repeating yourself without defense of your belief.

Here I'll debate pj in your place:

Academic and policy effects of eight early dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting are discussed with a focus on their having been cited at least 234 times in over 50 literature reviews, beginning with Gottman in 1989 and 1990. Most literature reviews, referencing these eight early dissertations and agreeing with Gottman's early conclusions, have reiterated the theme that parenting by gay men or lesbians has outcomes no different than parenting by heterosexual parents. Here it is proposed that certain potential adverse findings may have been obscured by suppressor effects which could have been evaluated had multivariate analyses been implemented. Further, several adverse findings were detected by reanalyzing data where sufficient information was yet available. Some of the dissertations' results (absent controls for social desirability and other differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents) supported the 2001 "no differences" hypothesis discussed by Stacey and Biblarz. Yet, differences were also observed, including some evidence in more recent dissertations, suggesting that parental sexual orientation might be associated with children's later sexual orientation and adult attachment style, among other outcomes. Odds ratios associated with some of the apparent effects were substantial in magnitude as well as statistically significant. Also, more recent research on gay and lesbian parenting continues to be flawed by many of the same limitations as previous research in this area of study, including overlooked suppressor effects. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Beirut

02-23-2011, 03:14

Beirut, your difficulty here is that you keep desperately repeating yourself without defense of your belief.

No desperation involved. I'm right, I have no problem repeating it, and my defense is that the opposing point of view is flat out wrong.

Mom and dad beats dad and dad as sure as night follows day. And the people who think there is no difference between a man and a woman are in serious need of an education no book or science study can provide.

Here I'll debate pj in your place:

Enjoy. :smiley:

PanzerJaeger

02-23-2011, 03:27

I am of the opnion that you have a lot to learn about real life.

Now you're not even pretending to respond to my questions.

"Mom and dad" is a bigoted platitude?

Yes. It is thrown around in the same circles that use the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" rhetoric. The aim is the same - to deligitimize homosexual relationships.

Seriously - get off the computer, get a woman, and live a little. I wasn't kidding when I said you have a lot to learn about real life.

I would suggest that you get out of the backwoods and learn about modern life.

I know what you say they are. And I know that you like to haul them out and wave them from the grandstands yelling "Proof! Proof!". But I wonder if you have actually read what you wave around, and if you really understand it, and if you have the life experience to correlate that data with the real world.

I think you are ignoring the real world in favour of what someone with a title told you to think.

Thank you for your concern. I have read them thoroughly and I understand the strengths and constraints of such research, which is more than you can say.

Here I'll debate pj in your place:

I would respond with this (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf). (Apologies for the format, I directly copy/pasted from a PDF.)

One criticism of this body of research has been that
the research lacks external validity because samples
studied to date may not be representative of the
larger population of lesbian and gay parents
(Belcastro et al., 1993). Recent research on lesbian
and gay adults has drawn on population-based samples
(e.g., Cochran, 2001), and research on the offspring
of lesbian and gay parents has begun to
employ the same approach (e.g., Golombok, Perry,
Burston,Murray,Mooney-Somers, Stevens, &
Golding, 2003;Wainright, Russell, & Patterson,
2004). Criticisms about nonsystematic sampling
have also been addressed by studying samples drawn
from known populations, so that response rates can
be calculated (e.g., Brewaeys, Ponjaert, van Hall, &
Golombok, 1997; Chan, Brooks, Raboy, & Patterson,
1998; Chan, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998). Thus, contemporary
research on children of lesbian and gay
parents involves a wider array of sampling techniques
than did earlier studies.

Research on children of lesbian and gay parents
has also been criticized for using poorly matched
or no control groups in designs that call for such
controls. Particularly notable in this category was
the tendency of early studies to compare development
among children of a group of divorced lesbian
mothers, many of whom were living with lesbian
partners, to that among children of a group of
divorced heterosexual mothers who were not currently
living with heterosexual partners. The relevance
of this criticism has been greatly reduced as
research has expanded to explore life in a wider
array of lesbian mother and gay father families
(many of which have never lived through the
divorce of a heterosexual couple), and as newer
studies begin to include a wider array of control
groups. Thus, contemporary research on children of
lesbian and gay parents involves a wider array of
research designs (and hence, control groups) than
did earlier studies.

Another criticism has been that, although there is
considerable diversity within lesbian and gay parenting
communities (Barrett & Tasker, 2001; Morris,
Balsam, & Rothblum, 2002), research has often
focused on narrowly defined samples. Early studies
did generally focus on well-educated, middle class
families, but more recent research has included participants
from a wider array of ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds (e.g.,Wainright et al., 2004).
Recent studies have been conducted not only in the
United States, but also in the United Kingdom, in
Belgium, and in the Netherlands (e.g., Bos, van
Balen, & van den Boom, 2003, 2004; Brewaeys,
Ponjaert, & Van Hall, 1997; Golombok et al., 1997,
2003; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Vanfraussen,
Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Thus,
contemporary research on children of lesbian and
gay parents involves a greater diversity of families
than did earlier studies.

...

Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents

Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents
likewise have no empirical foundation (Anderssen,
Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys & van Hall, 1997;
Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson & Chan, 1996;
Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999;
Victor & Fish, 1995). Lesbian and heterosexual
women have not been found to differ markedly either
in their overall mental health or in their approaches
to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook,
1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981;
Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998;
Patterson, 2001; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982;
Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000; Thompson,McCandless,
& Strickland, 1971). Similarly, lesbians' romantic and
sexual relationships with other women have not been
found to detract from their ability to care for their
children (Bos et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1998b; Pagelow,
1980). Lesbian couples who are parenting together
have most often been found to divide household and
family labor relatively evenly and to report satisfac-
tion with their couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004;
Brewaeys et al., 1997; Chan, et al., 1998a; Ciano-
Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Hand, 1991; Johnson &
O'Connor, 2002; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992;
Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a; Sullivan, 1996;
Tasker & Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-
Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Research on gay
fathers likewise suggests that they are likely to divide
the work involved in child care relatively evenly and
that they are happy with their couple relationships
(Johnson & O'Connor, 2002; McPherson, 1993).

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers'
and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior
to those of matched heterosexual couples. For
instance, Flaks, Fischer,Masterpasqua, and Joseph
(1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness
skills were stronger than those of heterosexual
couples. This was attributed to greater parenting
awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than
among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys
and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more
favorable patterns of parent–child interaction among
lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in
another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen,
Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). A recent
study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found
that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority
of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents
reported any use of physical punishment (such as
spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they
were likely to report use of positive techniques such as
reasoning (Johnson & O'Connor, 2002). Certainly,
research has found no reasons to believe lesbian
mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents (Armesto,
2002; Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner & Bozett, 1990;
Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b; Bos et al., 2003,
2004; Bozett, 1980, 1989; Patterson, 1997; Patterson &
Chan, 1996; Sbordone, 1993; Tasker & Golombok,
1997; Victor & Fish, 1995;Weston, 1991). On the contrary,
results of research suggest that lesbian and gay
parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide
supportive home environments for children.

And this (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2009-3153v1), which was published in 2010 and is not based on older studies or methods. Children in this study were shown to actually score higher, on average, than their peers in social and academic competence, and lower in aggression and social problems.

The US National Longitudinal Lesbian
Family Study (NLLFS) was initiated in
1986 to provide prospective data on
a cohort of American lesbian families
from the time the children were
conceived until they reach adulthood.
21–27 At its inception, all NLLFS
mothers identified as lesbian. In this
article, the psychological adjustment
of the 17-year-old NLLFS offspring
who were conceived through DI and
reared in planned lesbian families is
compared through maternal reports
with those of an age-matched normative
sample of American teenagers.
Within the NLLFS sample, we analyze
the association of adolescent wellbeing
as reflected in Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL) scores with (1)
sperm donor status (having a known,
as-yet-unknown, or permanently unknown
donor); (2) parental relationship
continuity (whether the offspring’s
mothers are together or
separated); and (3) experiences
of stigma.

CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother
families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment.
These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents
and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to
same-sex parenting. Pediatrics 2010;126:000

Sasaki Kojiro

02-23-2011, 03:41

Oddly enough all the research supporting beiruts side seemed to be from the same walter schumm guy. Although I didn't see any of the ones where he does tests on claims made in the scripture to see if they can be supported.

Beirut

02-23-2011, 04:22

Now you're not even pretending to respond to my questions.

Would you prefer I pretend?

Yes. It is thrown around in the same circles that use the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" rhetoric. The aim is the same - to deligitimize homosexual relationships.

I have no problem with homosexual relationships. I've suggested my wife take one up several times. I even offered to supervise.

I would suggest that you get out of the backwoods and learn about modern life.

Actually, I grew up in the city with a gay older brother. I was hanging out at his parties when I was 14. (Great mixed drinks!) I saw friends of his (and mine) that I knew for twenty-years die of AIDS. Several times my brother brought his friends who were HIV positive to our family Christmas dinners because he thought it might be their last chance to celebrate Christmas in a family setting. Some of them even cooked the dinner. My brother always brought his boyfriend as well. Having gay guys around was always normal for me. I've never known any other life.

How many gay guys at your family gatherings, Mr. I Don't Live In The Backwoods? :laugh4:

Like I said, you may have internet studies and Dr. Feelgood's pixiedust to lighten your path, but I prefer real life.

Thank you for your concern. I have read them thoroughly and I understand the strengths and constraints of such research, which is more than you can say.

Keep your internet studies and your pixiedust. I'll stick to real life. Real life: family, friends, kids, the day to day trials and tribulations the world throws at you. When you get tired of living vicariously through someone else's statistics, give real life a try. You might enjoy it.

Strike For The South

02-23-2011, 04:31

LOL@ Dr.Feelgoods pixie dust

ajaxfetish

02-23-2011, 07:10

I admit to being really stunned by people's reaction to all this. It's not just that a lot of people disagree that a kid is better off with a mother and father, but are really quite angry that someone would be such a blatant ******* as to actually say in public that a kid is better off with a mother and father. It's truly odd.
For my part at least, I think it's quite understandable that you feel a mother and father is better, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a legitimate opinion, even if it's not one I find convincing. The thing that bothers me is that you seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with you. You have expressed shock and disbelief that anyone could have a reasonable opinion other than your own, and questioned the rationality, motives, and life experiences of those of us who do. It's disrespectful, and not something I'd have expected from you. I'm also concerned that you're willing to blatantly disregard the scientific method and community in its entirety, treating something that has made such huge contributions to our modern standard of living as so much 'pixie dust.' You're not the only person in this world, Beirut.

Ajax

Fragony

02-23-2011, 10:12

No there's also me at least, some things you just know without really knowing. I think most gay couples know it as well, it's perfectly legal here but gay adoption is extremely rare. Got no numbers but certainly not more than 1 out of 100 or so

Beirut

02-23-2011, 12:31

For my part at least, I think it's quite understandable that you feel a mother and father is better, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a legitimate opinion, even if it's not one I find convincing. The thing that bothers me is that you seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with you. You have expressed shock and disbelief that anyone could have a reasonable opinion other than your own, and questioned the rationality, motives, and life experiences of those of us who do. It's disrespectful, and not something I'd have expected from you.

If there is a lack of courtesy in this thread, I assure you it is going in both directions.

I'm also concerned that you're willing to blatantly disregard the scientific method and community in its entirety, treating something that has made such huge contributions to our modern standard of living as so much 'pixie dust.'

I do not disregard science at all. But neither do I suffer from "white coat syndrome", as one of my brothers calls it, where a person accepts anything said by a doctor or person with a title after their name simply because that person is a doctor or has a title after their name.

There is good science and bad science, and sometimes a person just to rely on common sense to figure it out for himself. And though common sense seems to have a bad reputation around here, I think that many of its detractors will find occasions in life - lots and lots of them - where jumping up and down and waiving a science report around isn't going to do squat for them, while on the other hand just a thimble full of common sense will pull their keester right out of the fire.

You're not the only person in this world, Beirut.

Though since my dog died, I do sometimes feel that way. :embarassed:

Riedquat

02-23-2011, 13:18

Some people needs to read a manual/instructive to install/screw up a light bulb... some others not, thats normal, what is odd is asking scientific back up to the person who screw the light bulb naturally without reading the instructions...

I'll shush again, for another 5 years or so. :balloon2:

PanzerJaeger

02-23-2011, 20:04

I do not disregard science at all. But neither do I suffer from "white coat syndrome", as one of my brothers calls it, where a person accepts anything said by a doctor or person with a title after their name simply because that person is a doctor or has a title after their name.

There is good science and bad science, and sometimes a person just to rely on common sense to figure it out for himself. And though common sense seems to have a bad reputation around here, I think that many of its detractors will find occasions in life - lots and lots of them - where jumping up and down and waiving a science report around isn't going to do squat for them, while on the other hand just a thimble full of common sense will pull their keester right out of the fire.

If common sense was so intuitive, so innate, such a known known... wouldn't it be easily provable?

I don't need one of those scary boogie men in white coats to tell me that if I throw a rock in the air it will come down. However, there is a whole body of scientific evidence surrounding gravitation that underpins it. It is common sense that I need air to breathe. There is also plenty of science behind the concept that explains exactly why the body needs oxygen and how it uses it.

Then there are those common sense truisms like cold temperature being the cause of respiratory illnesses or that the earth is flat that have been shown, by the scary boogie men in white coats, to be false.

Since you're unwilling to actually specify the unique roles only men and women can play in the family and cannot come up with any examples of the problems gay parenting causes children, do you at least want to take a stab at why the science doesn't back up your common sense?

Earlier in the thread you seemed to suggest a cabal of gay rights activists pulling the strings (undoubtedly from their lair in the basement of a gay bar) in the scientific community. Are you sticking with that?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-23-2011, 20:08

PanzerJaeger

02-23-2011, 21:16

Yes, usually when I've seen an science study that is unintuitive, there is an evident methodology problem upon examination. Researchers can be biased, but for their research to be bad there still has to be something they did to bias it...

There is no point in asking him about methodology as he won't even take the time to read even a few of the studies. And we're not talking about a handful of new studies, either. There has been a vast amount of research done on the subject since the '70s. It’s not really ‘New Age’ stuff at this point. Why would so many studies, conducted in so many countries, by seemingly unrelated researchers using varying methods and techniques yield the same general consensus? And at this point, where are the messed up, dysfunctional kids who cannot relate to the opposite sex? Surely there would be some literature out there on that subject. It would take an organized, concerted effort by powerful people on a grand scale to suppress the fact that millions of children are in effect being mentally neglected and abused in gay households. Is the gay rights movement really that powerful? They can't even get same-sex marriage passed in Cali...

(and that rant was not directed at you, Sasaki)

Beirut

02-23-2011, 22:00

Since you're unwilling to actually specify either the unique roles only men and women can play in the family and couldn't come up with any examples of the problems gay parenting causes children, do you at least want to take a stab at why the science doesn't back up your common sense?

First off, I don't know how old you are, but if you cannot already understand the importance a mother has to a child, and the importance a father has to a child, then the issue is beyond your understanding. And if you think a science study negates the importance of either of those people in a child's upbringing, then I fear you have been sold a bill of goods.

I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel when their kid throws a science study at them and say "Mom... apprently you didn't really matter. According to this study, any gay man could have replaced you in a heartbeat."

I would love to watch the mother beat that spoiled kid senseless with a spatula.

Earlier in the thread you seemed to suggest a cabal of gay rights activists pulling the strings (undoubtedly from their lair in the basement of a gay bar) in the scientific community. Are you sticking with that?

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

ajaxfetish

02-23-2011, 22:33

I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel when their kid throws a science study at them and say "Mom... apprently you didn't really matter. According to this study, any gay man could have replaced you in a heartbeat."

I pointed out the uselessness of this argument when you brought it up last. It hasn't impoved with time.

Ajax

PanzerJaeger

02-23-2011, 22:40

First off, I don't know how old you are, but if you cannot already understand the importance a mother has to a child, and the importance a father has to a child, then the issue is beyond your understanding.

I understand the importance of good parenting to the wellbeing of children, but I do not understand the importance that a parent's individual sex has in the process of good parenting. I've asked you to explain this over and over again.

What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a vagina? What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a penis?

If it is such common sense, why are you having such a hard time saying "x, y, and z aspects of raising a child can only be done by a woman, and a, b, and c aspects can only be done by a man"?

I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel when their kid throws a science study at them and say "Mom... apprently you didn't really matter. According to this study, any gay man could have replaced you in a heartbeat."

No one is saying that. Try "Mom.... the fact that you have a vagina didn't really matter in the upbringing of your children. Instead, your love, devotion, and attention to your children were the factors that really mattered." I think most moms would agree with that.

On the other hand, I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel if a person who refused to even take the time to educate himself on the subject told them "Common sense is common sense and common sense says because you both share common genitalia, you cannot raise your children as well as you could if one of you had a vagina."

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

So who is ordering the researchers to alter their studies? Who is behind this grand conspiracy to sacrifice children at the alter of gay rights?

Strike For The South

02-23-2011, 22:42

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

Kids do better with parents
There are more kids than prospective parents
Bringing in more parents helps aliveate this problem
Studies or no studies

Rhyfelwyr

02-23-2011, 22:46

Kids do better with parents

Source?

Beirut

02-23-2011, 23:09

I pointed out the uselessness of this argument when you brought it up last. It hasn't impoved with time.

Ajax

Actually it has. It's like spaghetti; it tastes better the next day.

Beirut

02-24-2011, 00:07

I understand the importance of good parenting to the wellbeing of children, but I do not understand the importance that a parent's individual sex has in the process of good parenting. I've asked you to explain this over and over again.

What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a vagina? What specific aspects of parenting can only be performed by a person with a penis?

If it is such common sense, why are you having such a hard time saying "x, y, and z aspects of raising a child can only be done by a woman, and a, b, and c aspects can only be done by a man"?

You continue to have the whole thing backwards. You keep talking about what the parents give to the kids, I'm taking about what the kids take from the parents. Two different things.

No one is saying that. Try "Mom.... the fact that you have a vagina didn't really matter to the upbringing of your children. Instead, your love, devotion, and attention to your children were the factors that really mattered." I think most moms would agree with that.

I think most moms would look into retroactive abortions and see if they could clotheshanger the little guttersnipe who just declared the worth of their entire gender as nothing more than a pleasurable cavity between their thighs.

On the other hand, I can't imagine the level of insult some parents would feel if a person who refused to even take the time to educate himself on the subject told them "Common sense is common sense and common sense says because you both share common genitalia, you cannot raise your children as well as you could if one of you had a vagina."

Fella, dude, buddy, lad, son, get off the computer and get a woman. If your entire concept of women boils down to "Well... they have a vagina... and I think that's it", you need to smell the outdoors and wrangle up some quality woman time.

So who is ordering the researchers to alter their studies?

Ask Dr. Wakefield.

PanzerJaeger

02-24-2011, 01:47

You continue to have the whole thing backwards. You keep talking about what the parents give to the kids, I'm taking about what the kids take from the parents. Two different things.

:rolleyes:

Alright. I'm willing to ride this rhetorical merry-go-round as long as it takes to get some specifics out of you.

What does a child take from his or her mother that is unique only to females? What does a child take from his or her father that is unique only to males?

I think most moms would look into retroactive abortions and see if they could clotheshanger the little guttersnipe who just declared the worth of their entire gender as nothing more than a pleasurable cavity between their thighs.

You couldn't mischaracterize my statement more if you tried.

Fella, dude, buddy, lad, son, get off the computer and get a woman. If your entire concept of women boils down to "Well... they have a vagina... and I think that's it", you need to smell the outdoors and wrangle up some quality woman time.

You can continue to make insulting insinuations about me, but they amount to nothing more than dodges. If it is such a simple concept, why can't you take the time you spent coming up with that snarky response to spell it out for me? What is the value of the parents' sex in raising children? What is unique to a woman that can only be given by/taken from them?

I think the reason you continue to avoid the question is that you realize it will take you from homophobia straight into the realm of sexism.

Ask Dr. Wakefield.

So you do believe that every researcher involved in these studies is simply a fraud?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 02:14

Dr. Wakefield is the "vaccines cause autism" guy right? Aka the lone study with what turned out to be falsified data that the a huge number of other researchers then disproved? He would be the walter schumm of this debate.

Anyway, I disagree with panzer about the consensus being as meaningful as he says it is. Scientific communities often make an incorrect assumption or are ignorant of something that discredits a wide array of research. I'm generally very supportive of skepticism of psychological research, but when I'm skeptical it's for a reason that I can argue for...

I think the whole thing is part of modern society's quest for a neutered and neutral social structure. And it does not bode well for the future.

See this is like what I said pages ago. Rhyf objected to panzer's studies on the basis that they found men raised by lesbians were more sexually restrained and less aggressive--and he thought that was bad. Your objection like I said a while back is something similar but you dance around actually saying what it is exactly. Something like "no lesbian couple will raise X kind of a man because he needs an X kind of man role model"?

Rhyfelwyr

02-24-2011, 02:24

You can continue to make insulting insinuations about me, but they amount to nothing more than dodges. If it is such a simple concept, why can't you take the time you spent coming up with that snarky response to spell it out for me? What is the value of the parents' sex in raising children? What is unique to a woman that can only be given by/taken from them?

I think the reason you continue to avoid the question is that you realize it will take you from homophobia straight into the realm of sexism.

This is another example of how there are too many side issues/different presumptions running alongside the main issue for both sides to really engage each other.

We've already had the spin-off thread in which the scientific studies I presented were dismissed as being created by people with an agenda to exaggerate gender differences.

Women are generally more caring, sympathetic, better communicators/language skills... they are well suited to raising kids because like it or not, that's what nature moulded them for.

Men on the other hand tend to be, well... the opposite of that. Plus they think more logically, are better at science/mathematics, and provide a more strict/disciplining influence for the child. For much of history this whole debate over gender would be moot because only men could really do the hard labour that most jobs required. That is obviously not the case now, but still men were moulded to be providers for their families.

Yes you can all hate on me for saying this, but when you aren't jumping to defend teh gays you all act as if you share these same beliefs as me. Otherwise what's up with Strike's "What makes a man a man?" thread? You wouldn't think anything of it when a kid raised by a single mother bemoans the fact that he never had a father figure in his life.

But suddenly its all about the gays so everything just gets thrown out the window to pander to them...

Beirut

02-24-2011, 02:34

:rolleyes:

Alright. I'm willing to ride this rhetorical merry-go-round as long as it takes to get some specifics out of you.

Patience is a virtue.

What does a child take from his or her mother that is unique only to females? What does a child take from his or her father that is unique only to males?

The interaction with that parent, as a mother and as a father. The learning experience of the human condition by being with the two sexes required for human life to exist. You are reducing the grandeur of man and woman to nothing but a brief and temporary need for a penis and vagina to have a dance, and after that, according to you, whatever, it's all the same. Rubbish!

You couldn't mischaracterize my statement more you tried.

Then I should try next time.

You can continue to make insulting insinuations about me, but they amount to nothing more than dodges. If it is such a simple concept, why can't you take the time you spent coming up with that snarky response to spell it out for me? What is the value of the parents' sex in raising children? What is unique to a woman that can only be given by/taken from them?

Actually, I've answered you about a dozen times. You simply don't like the answer. And I'm sorry if I don't have a flow chart or a Powerpoint presentation to explain humanity for you, but, like I said, a touch of the outdoors and some time spent with real women will light your path to the truth of the matter.

I think the reason you continue to avoid the question is that you realize it will take you from homophobia straight into the realm of sexism.

Homophobia? You are a funny boy. :laugh4:

As for being sexist, if that means I realize there are differences between the sexes, then you're damn right I am. (Get yourself a woman, you'll be one, too, and fast.)

So you do believe that every researcher involved in these studies is simply a fraud?

No, I'm sure some are just misguided.

Beirut

02-24-2011, 02:39

See this is like what I said pages ago. Rhyf objected to panzer's studies on the basis that they found men raised by lesbians were more sexually restrained and less aggressive--and he thought that was bad. Your objection like I said a while back is something similar but you dance around actually saying what it is exactly. Something like "no lesbian couple will raise X kind of a man because he needs an X kind of man role model"?

I am simply saying that a learning experience for a child that involves learning from both a man and a woman in the parental role is a richer and more beneficial experience for the child than what can be attained from only one sex.

bamff

02-24-2011, 02:47

Everyone has an opinion it would appear. That's great, but please remember that they are all opinions, and not necessarily right or wrong.

Trying to draw a generalisation in any such debate is fraught with danger. There will invariably be examples that "prove" or "disprove" any given theory. I know of many "conventional" (male & female parents) families in which the children have fourished, and I know of others where sadly this was not the case. Similarly, I have a number of friends who are or were raised by single parents. In some cases this has worked very well, in others, not so. The same goes for friends who are gay or were raised by gay couples (both male parents and female parents).

Rhyfelwyr raises some salient points with regard to the general nature of males and females - but again these are generalisations, and there will be those who simply do not fit within these "norms". I know of plenty of males who are skilled communicators, and who are more caring and sympathetic than many females. By the same token I know plenty of females whose orientation is toward the logical and practical.

For mine it really comes down to individuals and particular circumstances. I don't believe that there is a blanket right or wrong answer here.

Okay, there's my two cents (granted it possibly wasn't even worth that, but there it is nonetheless).

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 02:52

Women are generally more caring, sympathetic,

Just to pick on this specifically, last time you said this I pointed out that studies based on self report find a large difference in favor of women, studies based on physiological response very small measures, and studies of helping behavior find that men help more. Now you're claiming I dismissed your studies (which you only ever referenced in passing) by claiming that they were by people who had an agenda? I did say that there is a bias towards the "interesting" results in publishing, and it's true, but I said a lot more. The main thing is that in studying empathy, you always have to ask how it is measured. Self report is obviously worthless--you don't get an accurate picture of how people are by asking them about something they want to be, and that's even assuming they know in the first place.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005496.html

gives a nice summary:

A more recent survey (Richard A. Fabes and Nancy Eisenberg, "Meta-Analyses of Age and Sex Differences in Children's and Adlescents' Prosocial Behavior", 1998) came to a similar conclusion:

Sex differences were greatest when demand characteristics were high (i.e., it was clear what was being assessed) and individuals had conscious control over their responses (i.e., self-report indices were used); gender differences were virtually nonexistent when demand characteristics were subtle and study participants were unlikely to exercise much conscious control over their responding (i.e., physiological indices). Thus, when gender-related stereotypes are activated and people can easily control their responses, they may try to project a socially desirable image to others or to themselves.

It seems unlikely that there is a significant biological difference. Other motivations (usually social) come into whether it is expressed. Do you think it is socially unacceptable for men to act in a caring way towards their children? Do you think gay men are likely to care about that? It seems bizarre to bring gender role data into an argument about potential parents who are less likely to adhere to strict roles.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 02:59

I am simply saying that a learning experience for a child that involves learning from both a man and a woman in the parental role is a richer and more beneficial experience for the child than what can be attained from only one sex.

What's richer and more beneficial about it?

bamff

02-24-2011, 03:18

What's richer and more beneficial about it?

A good question. I could perhaps understand that it would be so if the two male (or female as the case may be) parents shared exactly the same characteristics, and if neither brought anything different to the table...but surely this is unlikely in the extreme. This would also appear to imply that children of single parents are inherently worse off, and that is not necessarily the case either.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 03:27

better communicators/language skills...

Title: Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.

Located 165 studies that reported data on gender differences in verbal ability. The weighted mean effect size was +0.11, indicating a slight female superiority in performance. The difference is so small that we argue that gender differences in verbal ability no longer exist. Analysis of tests requiring different cognitive processes involved in verbal ability yielded no evidence of substantial gender differences in any aspect of processing. Similarly, an analysis of age indicated no striking changes in the magnitude of gender differences at different ages, countering Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974) conclusion that gender differences in verbal ability emerge around age 11 yrs. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

they are well suited to raising kids because like it or not, that's what nature moulded them for.

Men on the other hand tend to be, well... the opposite of that.

You have a negative opinion of men, huh.

Plus they think more logically, are better at science/mathematics,

Title: New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis.

In this article, we use meta-analysis to analyze gender differences in recent studies of mathematics performance. First, we meta-analyzed data from 242 studies published between 1990 and 2007, representing the testing of 1,286,350 people. Overall, d = 0.05, indicating no gender difference, and variance ratio = 1.08, indicating nearly equal male and female variances. Second, we analyzed data from large data sets based on probability sampling of U.S. adolescents over the past 20 years: the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth, the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Effect sizes for the gender difference ranged between â€“0.15 and +0.22. Variance ratios ranged from 0.88 to 1.34. Taken together, these findings support the view that males and females perform similarly in mathematics. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

And one of the obvious things, which I think I pointed out in the other thread, is that you can't simply say you are measuring an innate difference. The effect sizes have decreased over time just as the differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks have decreased over time...I would think that this, if true, is very culturally based for example:

and provide a more strict/disciplining influence for the child.

Just consider the changes in child discipline over the last century!

Beirut

02-24-2011, 03:40

What's richer and more beneficial about it?

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.

Simple, clear, true.

ajaxfetish

02-24-2011, 03:47

Women are generally more caring, sympathetic, better communicators/language skills... they are well suited to raising kids because like it or not, that's what nature moulded them for.

Men on the other hand tend to be, well... the opposite of that.
So, would you argue that a pair of Lesbians are the ideal parents?

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.
Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

Ajax

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 03:53

Anyway, it's not like that wasn't a fairly superficial scan. But there's a very long history of biased research on the subject, and no clear way to disentangle actual effects from culture, and no reason to think that any of it is important. For example:

http://i54.tinypic.com/1zydk5g.png

Is a "small" effect size of .203. But do you really find it significant at ALL? From here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003607.html

Which seems to a pretty good site, and for reference:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003420.html

Is a long list of quotes of stupid things people repeating the same baseless stat over and over...and the stat in question is something about women using 3 times as many words as men (the subject of the above graph).

***********
Basically rhyf, you are using things like this as your source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html

Instead of things like I posted and:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/82.abstract

Women are generally assumed to be more talkative than men. Data were analyzed from 396 participants who wore a voice recorder that sampled ambient sounds for several days. Participants' daily word use was extrapolated from the number of recorded words. Women and men both spoke about 16,000 words per day.

You just have to get a better idea of where to go for quality information.

Beirut

02-24-2011, 03:56

Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

The parents are the principle care givers, the people most likely to influence the child's outlook on the world, as well as influencing the child's ability to interact with it.

That being the case, and it is, would not one incredibly obvious benefit to the child raised by a mother and father be the diversity that the child would experience with a mother and father, the two sexes that make up the human race?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 03:59

The fact that the during the child's crucial formulative years he/she/it can learn from, interact with, and be nurtured by, both a man and a woman.

Simple, clear, true.

The crucial formative years for a child don't have anything to do with gender. There's an age where children have to "cement" the sounds of their native language in order to be able to hear them well at a later age, for example, and that's the kind of thing people mean when they say crucial formative years.

Rhyfelwyr

02-24-2011, 03:59

A good question. I could perhaps understand that it would be so if the two male (or female as the case may be) parents shared exactly the same characteristics, and if neither brought anything different to the table...but surely this is unlikely in the extreme. This would also appear to imply that children of single parents are inherently worse off, and that is not necessarily the case either.

And yet I think everyone in this thread would accept that single parent families are not ideal. And I'm not up to date on the procedures, but I expect adoption agencies give strong priority to two-parent families, if they even allow single parents to adopt at all.

Just to pick on this specifically, last time you said this I pointed out that studies based on self report find a large difference in favor of women, studies based on physiological response very small measures, and studies of helping behavior find that men help more. Now you're claiming I dismissed your studies (which you only ever referenced in passing) by claiming that they were by people who had an agenda? I did say that there is a bias towards the "interesting" results in publishing, and it's true, but I said a lot more. The main thing is that in studying empathy, you always have to ask how it is measured. Self report is obviously worthless--you don't get an accurate picture of how people are by asking them about something they want to be, and that's even assuming they know in the first place.

But as I said then, something you always do is that you focus too much on what the question and the answers themselves, rather than being more sutble and asking why people give those answers. Remember when this issue came up in that personality test?

Self-perception is very important. Now you will say the studies also found that when measures more objectively, little difference was found in how caring men/women are, yet I'm dubious how much these sort of surveys can assess that sort of thing. Biology does play a big part in our character, and often hormones only kick in after they have been triggered by actual sitations. For example, there was a piece on the BBC recently about how men get an upsurge in typically female hormones when they hold their young child... that would have been missed just filling in a multiple-choice form, and so that studies are biased towards finding cultural and not biological impacts.

It seems unlikely that there is a significant biological difference.

I thought it is commonly accepted that the reason men are significantly more aggressive is due to their testosterone levels. With the opposite being true for women and their oestrogen.

You have a negative opinion of men, huh.

Put it this way... God help my children if my wife is anything like me. I have a lot of aspergers eg 'extreme male brain' characteristics, they need to be balanced out.

And one of the obvious things, which I think I pointed out in the other thread, is that you can't simply say you are measuring an innate difference. The effect sizes have decreased over time just as the differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks have decreased over time...I would think that this, if true, is very culturally based for example:

Hardly surprising, since as I said biological and cultural factors have complemented each other. As the cultural factors have been reduced, so have apparent gender differences. Still, biological factors underpin certain fundamental differences, take for example the language example (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm).

Just consider the changes in child discipline over the last century!

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

So, would you argue that a pair of Lesbians are the ideal parents?

Is it the case, and/or should it be the case, that a child interacts with and is nurtured by only its parents?

Ajax

If you're going to cut the other half of my point off when you quote me, quite possibly. :wink:

bamff

02-24-2011, 04:03

The parents are the principle care givers, the people most likely to influence the child's outlook on the world, as well as influencing the child's ability to interact with it.

That being the case, and it is, would not one incredibly obvious benefit to the child raised by a mother and father be the diversity that the child would experience with a mother and father, the two sexes that make up the human race?

Diversity of character, opinion, and outlook provided by the parents should certainly be preferred in order to give the developing child a broader spectrum from which to draw, but surely the question remains whether it is necessarily any broader simply by virtue of having one male and one female parent.

Beirut

02-24-2011, 04:08

Diversity of character, opinion, and outlook provided by the parents should certainly be preferred in order to give the developing child a broader spectrum from which to draw, but surely the question remains whether it is necessarily any broader simply by virtue of having one male and one female parent.

Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female. The benefits are obvious.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2011, 04:37

But as I said then, something you always do is that you focus too much on what the question and the answers themselves, rather than being more sutble and asking why people give those answers. Remember when this issue came up in that personality test?

I know you said that then! But here you were back pretending it wasn't just a survey of what you think about yourself. There is NOTHING subtle it about, instead it's completely disingenuous and false. What do you find so earth shattering about a finding that "there are stereotypes"?

Self-perception is very important.

It's self report, not perception, but leaving aside that, very important in what way? Anything relevant to any of the topics in the backroom? No.

Now you will say the studies also found that when measures more objectively, little difference was found in how caring men/women are, yet I'm dubious how much these sort of surveys can assess that sort of thing. Biology does play a big part in our character, and often hormones only kick in after they have been triggered by actual sitations. For example, there was a piece on the BBC recently about how men get an upsurge in typically female hormones when they hold their young child... that would have been missed just filling in a multiple-choice form, and so that studies are biased towards finding cultural and not biological impacts.

It was surveys that were the basis for your view...laboratory/etc experiments found a different conclusion. You have it backwards.

I thought it is commonly accepted that the reason men are significantly more aggressive is due to their testosterone levels. With the opposite being true for women and their oestrogen.

That quote was still from the post about empathy right? It was not "in general" obviously! If I remember correctly, testosterone is not responsible for hostile aggression, but that may be about roid rage being a myth or something...there might have been a small effect. It's generally hard to say what the specific effects of hormones are.

I don't think aggression is clear cut either, but for once the evolutionary argument is actually plausible. But you have the same issues with people not wanting to contradict their gender roles, men being in a better position to be aggressive, etc.

In general, for all of psychology, it is very problematic to say that something is a cause. Biological systems are very complex, and it is always an interaction. As an example, let's say you get a lesion on a specific part of your brain and you lose the ability to move your right hand. The temptation is to conclude that the part of the brain with the lesion is in control of your right hand. But if the nerve in your wrist was cut, you would still lose the use of your hand, but you would never say that that section of nerve was in control of your hand right? It's simply an integral part of the system. This is a problem with many studies.

Put it this way... God help my children if my wife is anything like me. I have a lot of aspergers eg 'extreme male brain' characteristics, they need to be balanced out.

Well, don't overgeneralize from your own case. It's not extreme male brain anyway.

Hardly surprising, since as I said biological and cultural factors have complemented each other. As the cultural factors have been reduced, so have apparent gender differences. Still, biological factors underpin certain fundamental differences, take for example the language example (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm).

Case in point for what I was saying two quotes up :beam:

There are lots of biological differences. But showing "underpinning" is much different.

edit: fixed quote, also I think the researchers should be concerned that the boys did better in the auditory compared to the visual simply because they don't read much.

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

Huh? Have men evolved rapidly in the last 100 years?

bamff

02-24-2011, 05:41

Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female. The benefits are obvious.

Perhaps it would have been more correct to phrase that "In my opinion, the benefits are obvious."

I don't disagree that there are benefits in having both male and female role models, but I don't agree that they need necessarily be within the household.

PanzerJaeger

02-24-2011, 06:05

Well, as the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females, and the kid is going to grow up and interact with males and females, and form relationships, friendships, and love affairs with males and\or females, then yes, there is great virtue in the child being raised by a male and a female.

Well I couldn't drag it out of you, but you seem to be taking the position that children of gay parents will have difficultly interacting with members of the opposite sex of their parents. Is this correct?

The benefits are obvious.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.

A child of gay parents is at a specific disadvantage to a child of straight parents because ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

Beirut

02-24-2011, 11:53

Perhaps it would have been more correct to phrase that "In my opinion, the benefits are obvious."

Too limited in scope. I'm going for the whole burrito.

I don't disagree that there are benefits in having both male and female role models, but I don't agree that they need necessarily be within the household.

If the benefits are real, why not?

Isn't that like saying a child should eat healthy food, but not necessarily at home? (Where the vast majority of his meals are taken.)

Beirut

02-24-2011, 12:27

Well I couldn't drag it out of you, but you seem to be taking the position that children of gay parents will have difficultly interacting with members of the opposite sex of their parents. Is this correct?

I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.

Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain them.

Since I have explained it a dozen times, I think the point isn't that it's too hard for me to explain, but that it's too hard for you to understand. Perhaps it's too simple for you to understand.

You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.

Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.

A child of gay parents is at a specific disadvantage to a child of straight parents because ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

Let the blank be filled!

... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.

miotas

02-24-2011, 13:23

I think there is a fundamental difference in both sides of the argument here.

The pro-hetero argument is based on the belief that gender roles are biological in origin and thus a child must be exposed to both male and female since there are things that only men can do and only women can do.

The gender-blind agument is based on the belief that (appart from obvious physical features) there is little significant difference between men and women, that gender roles are cultural in origin, and thus same sex relationships are capable of giving a complete upbriging to a child.

the world is made up of males and females, and only males and females

O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexed)

Beirut

02-24-2011, 15:35

I think there is a fundamental difference in both sides of the argument here.

The pro-hetero argument is based on the belief that gender roles are biological in origin and thus a child must be exposed to both male and female since there are things that only men can do and only women can do.

The gender-blind agument is based on the belief that (appart from obvious physical features) there is little significant difference between men and women, that gender roles are cultural in origin, and thus same sex relationships are capable of giving a complete upbriging to a child.

You said: "...since there are things that only men can do and only women can do." I don't think that is the case. It's not what the people do, it's what they are. The fact that a woman is a woman or a man is a man is important all on its own.

O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexed)

Ah, pardon me then, I meant the 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the people most of us deal with every day.

Samurai Waki

02-24-2011, 16:17

What if both parents are transgendered; as in Male=Female, Female=Male. Actually that would be kind of hilarious.

ajaxfetish

02-24-2011, 17:29

You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.

Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.

Have you been observing a lot of dysfunctional children of homosexual parents? If so, would you care to share your stories? If not, what have you been observing that demonstrates they're worse off?

Ajax

Andres

02-24-2011, 17:38

Apparently, to understand Beiruts' viewpoint on gay parenting, we need to get laid.

I for one will be doing just that until I finally understand it :jumping: It'll be more productive than continuing this fruitless "debate".

PanzerJaeger

02-24-2011, 20:40

I am saying that children raised by a mother and father enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child.

Why, specifically, is it inherently better? What are children of gay parents lacking in comparison to those of straight parents?

Do children of mixed-race families enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child than those of same-race families?

Since I have explained it a dozen times, I think the point isn't that it's too hard for me to explain, but that it's too hard for you to understand. Perhaps it's too simple for you to understand.

You sound like one of those people who lived in the fifties, who smoked two-packs a day, coughs non-stop, wheezes up a flight of stairs, and has had two hearts attacks by age 40, but is still waiting for a scientist with a slide rule and fifty-pages of statistics to prove a link between smoking and bad health.

Some people don't need a scientist to explain life to them, they live life and make observations about it using - you guessed it - common sense.

Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.

I almost... almost... had you nailed down on the interaction argument, but you seem to be backing away now.

What parts of interaction with the opposite sex do gay children struggle with? Dating? Working? Building friendships?

You might as well take a shot at something specific because you will just dismiss any research I post to the contrary.

So what is it? What justifies putting gay parents at the back of the line?

Let the blank be filled!

... because the child lacked both a mother and a father in its upbringing.

And the lack of both a mother and a father forces children of gay parents to be ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

Strike For The South

02-24-2011, 20:47

Kids do better with parents
There are more kids than prospective parents
Bringing in more parents helps aliveate this problem
Studies or no studies

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

PanzerJaeger

02-24-2011, 21:07

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

Probably, but I believe that if you are going to tell a group of people in a free society to stand at the back of the line, that their relationship is inherently inferior to others in some way, that you better have a damn good reason for it.

And there are good reasons for putting some people behind others in the adoption process.

Homeless people should not be in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they cannot provide shelter for the child.

Mentally disturbed people should not be in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they could pose a physical danger to the child.

Very poor people should be behind more economically stable people in line to adopt for the very specific reason that they would not be able to provide as high a standard of living for the child.

Single working people should be behind couples in line to adopt for the very specific reason that a single parent cannot devote as much time and attention to the child as two parents could.

Gay couples should be behind straight couples in line to adopt for the very specific reason(s) that ...

I want to hear the very specific ways that children of gay couples suffer in comparison to those of straight couples. If they are so obvious, such common sense, they shouldn’t be difficult to type out.

Beirut

02-24-2011, 22:03

Why, specifically, is it inherently better? What are children of gay parents lacking in comparison to those of straight parents?

A parent of each sex.

Do children of mixed-race families enjoy a necessary diversity that is inherently better for the child than those of same-race families?

Gotta admit, it certainly makes for open minded children.

I am lucky I grew up in a family where one of my older brothers was gay and another brother had a best friend who was black. I was exposed at a very early age to the diversity of the human race. I was also educated in French, so I had even more diversity in my life when I was very young. It was great. I was very lucky.

Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.

No, no, the answer is there. Look deeper, Grasshopper.

I almost... almost... had you nailed down on the interaction argument, but you seem to be backing away now.

Not backing away on anything. I'm right here where I always was. :smiley:

What parts of interaction with the opposite sex do gay children struggle with? Dating? Working? Building friendships?

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

How and why you see woman as nothing but a life support system for a vagina is ming boggling. Women are different from men, and not just because they have different genetalia. They are in fact different. And as a child has to deal with both sexes throughout his life, in a thousand different ways, it is obvious, like a ton of bricks falling on your head, that growing up with both sexes will be of benefit to the child.

If you think there is no difference between a man and a woman other than "parts", then go see Billy-Bob, turn him over, and have a go. Then go see Sally-Sue and do the same. If you can come back here and tell me both experiences gave you the same "emotional satisfaction", then I will agree with you that men and women are indeed equal and that no differences between them exist other than "parts".

You might as well take a shot at something specific because you will just dismiss any research I post to the contrary.

Wrong is wrong. Deal with it. And in this case you are wrong.

So what is it? What justifies putting gay parents at the back of the line?

Because they lack either a mother for the child or a father for the child. I thought we have covered this already?

And the lack of both a mother and a father forces children of gay parents to be ... (fill in the blank with an actual example).

...to be children who grew up without the benefit of having either a mother or a father, depending on the sex of the same-sex adoptive parents.

Beirut

02-24-2011, 22:06

THIS 12 PAGE ARGUEMENT IS USELESS

Indeed. 12 pages of some people not understanding why a mother and a father are important for a child. Who would have thought the human race would ever come to this.

Next week: The Sun! Blessed warmth or evil sphere. Stay tuned.

ajaxfetish

02-24-2011, 22:35

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

So your entire point is a tautology? If that's accepted as a valid line of argument, it could be used in support of anything, however virtuous or depraved, true or false. Do you see how some of us could have a problem with that approach?

Ajax

Rhyfelwyr

02-24-2011, 22:42

The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

As much as I am with you, I think you just need to expand on this point. Why do you think a mother and a father are better?

Even if it is obvious to you, just list in bullet points some examples of what a heterosexual couple do that homosexual ones can't.

I tried, but I think people were unfairly critical of the studies I gave them, and too accepting of their own. There's a bit of a double-standard where its seen as acceptable to say people have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences. But you can't say they're pushing an agenda with the gay parenting thing, because that's just crazy...

Beirut

02-25-2011, 01:52

As much as I am with you, I think you just need to expand on this point. Why do you think a mother and a father are better?

A child is born of a mother and father. The child, when grown, if it is to procreate, will take the role of a mother or a father. And during the life of that child, it will interact continuously with both males and females. Life and human culture exists as a male and female symbiosis. To say that there is nothing special about a child having access to both a male and female as its primary care givers, as its parents, is to deny our very nature in favour of "today's science study". It is absurd as it is counter-intuitive.

(Oops!)

Even if it is obvious to you, just list in bullet points some examples of what a heterosexual couple do that homosexual ones can't.

A heterosexual couple impart both a better understanding of the male and female aspects of human life, and in uncountable and ineffable ways, influence the child through the differences a male and female carry within them. A mother and a father offer a fuller and more complete experience to a child exactly when those experiences are most needed and best learned and retained for life.

I tried, but I think people were unfairly critical of the studies I gave them, and too accepting of their own. There's a bit of a double-standard where its seen as acceptable to say people have an agenda to exaggerate gender differences. But you can't say they're pushing an agenda with the gay parenting thing, because that's just crazy...

The one big diffence is that I am discussing the welfare of the child: they are discussing the rights of the parents. And as I have said, and as I know because I am a parent; parents have no rights, only obligations and responsibilities.

PanzerJaeger

02-25-2011, 06:50

Gotta admit, it certainly makes for open minded children.

Do you believe that mixed-race couples should be given preferential treatment in the adoption process over same race-couples?

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

I knew that there was a word that perfectly described the tact you're taking, but I could not for the life of me remember what it was. Thankfully Ajaxfetish has a greater mastery of the English language than myself.

How and why you see woman as nothing but a life support system for a vagina is ming boggling. Women are different from men, and not just because they have different genetalia. They are in fact different.

I see women as individuals, not a homogeneous one that all think and act the same way. I know some women who conform to certain commonly held gender roles and some who do not. I know some who hold traditionally feminine interests and some who do not. I know some who match the descriptors in the study that Rhyfelwyr kindly provided and some who do not.

What I have not noticed are clear, defined, and uniquely female differences that cannot be replicated by males, especially in regard to raising children. Even Rhyfelwyr's study spoke in generalities, and did not attempt to mount the case that women have innate personality differences that no man could ever have.

But as you've insinuated over and over again, I'm an idiot who doesn't get it. That's why I need your help to spell it out for me.

What specific differences are unique only to women that can only be taken from a woman in a straight relationship by her child?

a
b
c

And as a child has to deal with both sexes throughout his life, in a thousand different ways, it is obvious, like a ton of bricks falling on your head, that growing up with both sexes will be of benefit to the child.

How, specifically, will it benefit the child? What specific elements of life will it enhance?

If you think there is no difference between a man and a woman other than "parts", then go see Billy-Bob, turn him over, and have a go. Then go see Sally-Sue and do the same. If you can come back here and tell me both experiences gave you the same "emotional satisfaction", then I will agree with you that men and women are indeed equal and that no differences between them exist other than "parts".

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that sexual attraction proves that there is a difference between men and women deeper than "parts". Is that correct, and if so, are you suggesting that sexual attraction is learned from one's parents?

Also, what if I'm bisexual and get the same emotional satisfaction from having sex with both sexes?

Finally, I am not arguing that there is no difference between men and women. In fact, I'm actually taking it further than your rather topical observation - there are differences between every woman and every man. Every individual is different, yet there are no real non-physical differences that are solely female and solely male.

A heterosexual couple impart both a better understanding of the male and female aspects of human life, and in uncountable and ineffable ways, influence the child through the differences a male and female carry within them. A mother and a father offer a fuller and more complete experience to a child exactly when those experiences are most needed and best learned and retained for life.

What are the uniquely male aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a man? What are the uniquely female aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a woman?

It is easy to speak in generalities, but apparently much more difficult to try and nail down specifics.

Beirut

02-25-2011, 15:05

For the moment, allow me to apologize for any personal remarks I made that my fellow Orgsters took to be insults.

My mistake. :bow:

Beirut

02-25-2011, 16:19

Do you believe that mixed-race couples should be given preferential treatment in the adoption process over same race-couples?

A topic to discuss, but perhaps best discussed in its own thread.

I see women as individuals, not a homogeneous one that all think and act the same way. I know some women who conform to certain commonly held gender roles and some who do not. I know some who hold traditionally feminine interests and some who do not. I know some who match the descriptors in the study that Rhyfelwyr kindly provided and some who do not.

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

What I have not noticed are clear, defined, and uniquely female differences that cannot be replicated by males, especially in regard to raising children. Even Rhyfelwyr's study spoke in generalities, and did not attempt to mount the case that women have innate personality differences that no man could ever have.

Ever have PMS?

But as you've insinuated over and over again, I'm an idiot who doesn't get it. That's why I need your help to spell it out for me.

I am trying, dear sir. I am trying.

What specific differences are unique only to women that can only be taken from a woman in a straight relationship by her child?

Everything a woman is.

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

How, specifically, will it benefit the child? What specific elements of life will it enhance?

As the world is roughly half female, as the child was born of a female, will grow to interact, work with, and possibly procreate with a female, it is beyond question that being exposed to a female - a mother - carries great weight.

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

Then duck. Then run for your life.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that sexual attraction proves that there is a difference between men and women deeper than "parts". Is that correct, and if so, are you suggesting that sexual attraction is learned from one's parents?

Yes, it is correct. Sexual attraction goes far beyond that simple, yet oh so wonderful, connection of the parts of that fit.

No, sexual attraction is not learned from the parents. But a good deal of how a child will grow to relate with the opposite sex is. Having a mother and a father allows a child a better and more complete view of the human condition.

Also, what if I'm bisexual and get the same emotional satisfaction from having sex with both sexes?

Then you are twice as likely to get laid. Cheers! :balloon2:

Finally, I am not arguing that there is no difference between men and women. In fact, I'm actually taking it further than your rather topical observation - there are differences between every woman and every man. Every individual is different, yet there are no real non-physical differences that are solely female and solely male.

Again, I would submit that if you truly think there are no differences between men and women other than parts, then you need more experience with women.

What are the uniquely male aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a man? What are the uniquely female aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a woman?

I'm sorry, but if the first twenty or thirty times I explained it did not suffice, I can't see how saying it again here would help.

It is easy to speak in generalities, but apparently much more difficult to try and nail down specifics.

One of the parents is a mother and the other is a father. That's about as specific as it gets.

ajaxfetish

02-25-2011, 17:31

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

. . .

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

. . .

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

How you're getting any of this from PJ's posts I can't begin to imagine.

Ajax

Rhyfelwyr

02-25-2011, 17:47

I think Beirut is using a technique where you try to take an usual angle to steal the morally righteous position. For example, PJ's liberal take on things (on this matter anyway) makes Beirut appear like the bad guy, so Beirut turns it round by making it look like PJ does not treat women with respect, thus stealing the mantle for being able to have an outburst of moral outrage.

Or for another example, the abortion thread. HoreTore and other liberals had the morally righteous position defending women's rights, with Vuk as the bad guy. So Vuk turned it round by making it look like abortion in fact picked on minority groups eg blacks, stealing the right to moral indignation.

It's a good technique but not entirely honest (in both cases, since neither PJ or HoreTore were doing what they were accused of).

I avoid it and just come accross openly as a :daisy:, I prefer things that way. :yes:

Beirut

02-25-2011, 17:57

How you're getting any of this from PJ's posts I can't begin to imagine.

Ajax

I guess I just have a better imagination than you. :smiley:

It is clear he is saying that beyond the biological factory the female supplies, ending in the fetus passing through the vagina and into the world, the/a mother can then be permanently removed from the equation without any consequences to the child. I say that that is false. And If I spoke every language in the world, I would repeat that it is false in every language of the world.

It is natural, it is good, it is better, and it is best that a child have a mother and a father. That's it. That's all. Period. Done. Finished. Clear as the summer sun and set in stone. Have a nice day and enjoy the trip.

Rhyfelwyr

02-25-2011, 18:03

I share Beirut's exasperation here, the differences between men and women are to me something very obvious and something that we see and experience every day. I gave some studies and could blitz the place with them but they just get dismissed, at the end of the day you shouldn't even need them, has everyone gone crazy?

miotas

02-26-2011, 00:37

It is clear he is saying that beyond the biological factory the female supplies, ending in the fetus passing through the vagina and into the world, the/a mother can then be permanently removed from the equation without any consequences to the child. I say that that is false. And If I spoke every language in the world, I would repeat that it is false in every language of the world.

In all fairness I could just as easily say that it is "clear" that a father has no worth as a parent beyond simply being a sperm donor. Each individual parent could never be just replaced by any other random off the street. My mother could not be simply replaced by any other person (be that person a hetero woman, a gay man, a lesbian woman, a hetero man or other) since her personality infulenced me in many ways that no other induvidual could replicate.

But say we are facing the horrible situation of a child orphaned at birth or a mother unable or unwilling to raise a child and that child winds up in "the system" as so many kids are. In this case the biological mother was unfortunately just the carry case for the foetus and any other willing and suitable parents can step in.

Beirut

02-26-2011, 00:47

In all fairness I could just as easily say that it is "clear" that a father has no worth as a parent beyond simply being a sperm donor. Each individual parent could never be just replaced by any other random off the street. My mother could not be simply replaced by any other person (be that person a hetero woman, a gay man, a lesbian woman, a hetero man or other) since her personality infulenced me in many ways that no other induvidual could replicate.

I sent a copy of that to your mother. She has a 27 metric tons of homemade chocolate chip cookies waiting for you. :sunny:

But say we are facing the horrible situation of a child orphaned at birth or a mother unable or unwilling to raise a child and that child winds up in "the system" as so many kids are. In this case the biological mother was unfortunately just the carry case for the foetus and any other willing and suitable parents can step in.

I never said gay parents should not be allowed to adopt, nor did I say that gay parents could not be good parents. I did say that having a mother and a father is inherently better for a child than having two parents of the same sex.

PanzerJaeger

02-26-2011, 04:12

A topic to discuss, but perhaps best discussed in its own thread.

I think the question is perfectly suited to this thread. If your position is based on the virtues of diversity, wouldn't that extend to mixed-race couples as well? I don't need a thesis - a simple yes or no would help me understand how far you're willing to travel on this logical path.

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

I don't know whether to be more insulted at your multiple assertions that I do not have respect for women, or the fact that you actually think you'll put me on the defensive with that playground tactic.

Ever have PMS?

I didn't realize girls learned PMS from their mothers.

You made the claim that children take from their mothers and fathers unexplained but wholly unique and irreplaceable 'differences' that are critical to their interaction skills with the opposite sex. At least that's what I think your position is. It is so vague that I really can't nail down what actual deficits you're claiming children of gay parents suffer. (Another unanswered question.)

I want you to explain those differences to me.

I am trying, dear sir. I am trying.

No, you're not. I've posed the same very simple questions to you over and over again and you refuse to answer.

Everything a woman is.

And what does that everything consist of - specifically?

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

... so little respect, in fact, that I've posted two different studies pointing out the strengths of lesbian parenthood. :rolleyes:

I respect women as individuals. What I do not respect, as they have not been explained to me, are these monolithic tribes of Man and Woman you seem to be referring to who hold characteristics/traits/differences/voodoo secrets that are wholly unique to them and can only be passed down to children through them.

So what are these differences?

As the world is roughly half female, as the child was born of a female, will grow to interact, work with, and possibly procreate with a female, it is beyond question that being exposed to a female - a mother - carries great weight.

Does it? Do women speak a different language that a boy can only learn from his mother?

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that children of gay parents are living under rocks, and that they would not go to day care as infants and that they would not go to preschool (average starting age these days is 2) and then on to school and society at large.

At what age are these critical 'differences' taken from mothers and fathers by their children that are so crucial to their interaction with the opposite sex later in life? It would have to be within the first twelve months. :shrug:

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

Then duck. Then run for your life.

Amazing! You are arguing that it is their genitalia - their sex - that makes them special. I am saying that their common genitalia is, in fact, the least special thing about them, so unimportant that it is not an essential or even important part of child-rearing.

What makes a person special, an individual, and a good parent - is their personality, their experiences, and their devotion to the child. Sex is completely superficial to the process.

No, sexual attraction is not learned from the parents. But a good deal of how a child will grow to relate with the opposite sex is. Having a mother and a father allows a child a better and more complete view of the human condition.

I'm starting to believe that you are the one with the problem understanding women. You seem to be under the impression that they are a mysterious, secretive species to be 'interacted with' only by experienced men who had access to their mothers from birth.

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I just don't find women that complicated.

Again, I would submit that if you truly think there are no differences between men and women other than parts, then you need more experience with women.

Thank you for your advice. It does puzzle me that you took the 3 seconds to again tell me I am inexperienced in the sacred art of interacting with women, but didn't take another 3 to actually type out any of the differences.

As this discussion has progressed, I have really tried to think of any non-physical differences wholly unique to either of the sexes, especially in regard to raising children.

Drawing on experience and familiar stereotypes yielded nothing. Females can teach sports, driving, and instill discipline just as well as men. Men can be caring, nurturing, cook and clean just as well as women.

Again, again, and again - what are the wholly unique differences that men and women bring to a heterosexual relationship that make their interactions important for a child to observe?

I'm sorry, but if the first twenty or thirty times I explained it did not suffice, I can't see how saying it again here would help.

You said it. You have not explained it.

I am very sure that you understand exactly what I am asking you to provide, but I am willing to entertain the notion that something in the way I form logical positions or write is confusing you. Maybe an example completely removed from the topic will help you to understand what I am looking for.

Suppose I say that the Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943.

That is a claim.

Then you say: "What, specifically, makes the Tiger the best German tank in service in 1943?"

An appropriate response would be:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943 because:

It had the best armament of any German tank up to that point.
It had the best armor of any German tank up to that point.
It had the best suspension of any German tank up to that point."

That is specific supporting information backing up my earlier claim.

Instead, what you have done repeatedly is to essentially say:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in 1943 because the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943, for the common sense reason that the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943."

Now, as I said before, I think you've come to the realization that you cannot come up with anything specific and non-physical related to child-rearing that a man can do that a woman cannot and conversely nothing a woman can do that a man cannot, and that any claims to the contrary would come off as incredibly sexist nonsense.

However, maybe, just maybe, my example will help you understand what I am asking for.

I share Beirut's exasperation here, the differences between men and women are to me something very obvious and something that we see and experience every day. I gave some studies and could blitz the place with them but they just get dismissed, at the end of the day you shouldn't even need them, has everyone gone crazy?

For my part, I do not dismiss your studies. However, they point to greater statistical occurrences of particular traits in both sexes - not wholly unique traits. It is kind of like the classic IQ example. Blacks have a greater occurrence of lower scores on the test, but that doesn't mean that there are not intelligent black people.

Beirut

02-26-2011, 15:52

I think the question is perfectly suited to this thread. If your position is based on the virtues of diversity, wouldn't that extend to mixed-race couples as well? I don't need a thesis - a simple yes or no would help me understand how far you're willing to travel on this logical path.

Well, good morning, PJ. I have my coffe and am delighted to peruse this Sherman tank of a post you wrote.

I think the issue you raised in that question is best left for another thread. We have a dozen pages already on this one male\female question. I'm not sure there is merit in making the next dozen a mish-mash of the two as it is carried farther and farther until we are debating whether, in the name of holy diversity, a child is better off with one black homosexual parent, an adrogynous Aisan parent, and a sibbling in a wheelchair, as opposed to being raised by a robot with a penis, a sentient cat, and a trans-gender set of dishes.

I don't know whether to be more insulted at your multiple assertions that I do not have respect for women, or the fact that you actually think you'll put me on the defensive with that playground tactic.

I am saying a woman's influence is crucial to a child's upbrining. You are saying a woman, once having passed the baby through her vagina and into the world, can be tossed aside. She's simply not needed anymore.

I think that speaks for itself.

I didn't realize girls learned PMS from their mothers.

The point being that PMS is a psychological state unique to women. (Though the little dears do love to share the joy with their men.)

You made the claim that children take from their mothers and fathers unexplained but wholly unique and irreplaceable 'differences' that are critical to their interaction skills with the opposite sex. At least that's what I think your position is. It is so vague that I really can't nail down what actual deficits you're claiming children of gay parents suffer. (Another unanswered question.)

They "suffer" in that they have lacked being with both a mother and a father. Nothing vague about that at all.

Two simple specific points:

(a) Mom
(b) Dad

No, you're not. I've posed the same very simple questions to you over and over again and you refuse to answer.

I have answered many times. That you do not accept my answer is the crux of this debate; you say women are not unique and I say they are.

And what does that everything consist of - specifically?

You want me to explain, specifically, everything about women?

Um...

I'm sorry, but this forum does not support posts over 10,000 words, nor does it support the 6,549,091 consecutive pages required for Part I of the answer.

... so little respect, in fact, that I've posted two different studies pointing out the strengths of lesbian parenthood. :rolleyes:

And yet you still say children don't need mothers. Very odd.

I respect women as individuals. What I do not respect, as they have not been explained to me, are these monolithic tribes of Man and Woman you seem to be referring to who hold characteristics/traits/differences/voodoo secrets that are wholly unique to them and can only be passed down to children through them.

I don't see why you catagorize the differences between men and women as negatives.

Does it? Do women speak a different language that a boy can only learn from his mother?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that children of gay parents are living under rocks, and that they would not go to day care as infants and that they would not go to preschool (average starting age these days is 2) and then on to school and society at large.

Hmmmm, rocks? No, I never mentioned anything about rocks.

At what age are these critical 'differences' taken from mothers and fathers by their children that are so crucial to their interaction with the opposite sex later in life? It would have to be within the first twelve months. :shrug:

It's an ongoing and cumulative learning process.

Amazing!

Thank you. :smiley:

You are arguing that it is their genitalia - their sex - that makes them special. I am saying that their common genitalia is, in fact, the least special thing about them, so unimportant that it is not an essential or even important part of child-rearing.

I am saying women are special because they are women, and that they are unique because they are women. And they are greater than the sum of their parts.

What makes a person special, an individual, and a good parent - is their personality, their experiences, and their devotion to the child. Sex is completely superficial to the process.

Not if one of the sexes is absent from the parental process.

I'm starting to believe that you are the one with the problem understanding women. You seem to be under the impression that they are a mysterious, secretive species to be 'interacted with' only by experienced men who had access to their mothers from birth.

Of course I have problems understanding women. Find me a man who doesn't. I've got a wife and two daughters, I could write a Ph.D. dissertation on what I don't understand about women.

One day the wife and kids left early. I woke up later, went downstairs, made my cereal, and sat at the table. Then I noticed that in the middle of the table was a giant-sized box of Kotex. So, I sat there with my Cheerios, munching away, and me and the box of feminine napkins had a quiet thoughtful breakfast together.

Mysterious secrets of women? Buddy, you have no idea.

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I just don't find women that complicated.

Give it time.

Thank you for your advice.

My pleasure.

It does puzzle me that you took the 3 seconds to again tell me I am inexperienced in the sacred art of interacting with women, but didn't take another 3 to actually type out any of the differences.

It will take a tad longer than three-seconds to explain the differences between men and women.

As this discussion has progressed, I have really tried to think of any non-physical differences wholly unique to either of the sexes, especially in regard to raising children.

Drawing on experience and familiar stereotypes yielded nothing. Females can teach sports, driving, and instill discipline just as well as men. Men can be caring, nurturing, cook and clean just as well as women.

Again, again, and again - what are the wholly unique differences that men and women bring to a heterosexual relationship that make their interactions important for a child to observe?

You continue to miss the point; you are talking about parenting skills and that is not the point. I will not deny for a moment that a gay man or a gay woman can be a good parent. When my father was in the last stages of brain cancer, it was one of my brother's friends, a gay man, who was my father's nurse. He fed him, bathed him, helped him use the toilet, it was like caring for a 200lb infant. I am well aware of the abilities of gay people. But that is not the issue.

The point is that there are inherent benefits to a child being exposed to, and learning from, both a man and a woman. We are not talking about the parents, we are talking about the child.

You said it. You have not explained it.

I am very sure that you understand exactly what I am asking you to provide, but I am willing to entertain the notion that something in the way I form logical positions or write is confusing you. Maybe an example completely removed from the topic will help you to understand what I am looking for.

Suppose I say that the Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943.

That is a claim.

Then you say: "What, specifically, makes the Tiger the best German tank in service in 1943?"

An appropriate response would be:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943 because:

It had the best armament of any German tank up to that point.
It had the best armor of any German tank up to that point.
It had the best suspension of any German tank up to that point."

That is specific supporting information backing up my earlier claim.

Instead, what you have done repeatedly is to essentially say:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in 1943 because the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943, for the common sense reason that the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943."

Interesting. But you are in the wrong ball field if you think the innefable qualities of what makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man can be put on paper like a transmission diagram. The understanding you are seeking does not exist in statistics or Powerpoint presentations; it is an ongoing part of the human condition, and the human condition exists with many, many unanswered and seemingly unanswerable questions. Just because we cannot draw a precise diagram that explains a thing does not mean that that thing is not only very real, but has very real conquences to us.

Now, as I said before, I think you've come to the realization that you cannot come up with anything specific and non-physical related to child-rearing that a man can do that a woman cannot and conversely nothing a woman can do that a man cannot, and that any claims to the contrary would come off as incredibly sexist nonsense.

I think it is sexist nonsense to dismiss the relevance of either a man or a woman to a child's upbrining. I simply don't see either men or women as being as dispossable as you do.

However, maybe, just maybe, my example will help you understand what I am asking for.

I know what you are looking for, but I really don't think you are going to get, or even can get, an answer in the way you want one. You are seeking answers to grand philosophical and existential questions and want them printed out on a statistics chart. It ain't gonna happen.

ajaxfetish

02-26-2011, 19:11

I am saying a woman's influence is crucial to a child's upbrining. You are saying a woman, once having passed the baby through her vagina and into the world, can be tossed aside. She's simply not needed anymore.
Well, in the case of adoption, that woman whose vagina was passed through is already out of the picture. She has to be replaced. It's just a question of who should replace her.

And yet you still say children don't need mothers. Very odd. . . . Not if one of the sexes is absent from the parental process.
For all the talk about disrespecting mothers and how offended they would feel, I wonder how a single dad would interpret comments like these. I guess he just might as well give up already, since he can't give his kids what they need anyway.

Of course I have problems understanding women. Find me a man who doesn't. I've got a wife and two daughters, I could write a Ph.D. dissertation on what I don't understand about women.

One day the wife and kids left early. I woke up later, went downstairs, made my cereal, and sat at the table. Then I noticed that in the middle of the table was a giant-sized box of Kotex. So, I sat there with my Cheerios, munching away, and me and the box of feminine napkins had a quiet thoughtful breakfast together.

Mysterious secrets of women? Buddy, you have no idea.

*psst* *They're for soaking up/holding in their blood during menstruation. Just thought you should know*

But you are in the wrong ball field if you think the innefable qualities of what makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man can be put on paper
This is the second time you've avoided describing the characteristics that make women unique by calling it ineffable. If you want to treat womankind as a religious mystery, that's all well and good, but in a country with separation of church and state such views shouldn't determine policy in state-administered adoption programs.

Ajax

Beirut

02-26-2011, 22:58

Well, in the case of adoption, that woman whose vagina was passed through is already out of the picture. She has to be replaced. It's just a question of who should replace her.

Another woman.

For all the talk about disrespecting mothers and how offended they would feel, I wonder how a single dad would interpret comments like these. I guess he just might as well give up already, since he can't give his kids what they need anyway.

A single mom\dad doing all they can for their kids does not negate the fact that the kids would be better off with both a mother and father.

*psst* *They're for soaking up/holding in their blood during menstruation. Just thought you should know*

I know what they are for, I just never thought I would be having breakfast with them. Such are the surprises of life with women.

This is the second time you've avoided describing the characteristics that make women unique by calling it ineffable. If you want to treat womankind as a religious mystery, that's all well and good, but in a country with separation of church and state such views shouldn't determine policy in state-administered adoption programs.

Oh, well then please, let us have the state describe the philosophical and existential qualities of womankind for us. I look forward to reading that gem of a report.

Some people here seem to be of the opinion that a woman can be defined in totality thusly: "A man with a vagina. No other differences noted." I wonder if the government report would share that soaring and eloquent syntax and grammar.

ajaxfetish

02-27-2011, 04:13

I know what they are for, I just never thought I would be having breakfast with them. Such are the surprises of life with women.
Guess I'm just not seeing the mystery of household items being left on the dinner table. Would a box of toothpaste have been equally weird for you?

Some people here seem to be of the opinion that a woman can be defined in totality thusly: "A man with a vagina. No other differences noted." I wonder if the government report would share that soaring and eloquent syntax and grammar.
Tons of differences. Muscle mass, center of gravity, hormone balance, water content, etc., etc. Lots of differences in averages, for height, weight, and so on. The question is, what are the differences that are relevant to children's development. That part seems to be ineffable, and so not really relevant for a secular situation.

Ajax

Beirut

02-27-2011, 05:23

Guess I'm just not seeing the mystery of household items being left on the dinner table. Would a box of toothpaste have been equally weird for you?

Are we on Vulcan?

Tons of differences. Muscle mass, center of gravity, hormone balance, water content, etc., etc. Lots of differences in averages, for height, weight, and so on. The question is, what are the differences that are relevant to children's development. That part seems to be ineffable, and so not really relevant for a secular situation.

Ineffabitily is not limited to deities.

As to the differences and how they relate to a child's development; the female is a mother and the male is a father. Mothers are not irrelevant. Mothers are crucial because they are mothers. Fathers are not irrelevant. Fathers are crucial because they are fathers. And this ongoing and overtly hostile quest to delegitimize either or both in the name of some new age version of a progressive society is political correctness taken to the most absurd level and contrary to the most basic tenets of humanity. Are we truly at a stage in our evolution where, if we cannot present the value of a human being on a flow chart or a page of statistics, that human value is then considered irrelevant and not only to be ignored, but attacked? Ouch. Take that logic far enough and the family itself could be disolved and our children raised in government camps because the "Holy Trinity" of science, statistics, and ice cold logic would back the idea 100%.

I suspect this obsession to neuter society (at the cost of children, mothers, and fathers) for the sake of some perceived benefit of "equality" is - thank God - a transient minority view that will go the way of the Macarena and the pet rock. I look forward to its demise and will celebrate its fall with great gladness.

ajaxfetish

02-27-2011, 06:13

As to the differences and how they relate to a child's development; the female is a mother and the male is a father. Mothers are not irrelevant. Mothers are crucial because they are mothers. Fathers are not irrelevant. Fathers are crucial because they are fathers.

It'd just be a lot more convincing if you could summon even a single bit of support for this claim instead of just making it over and over.

Ajax

a completely inoffensive name

02-27-2011, 07:15

YAAAAAY! The most absurd thread in the history of the backroom has come to fruition.

Strike For The South

02-27-2011, 08:26

Beirut

02-27-2011, 12:24

Are tampons really this much of a mystery?

Is that why there are all of this terrible jokes about going to buy them?

Is this why gay people can't adopt? A sufficent amount of the household has to be uncomfortable around feminine products?

Good Lord, five-cents worth of light-hearted humour in a short story and the wheels come right off the truck around here.

Vulcan indeed.

Beirut

02-27-2011, 12:56

It'd just be a lot more convincing if you could summon even a single bit of support for this claim instead of just making it over and over.

Ajax

I really believe all of this has descended into the most twisted of Monty Pythonesque unrealities.

I deeply apologize for not having a flow chart to show the importance of a father to a child. And I am sad that I lack a thick book of statistics to prove the crucial nature of a mother to a child. And I am grieved beyond words that I lack a Powerpoint presentation to demonstrate the very human goodness of a child having both a mother and a father in its life.

But then again, what makes me sad most of all, is that anyone would actually need those things. :shame:

ajaxfetish

02-28-2011, 19:40

I deeply apologize for not having a flow chart to show the importance of a father to a child. And I am sad that I lack a thick book of statistics to prove the crucial nature of a mother to a child. And I am grieved beyond words that I lack a Powerpoint presentation to demonstrate the very human goodness of a child having both a mother and a father in its life.

But then again, what makes me sad most of all, is that anyone would actually need those things. :shame:

And that I can readily accept.

Ajax

Fragony

03-05-2011, 11:21

It'd just be a lot more convincing if you could summon even a single bit of support for this claim instead of just making it over and over.

Ajax

The long lost art of intuition, science be damned. If it doesn't feel right something must be wrong. And you all know he's right

Question, singles can be excellent parents. Would you prefer a single parent over a gay couple or vica versa

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2011, 08:26

Ridiculous show, very heartening results...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zhl9MLno424

Strike For The South

05-24-2011, 08:40

LOL, them yankee boys were licking their chops and rode the one guy who agreed with the waitress for all he was worth

Then casually mention that blue state New York only 1/4 as many people stand up to the waitress (taking into account sample size)

Ridiculous media is ridiculous

And the quotes from that yankee scum make my blood boil "we're here to eat" OMG How does one live?

"I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it"

Centurion1

05-24-2011, 09:09

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2011, 09:14

This. People up north are sooooooo much better. Make the southerner look dumb. Classic.

The setup actually made Texans look more empathetic than New Yorkers, which defies stereotypes and is generally heartwarming to see.

Centurion1

05-24-2011, 09:20

The setup actually made Texans look more empathetic than New Yorkers, which defies stereotypes and is generally heartwarming to see.

Yeah it certainly isn't defiant of stereotypes....... New Yorkers are complete ********. It's depressing to go to the deli and have the 65 year old woman behind the counter do a double take because I address her as ma'am. You live in the South too Panzer you should be well aware that people as in any other place may personally hate and think an act or action is wrong but will not say or bother people committing it. What that waitress did is unimaginable in any damn place she would probably be fired.

Strike For The South

05-24-2011, 09:23

whoa whoa Texas does not equal the south

The south is filled with ignorant crackers

Texans are the most noble of noble

Centurion1

05-24-2011, 09:25

whoa whoa Texas does not equal the south

The south is filled with ignorant crackers

Texans are the most noble of noble

OH GOD...................... The most Texan man I have ever known was a Mexican Sergeant First Class who referred to other Mexicans as wetbacks.

a completely inoffensive name

05-24-2011, 09:45

Southern hospitality is unmatched by any other.

Fragony

05-24-2011, 09:56

Ridiculous show, very heartening results...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zhl9MLno424

Gawd not I have to kill a kitten with a sledgehammer

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2011, 10:49

Yeah it certainly isn't defiant of stereotypes....... New Yorkers are complete ********. It's depressing to go to the deli and have the 65 year old woman behind the counter do a double take because I address her as ma'am. You live in the South too Panzer you should be well aware that people as in any other place may personally hate and think an act or action is wrong but will not say or bother people committing it. What that waitress did is unimaginable in any damn place she would probably be fired.

I must have had a stroke, because this is the third or fourth paragraph I've read tonight that I just don't understand. ~:(

Anyway, I just thought it was cool that real life people went way beyond what I would have expected and stood up against some of the same rhetoric that seems to be far more acceptable when posted in relative anonymity on the internet. I wasn't trying to make a statement about the North versus the South.

Rhyfelwyr

05-24-2011, 14:15

Shibumi

05-24-2011, 14:29

From the glance I got of the NY restaurant maybe that has something to do with it. The Texan one was just a little diner, people are more likely to speak up in that sort of environment compared to the place in NY, it looked pretty posh and you probably get the sort of people there that wouldn't want to make a fuss (unless it concerned them).

Agreed.

The size and type of restaurant plays a big role here. I imagine that in the smaller Texas restaurant people felt more "at home" as they probably were regular guests. So the comparison as such has big flaws.

With that said, big cred to Texas! Very heartwarming to watch!

Louis VI the Fat

05-24-2011, 20:03

:us-texas: :cheerleader:

I wonder what I would've done. I think I might have spoken out when the waitress claims to speak on behalf of all customers there.

As for TX vs NY: Me, I blame urbanised vs rural. It is always in the city where one will freeze to death while a million people walk by.

Also, I am shocked at the derogatory tone with which these customers adress the waitress. 'You need to be unpolitical and just do your job' - oh, how that would make for a fun thread about differences between Texas and France. I might've stood up for the waitress against these presumptuous customers. :beam:

Shibumi

05-24-2011, 22:18

Strike For The South

05-25-2011, 01:48

The town they are talking about is in the middle of the metroplex....rural it is not

Face it, Texans are better than you.

Shibumi

05-25-2011, 02:36

The town they are talking about is in the middle of the metroplex....rural it is not

Face it, Texans are better than you.

Well, to be honest, all we can tell from this is that one diner in Texas is better than one might have assumed given the general trend in the USA and the heartland in particular.

You have to remember that in civilized countries the topic at large would not even be a question worthy of a TV show.

So yeah, still a lose. Producer had a hunch that Texas would be a good place to shoot this, Texas had people giving thumbs up to an actress waitress. That would not have happened over here.

So in a way, it is a very pitiful victory, do you not agree? All that program showed was that Texas is not as bad as some may think.

Strike For The South

05-25-2011, 02:42

1 instance out of 100 is a statistical anomaly. Which is why I don't judge other Swedes

The general trend of the heartland? LOL Texas isn't in the "heartland" and of course the trend you speak of has no basis in credible fact.

The question really is "will people stand up to bullies" other topics on the show include beatings, rape, etc. It isn't necesarily about them being gay

And we see Texans will stand up to bullies at a rate 4x that of New Yorkers

Louis VI the Fat

05-25-2011, 02:54

So in a way, it is a very pitiful victory, do you not agree? All that program showed was that Texas is not as bad as some may think. It shows that Americans are always more open, friendly, and moral than most everybody else. Yes, moral. It is the European who forever fails to understand that the American struggles to live life right, to do good, to do what is right. Unlike the European. Whose morality is mostly a thin veneer, a social necessity, kept up out of fear for being caught, which is never far away from being cast away when opportunity presents itself.

We've been owned by Texas. In Europe, a waitress can refuse to serve a Gypsie or a Muslim, and the entire place will applaud.

What difference ten years can make in America. A decade ago, homophobia ruled. Ever the open society, America fiercely debated the issue, centered around the issue of gay marriage. It emerged that the American in the end does not want to judge a person for who he is. Consequently, homophobia is now fully on the wane. Meanwhile, Europe is descending into a neandertal populism. And that's enlightened Western Europe. In Eastern Europe, bands of men simply patrol the streets and beat you up for looking Gay, or Jewish, or Black.

:us-texas:

Shibumi

05-25-2011, 03:00

Yeah, well, here this thing would not be worthy of TV material.

You actually have this as a political question, as the vote compass recently showed, whereas here it is a non issue. Do you get the point or do I have to be even more clear?

The woman playing the part was in tears because someone stood up for her - here that again would not be an issue.

Someone gave thumbs up and high fived the actress, again, that would not happen here.

So, my point remains - Texas, not as bad as you think.

Do not get me wrong, I absolutely love the Texan hospitality. And no that is not a pun about the girls, I do genuinely like the Texan atmosphere and culture when it comes to strangers like me. I have walked in to quite some bars there and felt at home at once. I had a 70 year old Texan helping me get my luggage up on a train once, he did not even hesitate.

So cred for that, however, do not take too much cred for being the best of the worst when it comes to sticking up for homosexuality.

Shibumi

05-25-2011, 03:04

It shows that Americans are always more open, friendly, and moral than most everybody else. Yes, moral. It is the European who forever fails to understand that the American struggles to live life right, to do good, to do what is right. Unlike the European. Whose morality is mostly a thin veneer, a social necessity, kept up out of fear for being caught, which is never far away from being cast away when opportunity presents itself.

We've been owned by Texas. In Europe, a waitress can refuse to serve a Gypsie or a Muslim, and the entire place will applaud.

What difference ten years can make in America. A decade ago, homophobia ruled. Ever the open society, America fiercely debated the issue, centered around the issue of gay marriage. It emerged that the American in the end does not want to judge a person for who he is. Consequently, homophobia is now fully on the wane. Meanwhile, Europe is descending into a neandertal populism. And that's enlightened Western Europe. In Eastern Europe, bands of men simply patrol the streets and beat you up for looking Gay, or Jewish, or Black.

:us-texas:

I really did not get your point, can you summarize for stupid people like me?

I lost you at America being more open and friendly, and the points about America struggling to do good was just garbled. You might want to go into that with further detail.

Rhyfelwyr

05-25-2011, 03:26

Well even in the UK, there have been controversies with b&b owners not letting gay guests stay. IIRC Cameron supported them in the past, but has backtracked since becoming PM.

Personally I think business owners should be able to deny service to anyone they don't like the look of. Why can't people just have their space?

Louis VI the Fat

05-25-2011, 03:26

So, my point remains - Texas, not as bad as you think. Great. It is exactly my point too: you were wrong about what you thought you knew about Texas.

Edit:*snip* :beam:

As for Sweden:

The idea of the country of Sweden, being a country where people are respected and treated equally, can be highly questioned. If you ask people whether this idea is real or not, the answers will differ. This is why we look at a larger picture of the situation, in an objective way.

The most recent, and most covering, report about the health situation for LGBT people on Sweden, gave a clear indication of how the situation actually is. The way you are treated, on the grounds of your sexual orientation, your gender and/or your gender expression, is of course the foundation of feeling well or feeling bad.

According to the Swedish health institute’s report on LGBT people’s health, the general mental health is clearly worse than that of heterosexual, non-transgendered people. The hard facts are that 50 % of the LGBT people in the age of 16-29 has had suicidal thoughts, compared to 17% for the straight people of the same age. When you look at the actual attempt to commit suicide, 15% of the LGB people in the age of 16-29, and 27% of the transgendered, answered that they have tried to. For the straight people of the same age, this figure was 6 %.

Another figure that is very discomforting is that 46% of the gay and bisexual men in the age 16-29 has been subject to violence the last 12 months, compared to 10% for the straight men of the same age. The young lesbian and bisexual women have also experienced violence to a greater extent than the straight comparison, but the difference is not as large as in the case of young men. This group on the other hand have a much larger risk behaviour concerning alcohol than the men, in the same age.

According to the health institute, the discrimination of LGBT people in Sweden is a central democracy issue. It’s the discrimination that leads to risk behaviours concerning alcohol, and also the suicide attempts. The idea of Sweden being a country where everyone’s respected and treated equally is obviously not true.
http://www.stop-homophobia.eu/en/the-theme/in-sweden.html
Half of gays in Sweden contemplate suicide. Half of Swedish gay men have been subjected to violence last year. Ah well, we can't all be Texas. :us-texas:

Centurion1

05-25-2011, 04:25

tou f'ing che louis

I laughed.

PanzerJaeger

05-25-2011, 04:35

First north versus south, and now America versus Europe. That's not the point.

As for Sweden:

According to the Swedish health institute’s report on LGBT people’s health, the general mental health is clearly worse than that of heterosexual, non-transgendered people. The hard facts are that 50 % of the LGBT people in the age of 16-29 has had suicidal thoughts, compared to 17% for the straight people of the same age. When you look at the actual attempt to commit suicide, 15% of the LGB people in the age of 16-29, and 27% of the transgendered, answered that they have tried to. For the straight people of the same age, this figure was 6 %.

Another figure that is very discomforting is that 46% of the gay and bisexual men in the age 16-29 has been subject to violence the last 12 months, compared to 10% for the straight men of the same age. The young lesbian and bisexual women have also experienced violence to a greater extent than the straight comparison, but the difference is not as large as in the case of young men. This group on the other hand have a much larger risk behaviour concerning alcohol than the men, in the same age.

:veryangry2:

Such statistics make me absolutely furious. How insecure about your own life and worldview do you have to be to beat up on gay people?

Shibumi

05-25-2011, 05:02

wrote stuff:

Great figures, source?

And on a further note - compare those numbers to American statistics? If you want to make a comparison between the US of A and Sweden, you have to disclose the numbers and source of both sides, you know.

In Sweden gay people can get married.
We do not have a "don't ask don't tell" policy in the army.
Go around in the capital and you will see the Gay Banner proudly raised at a lot of places.

Admittedly, yes there are some fringe groups still against it all, Christians of course foremost. However, that is still a very limited group.

I will venture as far as saying I honestly do not believe those numbers you stated, it is not the reality I see here. I am absolutely sure that Sweden at large have a rather open view towards homosexuality. A political party that would even bring that question up would be ridiculed and scorned.

Your only source seem to be some blog called "stop homophobia". Well done you. Got other sources?

I might as well enter some area 51 blog site to prove to you that aliens do in fact exist.

Centurion1 Given what I have seen from you, there is no doubt in my mind that you laughed. No need to stress the point.

PJ Again? Really? If your acceptance of that post have any bearing on your general approach to data it explains your previous errors.

Louis VI the Fat

05-25-2011, 06:00

Great figures, source?Statens folkhälsoinstitut, 'Homosexuellas, bisexuellas och transpersoners hälsosituation'. Återrapportering av regeringsuppdrag att undersöka och analysera hälsosituationen bland hbt-personer, rapport A 2005:19.

Det kan du læse mere om her: http://www.rfslkronoberg.se/publikationer/hbt-halsosituation_051222.pdf :book:

Vær'sko min Svensk, jeg kan kun taler lidt Dansk, ikke Svensk. Men jeg kan godt forstå det sprog.

PanzerJaeger

05-25-2011, 06:08

PJ Again? Really? If your acceptance of that post have any bearing on your general approach to data it explains your previous errors.

Umm, what? I just expressed my disgust with anti-gay violence.

Anyway, my Swedish is only as good as Google Translate, but I believe Louis' source may be quoting studies such as this (http://www.hanner.st/swedishglbyouthresearch/hb-ungdomsenkaten.pdf).

Psychodynamic Developmental Psychology interwoven with theories of
coming-out process. To investigate the mental health and illness among
young people aged 16-24 who are attracted to people of their own sex was
1285 respondents using a paper questionnaire or nätenkät answer 62 questions
about their living conditions. Many girls reported a bisexual orientation
and a tendency to link heterosexual love bands. The boys
homosexuality emerged as problematic to accept both
individual and the outside world. Respondents were twice as vulnerable
to threats and violence as a selection from the general population. A remarkable
high proportion of girls reported frequent binge drinking and a
high consumption of pills. Respondents reported a low self-estimated
general health and a high proportion of girls low self esteem.
A large percentage of the respondents reported suicide attempt,
twice as large for girls and three times that of boys
compared with the sample from the general population. Age of attempted suicide
low before coming-out-age and before the exploration of same-sex
sexual and social activities

A three times as many of the guys in this
survey than the boys in the study of normal population reported suicide attempt.
The two foreign studies which have not divided by gender was reported that 2-6
times the proportion of homosexual youths compared with youths in the general population
had attempted suicide. Looking at the whole group in this study is
corresponding share over two times as large as in the study from 1993 to the general population.
The causes of suicide attempts are difficult to identify. Among the reasons stated
again, most "ordinary" reasons that are applicable to all (even heterosexual), as
For example, self-hatred, the feeling of being isolated and fed up with their own thoughts. Several indicators
specific group of homosexuals and bisexuals are obvious. Stand out clearly - in
compared to the general population - a lower self-esteem and a lower estimated general health;
more frequent consumption of large amounts of alcohol, increase exposure to
discrimination, intimidation and violence, and a poorer social network. These are factors that characterize
marginalized and vulnerable groups in society.

And then there's this (http://www.cahrv.uni-osnabrueck.de/reddot/CAHRVreportPrevalence%281%29.pdf):

The studies in Sweden: In Sweden three prevalence studies on violence against homosexuals and bisexuals have been conducted in 1981, 1996, and 2004. The two most recent studies are discussed here. Study in 1996 In the study carried out in 1996, 25% of the 2000 participants stated that they had been a victim of different types of hate crimes due to sexual orientation. Men (28%) were more often victims compared to women (20%). From those victimized 20% had also been exposed to harassment in the work place. Study in 2004 In the new study carried out in 2004, with 2000 participants, the rate of victimization was 52%. The situation has changed in relation to the study of 1996. The number of male victims is 51% and of females 53%. Young persons were most often victims of this type of crime. Seventy-seven percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons (LGBT) under 20 years of age stated that they had been victims of some sort of hate crime. Of participants between 20 and 30 years of age, 64% said so; of middle aged persons 40-50%; and of 60 to 70 year old participants about 10%. Twelve percent claimed they had been victims of crimes of violence, and 11% of sex crimes. Perpetrators were relatives, neighbors, pupils, students, craftsmen, storekeepers, colleagues and authorities. Slander, insult and verbal harassment are the most common types of offences. Thus, hate crimes against LGBT persons in Sweden have doubled since 1996. This is the conclusion of the new study by criminologist Eva Tiby at Stockholm University.

Ironically, the very limited data (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448421/) on anti-gay harrassment in the US seems to indicate that its occurrence is very similar or even less prevelent than in 'civilized' Sweden.

Objectives. We examined the 6-month cumulative incidence of anti-gay harassment, discrimination, and violence among young gay/bisexual men and documented their associations with mental health.

Methods. Gay/bisexual men from 3 cities in the southwestern United States completed self-administered questionnaires.

Results. Thirty-seven percent of men reported experiencing anti-gay verbal harassment in the previous 6 months; 11.2% reported discrimination, and 4.8% reported physical violence. Men were more likely to report these experiences if they were younger, were more open in disclosing their sexual orientation to others, and were HIV positive. Reports of mistreatment were associated with lower self-esteem and increased suicidal ideation.
...

Little is known about the prevalence or incidence of mistreatment in the years following high school. Herek et al. sampled 2259 gay and lesbian adults and found that, during their adult lifetimes, 28% of men and 19% of women reported some form of violence or other criminal activity directed at them as a result of their sexual orientation.4 Diaz et al. sampled 912 gay and bisexual Latino men and found that 10% reported anti-gay violence and 15% to 50% reported other forms of anti-gay discrimination and harassment as adults.1 However, to our knowledge, no large study has used a multiethnic sample to document the extent of anti-gay mistreatment experienced by young gay and bisexual men.

Edit: Looks like I didn't need to bother as Louis had it covered...

Louis VI the Fat

05-25-2011, 06:17

ninja'd :7ninja:

Strike For The South

05-25-2011, 07:50

Louis, Bringing the rain

Centurion1

05-25-2011, 09:25

Excuse me Shibumi. Don't be such a frigging prick. Why don't you find out about people before you make judgements you. I have nothing against homosexuals and can be described as ambivalent to mildly supportive. Meaning I don't give a damn about them doing their thing, getting married, and adopting kids. This attitude is in my mind conducive to a healthy society.

Also by the way why dont you check your sources.

A. The don't ask don't tell policy was repealed awhile ago I had a briefing on the changes made.

B. I can walk around DC our capitol and see plenty of gay pride banners raised proudly all over thew damn place as well like Dupont Circle.

C. LOL, Gays can marry in a few states here. The American system will never allow the Federal government to make blanket decisions without a mandate from the people.

Admittedly, yes there are some fringe groups still against it all, Christians of course foremost. However, that is still a very limited group.

LOL, Yeah sure Christians may dislike homosexuals (blanket statement) but what about fundy Muslims, immigrants, hell the poor and working class in general. At least in America thats how it usually goes down. As well as certain minority groups who have a certain dislike traditionally for homosexuals (African Americans are known for it)

I will venture as far as saying I honestly do not believe those numbers you stated, it is not the reality I see here. I am absolutely sure that Sweden at large have a rather open view towards homosexuality. A political party that would even bring that question up would be ridiculed and scorned.

I will venture as far as saying I honestly do not believe those numbers you stated, it is not the reality I see here. I am absolutely sure that Sweden at large have a rather open view towards homosexuality. A political party that would even bring that question up would be ridiculed and scorned.

I scorn your pathetic naivete.

"first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"

Hell you don't even need to remove it simply admit it is there.

a completely inoffensive name

05-25-2011, 09:36

The one big thing I cannot stand the most about the gay marriage issue is the "ability" of states to not recognize certified gay marriages from other states if they themselves do not recognize gay marriage.

Have we completely forgotten the "Full Faith and Credit" clause from the Constitution?

Centurion1

05-25-2011, 11:05

PanzerJaeger

05-25-2011, 20:12

And.... that warm fuzzy feeling just evaporated.

Tennessee state senate passes 'Don't Say Gay' bill. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/21/2011-05-21_dont_say_gay_bill_passes_in_tennessee_senate_would_ban_teachers_from_discussing_.html)

The Tennessee Senate passed a bill on Friday that would bar teachers from discussing homosexuality with elementary and middle school students.

Under the legislation, dubbed by critics as the "don't say gay" bill, any instruction in public classrooms will be "limited exclusively to age-appropriate natural human reproduction science."

Republican Stacey Campfield, the bill's sponsor, says "homosexuals don't naturally reproduce" and has argued families should decide when its appropriate to talk with their children about homosexuality.

But gay rights activists are blasting the legislation, which passed 6-3, as a form of discrimination.

It "limits what teachers and students are able to discuss in the classroom," Ben Byers of the Tennessee Equality Project told LBGTQ Nation. "It means they can't talk about gay issues or sexuality even with students who may be gay or have gay family."

It's unlikely that the bill will be taken up by the House before lawmakers adjourn this spring, but Campfield said he would push it forward in 2012.

The bill, which was approved 19-11, passed the same day as Gallup released a poll revealing that American attitudes towards homosexuality are changing.

For the first time in Gallup polling history, the majority of Americans—53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal.

Passage of the bill would make Tennessee the first state to enact such legislation.

Initially, the bill read that no students will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." Campfield said some of his colleagues were uncomfortable the language.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat," Campfield said after the legislation passed. "I got what I wanted."

Samurai Waki

05-25-2011, 20:22

is it just me or does Stacy Campfield look incredibly gay?

Rhyfelwyr

05-25-2011, 20:54

I think its funny that he's called "Stacey"...

Shibumi

05-26-2011, 10:47

Fragony

05-26-2011, 13:09

Do mind that harassment is also included, not half of Swedish gays are beaten up on yearly basis. But don't we all know who's doing it, anyways.

Shibumi

05-26-2011, 13:17

Do mind that harassment is also included, not half of Swedish gays are beaten up on yearly basis. But don't we all know who's doing it, anyways.

I skipped that part, but yes, you are indeed right.

Another way to look at the report would be to say that about half of the gays can be so openly without even being harassed in a whole year..

ajaxfetish

05-26-2011, 14:37

Louis, the question runs deeper than one report. And then there is of course the fact that you can not really accuse Sweden of being worse without similar data from the USA.

I don't think Louis was claiming that gay discrimination in Sweden is worse than in the USA. He was simply demonstrating that your original claim--that gay rights are a total non-issue there--is false.

Ajax

Shibumi

05-26-2011, 14:49

I don't think Louis was claiming that gay discrimination in Sweden is worse than in the USA. He was simply demonstrating that your original claim--that gay rights are a total non-issue there--is false.

Ajax

Everything is relative I guess.

ajaxfetish

05-26-2011, 22:23

Everything is relative I guess.

And if you wanted to dredge up some comparable American data, then you might have a point to make.

Ajax

Shibumi

05-26-2011, 22:49

And if you wanted to dredge up some comparable American data, then you might have a point to make.

Ajax

Lack of data can at times prove a point. Re-read what I wrote, I do not think I made any unsupported claims.

Speaking of something else entirely, were you aware that North Korea has no gay people?

Besides, why am I in the fire line here? Why do I have to come up with data? Why do I have to prove a point?

Louis wrote:
It shows that Americans are always more open, friendly, and moral than most everybody else. Yes, moral. It is the European who forever fails to understand that the American struggles to live life right, to do good, to do what is right. Unlike the European. Whose morality is mostly a thin veneer, a social necessity, kept up out of fear for being caught, which is never far away from being cast away when opportunity presents itself.

I then pointed at some very very obvious signs of this not being fully correct (gay marriage being allowed and so on). He then offered a report of gay situation in Sweden - bashing it - without offering comparable data.

Remind me as to why I am the one being accused and have to come up with the facts?

PS: My only opening point was that a show like the one posted would not have been aired here, as we have another political and cultural situation. Here it would be politically correct to tell the waitress off, thus not showing any type of back bone. Obviously in the States this issue is not as clear, or the show would not have been made in the first place. Get my point?

And GAH why am I defending myself against this idiocy.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2011, 00:53

PS: My only opening point was that a show like the one posted would not have been aired here, as we have another political and cultural situation.

Maybe such a show should be aired, as there is obviously still a major problem with homophobia in Sweden.

This whole exercise illustrates an important point - changing laws is much easier than changing minds. As was demonstrated in this thread, many people from nations that have passed pro-gay legislation seem to delude themselves into believing that their country has moved passed widespread anti-gay hatred and abuse. This is not so, especially among the lower classes. Gay people are then left in a precarious situation - subject to widespread low level discrimination but without any easily identifiable political grievances, allowing the media and pressure groups to ignore the problems.

Changing attitudes about gay people cannot be done in state capitals - it must be done at home, in schools, and in diners like the one in the video. It is great that gay people can marry in Sweden, but the fact that over half of them are subject to abuse is shameful. Open minded people in countries like Sweden or states like Massachusetts that have passed pro-gay legislation cannot wash their hands of the issue and abandon them to the wolves.

Shibumi

05-27-2011, 01:18

Maybe such a show should be aired, as there is obviously still a major problem with homophobia in Sweden.

This whole exercise illustrates an important point - changing laws is much easier than changing minds. As was demonstrated in this thread, many people from nations that have passed pro-gay legislation seem to delude themselves into believing that their country has moved passed widespread anti-gay hatred and abuse. This is not so, especially among the lower classes. Gay people are then left in a precarious situation - subject to widespread low level discrimination but without any easily identifiable political grievances, allowing the media and pressure groups to ignore the problems.

Changing attitudes about gay people cannot be done in state capitals - it must be done at home, in schools, and in diners like the one in the video. It is great that gay people can marry in Sweden, but the fact that over half of them are subject to abuse is shameful. Open minded people in countries like Sweden or states like Massachusetts that have passed pro-gay legislation cannot wash their hands of the issue and abandon them to the wolves.

I think I made a decision some time ago to not respond to your posts, as they seemed very ill founded and utterly without factual base. I just wrote that a show like that would be moot as the PC agenda is to stand up for homosexuals - as well as it being so utterly the mainstream. What you get from that is that such a show would be awesome.

The show would just not fly.

Let us be frank, the "gay issue" is a top 20 political question on the vote compass in the states, do you really think it would be in Sweden?

USA has a question if being gay is OK or not on the political compass.
Sweden do not have that question on the political compass.

Do we need to play dot to dot here to see what country comes off better?

Gay marriage is legal here.
It is not legal there (in some states).

Sweden has never had a don't ask don't tell policy.
USA has (until what, some months ago).

In Sweden you can be an openly gay priest.
In USA.. Actually I do not know - Are there any, do they do well?

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying Sweden is perfect, I am not saying we do not still have problems with it. However, our problems are less institutionalized, and from my point of view way less severe.

Louis VI the Fat

05-27-2011, 01:47

Louis wrote:

It shows that Americans are always more open, friendly, and moral than most everybody else. Yes, moral. It is the European who forever fails to understand that the American struggles to live life right, to do good, to do what is right. Unlike the European. Whose morality is mostly a thin veneer, a social necessity, kept up out of fear for being caught, which is never far away from being cast away when opportunity presents itself. I then pointed at some very very obvious signs of this not being fully correct (gay marriage being allowed and so on). No. No, you didn't point out anything about it being incorrect. All you said was you did not get the point. Or rather, you did get it, but pretended not to get it to share that one must be garbling to state that America often struggles to do good:

I really did not get your point, can you summarize for stupid people like me?

I lost you at America being more open and friendly, and the points about America struggling to do good was just garbled. You might want to go into that with further detail.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Just for good measure, I then shared some cold fact about Swedish 'friendliness' to gays. Apparantly, the findings of this report ('half of Swedish gays contemplate suicide, half have been victim of physical violence in just one year') which have been known for years took you by complete surprise:

I will venture as far as saying I honestly do not believe those numbers you stated, it is not the reality I see here. I am absolutely sure that Sweden at large have a rather open view towards homosexuality. A political party that would even bring that question up would be ridiculed and scorned.

Your only source seem to be some blog called "stop homophobia". Well done you. Got other sources?
As it turned out, my source was a very influential report by the National Swedish Health Institute, ordered by the Swedish government.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

He then offered a report of gay situation in Sweden - bashing it - without offering comparable data.

Remind me as to why I am the one being accused and have to come up with the facts?Are you kidding? :huh:

Not offering data? The data were right in the article, including a reference to the Swedish NHI report. Of course, far from bashing it, I used the report to make a point.
All you had to show in reply was a dismissive post questioning my source and stating your disbelief at the numbers. Then you got thoroughly pwned with the source itself, which turned out to be the most encompassing government ordered report about the status of gays on the planet.

I showed the facts, I came up with my numbers. Louis always has a source and Louis always gives his source to anybody who requests it. It is you who's throwing around assumptions abvout America, without as of yet having come up with any source whatsoever.

PanzerJaeger

05-27-2011, 01:52

I think I made a decision some time ago to not respond to your posts, as they seemed very ill founded and utterly without factual base. I just wrote that a show like that would be moot as the PC agenda is to stand up for homosexuals - as well as it being so utterly the mainstream. What you get from that is that such a show would be awesome.

You're so busy desperately trying to prove Sweden's superiority over the US that you completely missed my point.

You came into this thread with a very common European attitude, smugly insinuating that such a show would never make it in 'civilized' nations like Sweden because such a situation (gay harassment) would never occur there. You backed that assertion up with Sweden's pro-gay legislation, the absence of a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in Sweden's military, and your own anecdotal observations.

My point is that while it is wonderful that Sweden's political class is ahead of America's, their accomplishments have obviously created a blind spot in many people's opinion on the issue. The studies show that in fact such a setup would be relevant in Sweden, as a majority of Swedish gay people are still subjected to abuse based on their sexual orientation each year.

I'm not attacking you or Sweden, and I'm certainly not saying the US is any better. I'm only saying that you should not assume that just because gay marriage is legalized in Sweden that widespread anti-gay abuse could not occur in your country. The studies show that it does, and at alarming rates. :shame:

Louis VI the Fat

05-27-2011, 01:53

In Sweden gay people can get married.
We do not have a "don't ask don't tell" policy in the army.
Go around in the capital and you will see the Gay Banner proudly raised at a lot of places.Centurion already rubbished this, but I might as well do so again.

1) In America, same-sex marriage has been legal in several states since 2004. In Sweden, it became legal years later, in 2009. With the obvious note that America is a federal state, Sweden a centrally governed one. The legal status of same-sex marriage is as varied between US states as between European states.
2) The US does not have a DATT policy in the army. It used to have one. But not anymore, in the current post-homophobic climate.
3) I don't know about the gay scene in Washington DC. Not among the more prominent ones, I think. America being a federal state, other cities perform the function that a capital in a centralised or small country performs, such as cultural center or gay capital. There is a big difference between states and cities. San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York - they don't come any more liberal in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Also, New York's Village People were already rockin' the US charts way back when Sweden was still sterilising people for being homosexual. :cowboy: :builder2: :indian_chief: :helmet: :policeman: :biker:

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

The Village People made me feel creative. Here's an artist's impression of the Three Gayketeers, the world's next musical sensation:

:beatnik2: :sweetheart: :sombrero: :sweetheart: :afro:

It's me (Le Bobo), Strike (El Chicano) and Panzer (Soul Man). I suspect one of them to be homosexual for real and IT IS NOT ME.

Louis VI the Fat

05-27-2011, 01:57

Louis, the question runs deeper than one report. And then there is of course the fact that you can not really accuse Sweden of being worse without similar data from the USA.

I read the relevant parts of the report now, and violence seem more spread than I thought. Most of the violence though has been pushes and stuff (not that that is much good either). The Gay Organization in Sweden had a huge drive some years ago to raise the awareness, urging their members to report any kind of abuse. I think that more or less sky rocketed the statistics.

Had a talk with an American friend who is gay, and he claim that the situation for gays are way worse in the states. Not evidence as such, I know, but at least here the gays do not have much/any administrative obstacles.

I am not saying Sweden is perfect when it comes to this issue, but I do claim that it is better here. And again, if you want to compare you really have to show the statistics from both involved parties, not just the one. In general, I have little doubt Sweden is more tolerant of gays than America.

I protested what I thought was unfait criticism over a video. The Texas video to me does not show a backwards place, full of petty religious-conservative ignorants. To me it showed something entirely else: that (again) America has managed to reinvent itself. If, of all places, in Texas people will openly stand up for a homosexual then indeed somthing has changed.

It has been my subjective view that homophobia is well past its heyday of about a decade ago, the first few years of past decade. My spidey sense about America being the world's greatest since Alexis, that Gallup poll hidden in PJ's post provided a nice confirmation of my subjective impression:

The [Tennessee] bill, which was approved 19-11, passed the same day as Gallup released a poll revealing that American attitudes towards homosexuality are changing.

For the first time in Gallup polling history, the majority of Americans—53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal.

A majority is now in favour of same-sex marriage. This is the more important realisation about America. A fierce debate has been waged, is still raging, with many pro and many con. But the direction ios clearly towards openness, towards acceptance, towards tolerance.

Shibumi

05-27-2011, 02:56

Wow, we can not just make one post, can we?

I will summarize.

1. This debate did not start with ME saying Sweden is great - it started with you saying:

It shows that Americans are always more open, friendly, and moral than most everybody else. Yes, moral. It is the European who forever fails to understand that the American struggles to live life right, to do good, to do what is right. Unlike the European. Whose morality is mostly a thin veneer, a social necessity, kept up out of fear for being caught, which is never far away from being cast away when opportunity presents itself.

Just like in the God debate, the responsibility of facts on the table is on your side.

2. You then went on to show statistics of Sweden (horrid one I might add). However, you completely forgot that you can not compare two countries without having the same data for both. Kind of on an intellectual level of:
Shibumi: My apple is better than yours from what I can tell from the apple handbook.
Louis: No my apple is better - see - here I have a report showing your apple has flaws.
Shibumi: Can I see a report on your apple?
Louis: Uhm.. no..
Shibumi: ...
louis: WIN!

Quite obviously, I do not applaud your logic here.

3. Ajaxfetish for some reason thought I had made the initial claim that Sweden was the best. But no, as should be rather evident I have just argued against your initial post - go back to "1" to see it again. I have not said Sweden is perfect, nor do I think it is. I do think it is a lot of better when it comes to this though.

4. Your, as you put it, "influential" report showed that a gay couple could walk hand in hand for a year without being harassed. Cred to Sweden! Did it show it was all perfect - nope. But you can not use that report to say Sweden is worse than the US, when in fact Sweden is a front runner in gay rights. Granted, we have lots left to do - but with that said we should take some pride in having done a better job than most, not to say anyone else.

You claim that you show the facts - then go on. Make a comparative analysis between the data of Sweden and the US when it comes to homosexuality. So far you have only made an ill advised claim of USA being
more open, friendly, and moral than most everybody else.

When I countered it saying it is probably better here - you went on some huge rant - bashing Sweden without showing equal data for the states.

Beginning your last post with saying you have little doubt Sweden in general is more tolerant? So what exactly are you fighting at here, Don Quijote?