Gay Parenting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well picking the worst examples from heterosexual couples doesn't prove anything, I never said some homosexual parents can't do a better job than some hetero ones.

---

Well then why should hetero ones get prefrence? Because it adheres to your completley arbitary definition of normal? I can pull 8 African tribes out of my backside they do communal female raising, clearly we are doing it wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well then why should hetero ones get prefrence? Because it adheres to your completley arbitary definition of normal? I can pull 8 African tribes out of my backside they do communal female raising, clearly we are doing it wrong

---

Well like it or not, we have to come up with some idea of what is best for the child. You say I'm being arbitrary but even you put boundaries somewhere, they're implied in this whole debate when we talk about homo/hetero couples raising children. So why couples?

I've been part of some twisted debates in my time, but never one as demented as this.

Having to defend the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father... good God. We might might as well cash our chips in right now and hope the next species does better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And yet it is a logical and sensible conclusion. Have they even studied it, I have no idea...

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

"We found that despite the ‘no differences’ mantra, many studies do report evidence of some intriguing differences, and even of some potential advantages of lesbian parenthood," said Stacey, holder of the Streisand Professorship in Contemporary Gender Studies. "A difference is not necessarily a deficit."

Stacey and Biblarz found some evidence that children in gay households are more likely to buck stereotypical male-female behavior. For example, boys raised by lesbians appear to be less aggressive and more nurturing than boys raised in heterosexual families. Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers, engineers and astronauts.

In addition, heterosexual mothers tend to encourage sons to participate in historically "masculine" games and activities – such as Little League – and daughters in more "feminine" pursuits – such as ballet. In contrast, lesbian mothers had no such interest – their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral.

...

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

"Levels of anxiety, depression, self-esteem and other measures of social and psychological behaviors were generally similar," Biblarz said. "While all children probably get teased for one thing or another, children with gay parents may experience a higher degree of teasing and ridicule. It is impressive then that their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families. Exploring how lesbian and gay parent families help children cope with stigma could prove helpful to all kinds of families."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well one argument is that those kids will have a messed up understanding of gender roles that will damage their development.

---

I'm wondering, what are normal gender roles these days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I've been part of some twisted debates in my time, but never one as demented as this.

Having to defend the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father... good God. We might might as well cash our chips in right now and hope the next species does better.

---

No one is challenging the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father, only the idea that that situation is inherently superior to same-sex parenting.

Here's a New Age pretzel for you to chew on.

Quote:

---

Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[6][12]

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[5][6][7] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[6] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[8][9][10][7][11] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[7][12][22][8]

Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”.[23] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[8] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[24] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[27] the National Association of Social Workers,[28] the Child Welfare League of America,[29] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[30] and Canadian Psychological Association.[31]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

No one is challenging the concept of a child being raised by a mother and father, only the idea that that situation is inherently superior to same-sex parenting.

---

And that is twisted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Here's a New Age pretzel for you to chew on.

---

I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well now you are just making an evasion for yourself. Your argument is that homosexuals must have equal rights, not that there are more orphans than foster parents, and so we can just give them to homosexual couples anyway.

---

It's not an evasion when the person I am talking to refuses to even acknowledge me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

And that is twisted.



I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

---

I see there is no point talking to you any more. Anyone that loves to talk about how they believe in "common sense" always seems to be the most absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

---

Enough with these new-fangled crackpot medical ideas! Give me a good old-fashioned, common sense leeching, or give me nothing.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I don't chew on New Age pretzels: I prefer good old fashioned Common Sense pie.

---

There have been many people throughout history who have ignored science in favor of their own conceptions of common sense.

It's not really an intellectual position I would stake out for myself, but as long as your common sense doesn't interfere with the fact based system that has allowed millions of children to avoid being passed around foster homes, group homes, and Child Protective Services and instead enjoy a supportive family, then I suppose there's no harm in it. Common sense is generational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I see there is no point talking to you any more.

---

As you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Anyone that loves to talk about how they believe in "common sense" always seems to be the most absurd.

---

Indeed, believing little kids are better off with a mother and a father, what a horrible absurdity! I must be some kind of a monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There have been many people throughout history who have ignored science in favor of their own conceptions of common sense.

---

Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Well, call me old fashioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Common sense is generational.

---

Some is, and some is for all time. Like the common sense I mentioned above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes.

---

Well some points from the study...

"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."

Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?

"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."

Bad again.

Kids need the one mum/dad dynamic because unless they really can catch the gayness from homosexual parents, they will need to learn the typical dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (for the love of God, don't start going on about generalisations because 1% of couples differ from the norm) for later in life. If its a boy they need the male rolemodel, if its a girl the female.

Your article already shows that changing this dynamic does have a big influence on the kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

---

Or alternatively, maybe there's actual evidence supporting the idea that working, responsible, non-criminal behavior is beneficial, and others would agree with you on this issue while at the same time disagreeing on the fitness of gay couples to raise children.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Well, call me old fashioned.

---

:laugh4:

Denying the legitimacy of same-sex parenting also has nothing to do with 'responsibility' and 'good conduct' either, despite your ridiculous equivocation.

The truth is that it is just an outdated opinion that has been completely invalidated through scientific research. May I suggest that you bring some verifiable facts with you next time as this isn't working for you.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...ing-breath.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well some points from the study...

"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."

Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?

"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."

Bad again.

---

Interesting. I read both points as positives. I don't see the value in raising boys to be lecherous, aggressive, and uncaring and girls to be socially conditioned to accept the double standard. I suppose gender roles are subjective. :shrug:

Here are some other points:

Quote:

---

o It is more common for both lesbian moms to be employed, to earn similar incomes and to cut back on their hours of paid work in order to nurture young children. Some research indicates that egalitarian parenting contributes to child well-being, Stacey said.

o Same-sex couples proved better at managing disagreements and anger than did comparable heterosexual married couples. Research suggests that parental conflict may be one of the most significant sources of difficulty for children, Stacey said.

---

Now, I could spin these two points to argue that gay parents are actually better than straight ones, but it is probably better to look at the broader conclusion.

According to the study:

Quote:

---

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

---

I don't know what the 'typical dynamics' of a heterosexual relationship are, but the study suggests same-sex parenting yields well adjusted children with no noticeable relationship dysfunction.

Go get 'em, Panzer! :cheerleader:


Both the mayor of Paris and of Berlin are very openly gay, have been for a decade now. Times have changed. This one we are winning.


(although the gay mayor of Paris is most unpopular with the you-know-who, one of whom tried to butcher him with a knife in broad daylight, loudly shouting homosexuals needed to die :shame:)

There are two important points to me:

One, that there is a shortage of parents of any type adopting kids.

Two, the gender of the parents seems to matter less than the fitness of the parents.

However, I still oppose forcing any religious orphanages to allow gay couples to adopt kids.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Wanting a child to have a mother and father is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Though I'm sure there are New Age pretzels ready to be chewed on that say, with great eloquence and perhaps even backed up by scientific study, that responsibility and good conduct are old fashioned.

Well, call me old fashioned.

---

Wanting a child to have parents is not alchemy. It is not a witch burning. It is not slavery, bigotry, or akin to telling Rosa to give up her seat. It is common sense. The same common sense that tells people to get a job, be responsible for their conduct, and not to be a criminal. Unfortunately common sense doesn't teach them to argue well :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well some points from the study...

"o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families."

Well clearly all that is bad, why not just castrate them?

"o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals."

Bad again.

Kids need the one mum/dad dynamic because unless they really can catch the gayness from homosexual parents, they will need to learn the typical dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (for the love of God, don't start going on about generalisations because 1% of couples differ from the norm) for later in life. If its a boy they need the male rolemodel, if its a girl the female.

Your article already shows that changing this dynamic does have a big influence on the kids.

---

Yes, when I read this I thought "well, this is exactly the thing they are going to complain about". But fact is you can substitute "liberal" for lesbian and get the same result here. No duh, gay couples aren't conservative and traditional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The truth is that it is just an outdated opinion that has been completely invalidated through scientific research.

---

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

:laugh4:

This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

:laugh4:

This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

---

This is inane.

orgahs: Juices can be healthy and substitute for water in human diet.
beirut: Never in my life have I seen people claim that people aren't best served by drinking water! :laugh4: everyone knows you have to drink water to live, how silly! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

This is inane.

orgahs: Juices can be healthy and substitute for water in human diet.
beirut: Never in my life have I seen people claim that people aren't best served by drinking water! :laugh4: everyone knows you have to drink water to live, how silly! :laugh4:

---

Thank you so much Sasaki. He can't handle thinking his views on what is best for a child could be flawed because dare I say it? Nah. Needless to say, what else does he have to get around this? Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.

Lads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

:laugh4:

This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

---

Nobody said homo's are better suited for parenthood than hetero's ~:confused:

People merely said that there's no difference and that sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to being fit for parenthood.

You've been obtuse for this entire thread now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Nobody said homo's are better suited for parenthood than hetero's ~:confused:

People merely said that there's no difference and that sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to being fit for parenthood.

You've been obtuse for this entire thread now.

---

Of course there is a difference otherwise we wouldn't call it gay parenting but just parenting, you are kinda giving away that you know that when you do. Not that it's bad, but there is a difference. I agree with my favorite Scottish relinut, it's a farce. It's all ok, but don't expect me to play along and see it for full. Studies mean zip by the way, maybe results count when comparing it again over 30 years, at the moment they have something to prove so they will try harder to be excellent parents. Means nada

edit: also agree with Beirut, get these 'scientific' reports out of my face, it's plane common sense.

One would think that, after reading this thread, it's clear enough that your "common sense" doesn't seem to be so common at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

One would think that, after reading this thread, it's clear enough that your "common sense" doesn't seem to be so common at all.

---

Yeah yeah but I don't. People on the org almost exclusively of higher education and often (but not always) very open to other's people take on things. It's simply common sense because a child raised by gays is a curiosity. And for some gays a statement. I always go for my intuition first and intuition says that this is more about gay equality than it's about gay parenting, a kid as a crown-jewel of gay activism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I always go for my intuition first and intuition says that this is more about gay equality than it's about gay parenting, a kid as a crown-jewel of gay activism.

---

Brilliant!

(Insert thunderous applause here.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

---

I understand now that the problem is one of comprehension and not belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Thank you so much Sasaki. He can't handle thinking his views on what is best for a child could be flawed because dare I say it? Nah.

---

If you can say it, I can take it. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Needless to say, what else does he have to get around this?

---

I'm a parent and I care more about kids than about adult ideologies that seek to profit through kids. That's what I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.

---

Dorothy. Dorothy. Dorothy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Brilliant!

(Insert thunderous applause here.)

---

Allow me to indulge I don't get many of them :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

:laugh4:

---

Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.


Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:



1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Scientific research shows that a mother and father are not best for a child?

:laugh4:

This is hands down the silliest, most deranged debate I'ver ever been in. I've debated guys who thought ten-year olds should carry knives to school for protection and others who thought God was made out of spaghetti and meatballs, but never have I come across a group of people saying a human child is not best served by having a mother and father.

What's next; have Fido nurse the baby because more teats means more love?

---

You are aware that one of the big fundamental things in science is that it can prove common sense wrong? Otherwise it would always be about how large the expected outcome would be.

Continents moving? Hah, that would be as silly as we're constantly moving more than 100.000 km/h. Or that electrons can create wave interference with itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.


Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:



1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father

---

You really don't get it, you can fool yourselves all you want but you can't fool nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You really don't get it, you can fool yourselves all you want but you can't fool nature.

---

Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlT...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&feature=related

---

It's not about homosexuality it's about gay parenting. They know that it will be seen and treated differently. Yet insisting, for what and most importantly who. I think they care more about being accepted as parents rather than actually being it. And of course people that devoted will be excellent parents, whole world is watching after all. But who's in the middle of it. So to prefering heterosexual, YES absolutely. If you want a different world fix it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I think they care more about being accepted as parents rather than actually being it. And of course people that devoted will be excellent parents, whole world is watching after all. But who's in the middle of it.

---

Is it really plausible that all, or even the majority, of the millions of gay parents around the world are so activist in nature that they would make such a life-altering decision purely to make a political point? The vast majority of gay parents neither receives nor seeks publicity.

Also, even if we take your position as true, what is the difference? Many straight people have children for selfish motivations. You seem willing to accept that they can make excellent parents. Is this about what is best for the kids or making a broader point about conventional relationships? ~;)

Not at all, I just don't like it when people try to engineer society, and when it's the very purpose I detest it. There simply is no need, just leave people be, take a respectable distance when needed instead of hammering people to comformation. I'm not against gay parenting I'm against people who absolutely adore it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Let me sum up your position as '1 - A mother and father are best, and 2 - the interest of the child should be the overriding, if not sole, consideration'.


Let present you with a few choices, for the sake of curiousity:



1) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Should the baby now:
a) stay with single parent Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


2) Louis and his wife have a baby. The wife dies. Louis now accepts he's always been gay and marries Andres. Should the baby now:
a) stay with dad and dad Andres and Louis
b) be taken away to be raised by a mother and father


3) Louis is gay. Proletariat is lesbian. We want children, so we decide to get marry and have a baby together. Should the baby now:
a) stay with its gay and lesbian mother and father Louis and Prole
b) be taken away to be raised by a heterosexual mother and father

---

A woman who has a baby, unless proven unfit as a mother - and being a lesbian does not mean she is unfit - is entitled to raise that child.

A gay man who fathers a baby, unless proven unfit as a father - and being gay does not mean he is unfit - is entitled to raise that child.

If gay man and a straight woman, or a straight man and a gay woman, or a heterosexual couple, have a child and decide to divorce, the courts must decide how the child will be raised on a case by case basis.

Is the state has authority over a child up for adoption, priority must go to seeing that the child is placed in a home where the child has both a mother and a father.

People have rights to have children and to keep children, but not to get children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Homosexuality is natural. What is unnatural, is the repression of homosexuality in some local and modern human societies. This repression goes against both human and other mammalian nature:

---

So we should change the nature of the family and human culture because a couple of male koalas got high smoking eucaliptis leaves and went a'bonking?

:laugh4:

I like you - you're funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not at all, I just don't like it when people try to engineer society, and when it's the very purpose I detest it. There simply is no need, just leave people be, take a respectable distance when needed instead of hammering people to comformation. I'm not against gay parenting I'm against people who absolutely adore it

---

I understand what you're saying. Nobody likes to be browbeaten into thought-conformity. The only reason poor Beirut is having such a difficult go of things is because this is a discussion forum where we do get to force our opinions on each other. In this environment, you actually have to back up what you say or risk having your opinion disregarded. Particularly frustrating is the fact that he seems completely unwilling (unable) to present supporting research on the subject, yet acts as if everyone else is ridiculous. 'I am right because I am' followed by some snarky comment about how demented it is that the conversation is even happening is not a defensible position.

However, I don't think the issue itself is a love it or hate it type of thing. That is making it subjective where it should be objective. I support it because a) science has validated that it is not a negative influence on the development of the child and b) it plays a critical social function in placing abandoned children in supportive homes. If the issue truly centers around the well being of the children, then there is little room for debate.

Screw science, none of these numbers mean anything. There is nothing to compare them with. Maybe with single or working moms in the fifties perhaps if you fiddle around a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Screw science, none of these numbers mean anything. There is nothing to compare them with. Maybe with single or working moms in the fifties perhaps if you fiddle around a bit.

---

Ok, screw science. Let's look strictly at outcome.

Gay parenting is not a particularly new phenomenon at this point. It has been openly practiced in America and Europe since the '70s. In 1990, it was estimated that there were between 6 and 14 million gay parents in the United States (US Census).

Where are the victims? You would expect at this point to have millions of dysfunctional young adults coming out of these homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I understand what you're saying. Nobody likes to be browbeaten into thought-conformity. The only reason poor Beirut is having such a difficult go of things is because this is a discussion forum where we do get to force our opinions on each other. In this environment, you actually have to back up what you say or risk having your opinion disregarded.

---

I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Particularly frustrating is the fact that he seems completely unwilling (unable) to present supporting research on the subject, yet acts as if everyone else is ridiculous. 'I am right because I am' followed by some snarky comment about how demented it is that the conversation is even happening is not a defensible position.

---

I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

However, I don't think the issue itself is a love it or hate it type of thing. That is making it subjective where it should be objective. I support it because a) science has validated that it is not a negative influence on the development of the child and b) it plays a critical social function in placing abandoned children in supportive homes. If the issue truly centers around the well being of the children, then there is little room for debate.

---

Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.

---

But you can't just throw out a study because you dont agree with it

I would love if choclate cake and big macs where the most conduicve foods for building muscle

But there not

So I listen to the science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

But you can't just throw out a study because you dont agree with it

I would love if choclate cake and big macs where the most conduicve foods for building muscle

But there not

So I listen to the science

---

What science, any statiian will tell you that probabity is a factor, but gay parenting is new, so screw that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What science, any statiian will tell you that probabity is a factor, but gay parenting is new, so screw that

---

You're right new things can't be scienced

Aplogies to the oranje tulip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.

---

My mother is a teacher and has a had a number of gay-parented children in her class. So as you say, real life. Economic status and educational level of the parents is the biggest factor. And the studies examine real life people too you know :book:

I think the real issue here for the anti-adoption is what rhyf was saying in another thread. They don't believe that two lesbians will raise a boy who is macho and believes his wife should be submissive. That, of course, is indeed common sense. Beirut, is it common sense too that children are better of with a stay at home mother? (and not a stay at home father?)

Im the machoest man on this board and I don't want a wife who is submissive

Men who want submissive wives instead of equal partners are insecure pricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Is the state has authority over a child up for adoption, priority must go to seeing that the child is placed in a home where the child has both a mother and a father.

---

Failing to find the post 1950 western nuclear family, which would you prefer:

a) The child goes goes to a single mother household
b) The child goes to a two mother household


Another choice:

a) The child goes goes to a single mother household, not a homo in sight
b) The child goes to an intergenerational household, consisting of a loving grandmother, 62, and a single widower, 36, gay


Another choice:

a) The child goes to a single mother, heterosexual, working two shifts
b) The child goes to an intergenerational household, consisting of a mother and father, heterosexual, and loving grandmother, 68, who's engaged in lesbian relationships in college in 1968

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

So we should change the nature of the family and human culture because a couple of male koalas got high smoking eucaliptis leaves and went a'bonking?

:laugh4:

I like you - you're funny.

---

Give in to your inner nature. We know all about you lumberjacks and your penchant for wearing ladies undies. :stare:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQOMxz-O7Sc&feature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Men who want submissive wives instead of equal partners are insecure pricks.

---

Pah! Where'd you read that nonsense? :no:

It's not true at all. I want a submissive wife and I'm not insecure at all. Just underendowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Pah! Where'd you read that nonsense? :no:

It's not true at all. I want a submissive wife and I'm not insecure at all. Just underendowed.

---

Well that shoe took a long time to drop. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm not poor. I'm not rich, but certainly not poor. :smiley:



I back up what I say with real life and parental experience. Real life - not feel-good Internet mumbo-jumbo and quasi-BS studies that could prove potato chips are the best material for a fusion reactor.



Damn straight, and the well being of a child is best served by the child having a mother and father, no matter what Dr. Pixiedust's report says.

---

One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant. :shrug:

---

I thought the other thread proved that. :tongue:

I miss the days where we argued Panzer. At least we had an interesting debate and proposed challenges to each other backed by empirical evident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I thought the other thread proved that. :tongue:

I miss the days where we argued Panzer. At least we had an interesting debate and proposed challenges to each other backed by empirical evident.

---

Start a thread about gun control. There are plenty of stats to back up both sides of that argument, I a guarantee we won't agree. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant. :shrug:

---

Well yeah, just accept the way of things. I don't need no science reports I know I'm right without them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well yeah, just accept the way of things. I don't need no science reports I know I'm right without them

---

This is called "Truthiness": is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

This is called "Truthiness": is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

---

Well yeah, that's just how I am, don't care about the social sciences. It's almost exclusively done by a certain type of person, and almost exclusively done on demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

This is called "Truthiness": is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

---

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... ". 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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... ". 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.

---

:sweetheart:

You are all pretending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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... ". 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.

---

What do you think the studies are based on? They aren't studying lab rats, they're studying real families and real outcomes.

Since you're all about anecdote, personal experience, and common sense, do you know any same-sex families? You 'back up' what you say with parental experience, but unless you're raising a child with another man I'm not sure how your experience has much of anything to do with this subject.

I'm starting to think this is just one big troll. No one intelligent enough to operate a computer could be this intentionally asinine. The implications of using 'common sense' as a standard of proof are endless.

Blacks are obviously inferior to whites. Women are obviously inferior to men. Jews are obviously behind some evil conspiracy to enslave us all. Any backwoods, hick truism can be supported.

I'm starting to understand the dangers of anti-intellectualism. Reason, debate, studies, and research have no influence on gut feelings, down-home aphorisms, and good old common sense.

:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Since you're all about anecdote, personal experience, and common sense, do you know any same-sex families? You 'back up' what you say with parental experience, but unless you're raising a child with another man I'm not sure how your experience has much of anything to do with this subject.

---

And yet you speak at length about the greatness of that tank in your avatar. Ever drive one? Ever drive any tank?

Ahhhhh... I see.

On the other hand, I have children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm starting to think this is just one big troll. No one intelligent enough to operate a computer could be this intentionally asinine. The implications of using 'common sense' as a standard of proof are endless.

---

Actually, I see common sense falling by the wayside at an alarming rate based on the "science study flavour of the weak".

(Pardon the pun.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Blacks are obviously inferior to whites. Women are obviously inferior to men. Jews are obviously behind some evil conspiracy to enslave us all. Any backwoods, hick truism can be supported.

---

Not really. Use some common sense, it will all come clear to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm starting to understand the dangers of anti-intellectualism. Reason, debate, studies, and research have no influence on gut feelings, down-home aphorisms, and good old common sense.

---

Yeah, yeah. Cry me a river about the dangers of anti-intellectualism.

What I have noticed about people who lean too far to the "intellectual" side is they often end up as really loud blowhards who drone on endlessly in coffee shops until you want to beat them to death with their own hardcover copy of The Republic.

Sometimes the best intellectualism comes from a farmer with a 500 word vocabulary who has never heard of Wittgenstein or Machiavelli but knows all about real life, raising a family, and putting in a hard day's work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

:shame:

---

Don't be ashamed. We forgive you. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

And yet you speak at length about the greatness of that tank in your avatar. Ever drive one? Ever drive any tank?

Ahhhhh... I see.

---

I have not. What I have done is read detailed analyses of the vehicle and its specifications, including technical examinations of the suspension, armor, gunnery, etc., comparisons to other vehicles, operator testimonials, and after-action reports that all support (and indeed formed) my opinion.

You see, all the evidence points to it being a fine design, and I can back that claim up with innumerable published sources from experts in the field of Second World War AFVs.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I have children.

---

Your ability to insert your penis into your wife's vagina and pop some kids out does not make you an authority on the psychological and sociological implications of same-sex parenting.

Quote:

---

Actually, I see common sense falling by the wayside at an alarming rate based on the "science study flavour of the weak".

---

We are not discussing a study. We are discussing a consensus built on multiple studies and years of peer-reviewed research.

Quote:

---

Not really. Use some common sense, it will all come clear to you.

---

Racism, sexism, and anti-semitism are all intuitive, common sense beliefs in many parts of the world. Are you denying the validity of that common sense?

Quote:

---

Yeah, yeah. Cry me a river about the dangers of anti-intellectualism.

What I have noticed about people who lean too far to the "intellectual" side is they often end up as really loud blowhards who drone on endlessly in coffee shops until you want to beat them to death with their own hardcover copy of The Republic.

---

Such caricatures often reflect the insecurities of the one making them.

Quote:

---

Sometimes the best intellectualism comes from a farmer with a 500 word vocabulary who has never heard of Wittgenstein or Machiavelli but knows all about real life, raising a family, and putting in a hard day's work.

---

And sometimes, just sometimes, it doesn't.

If one of your children, God forbid, was diagnosed with a brain tumor, who would you prefer to take him or her to for treatment - a farmer with a 500 word vocabularly or a brain surgeon specializing in tumors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I have not. What I have done is read detailed analyses of the vehicle and its specifications, including technical examinations of the suspension, armor, gunnery, etc., comparisons to other vehicles, operator testimonials, and after-action reports that all support (and indeed formed) my opinion.

You see, all the evidence points to it being a fine design, and I can back that claim up with innumerable published sources from experts in the field of Second World War AFVs.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Your ability to insert your penis into your wife's vagina and pop some kids out does not make you an authority on the psychological and sociological implications of same-sex parenting.

---

You better be at least 18 if you're going to talk like that, lad.

:book: vagina: part of a woman's body that... ... ... OH MY GOD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

We are not discussing a study. We are discussing a consensus built on multiple studies and years of peer-reviewed research.

---

Yeah... I don't buy it. You can find studies that say chocolate ice cream makes a healthy breakfast, but I still know better. Common sense is common sense and common sense says mom and dad is better for a kid than dad and dad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Racism, sexism, and anti-semitism are all intuitive, common sense beliefs in many parts of the world. Are you denying the validity of that common sense?

---

Racism isn't intuitive. It is learned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Such caricatures often reflect the insecurities of the one making them.

---

Insecurities about what? Having to go to work and earn a living to pay for my kids' food instead of sitting in the coffee shop bantering about the ring of Gyges with the waitress?

Yeah, I feel terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And sometimes, just sometimes, it doesn't.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If one of your children, God forbid, was diagnosed with a brain tumor, who would you prefer to take him or her to for treatment - a farmer with a 500 word vocabularly or a brain surgeon specializing in tumors?

---

For cancer you need a doctor. A proper doctor. For kids you need parents. And proper parents for a kid means a mother and a father.

Quote:

---

Common sense is common sense and common sense says mom and dad is better for a kid than dad and dad.

---

And my common sense indicates that parental outcomes are a function of parental inputs such as time, energy, and focus, not crass peripheral categorizations like gender.

That's the thing about common sense. It's not so common after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Racism isn't intuitive. It is learned.

---

Every belief is learned. Some learned beliefs stand up to logical scrutiny more than others.

Since science is inferior to anecdote in your world, I'll present my friend Anna as a counterpoint. She was abandoned by her biological parents in China because it is intuitive in many parts of that country that girls are virtually worthless. She was adopted by her real family, her two fathers, as an infant and never had a mother in her life. She's now been married to her husband for three years and is working on her masters in chemical engineering. She is also one of the most normal, well-adjusted people I know.

She might disagree with you on the intuitive nature of the innate superiority of a father and mother over a same sex couple.

Quote:

---

Insecurities about what?

---

That scientific research may render your worldview outdated.

Quote:

---

For cancer you need a doctor. A proper doctor. For kids you need parents. And proper parents for a kid means a mother and a father.

---

So you are, at least on some level, willing to accept that an expert may know more about a subject than a non-expert, and that in some situations expert knowledge may be superior to intuition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And my common sense indicates that parental outcomes are a function of parental inputs such as time, energy, and focus, not crass peripheral categorizations like gender.

---

"Crass peripheral categorizations like gender"? Um... you ever kissed a girl?

But let us all go tell our mothers that their input into our upbringing was nothing that could not be replaced by your garden variety homosexual man. And let us tell our fathers that any lesbian of the day could supplant him in his role as "dad".

Oh my...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

That's the thing about common sense. It's not so common after all.

---

Well, you take your science study of the week and I'll stick with my common sense about mom and dad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Every belief is learned. Some learned beliefs stand up to logical scrutiny more than others.

---

Like the learned belief that kids should have moms and dads. :sunny:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Since science is inferior to anecdote in your world, I'll present my friend Anna as a counterpoint.

---

Hi Anna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

She was abandoned by her biological parents in China because it is intuitive in many parts of that country that girls are virtually worthless. She was adopted by her real family, her two fathers, as an infant and never had a mother in her life. She's now been married to her husband for three years and is working on her masters in chemical engineering. She is also one of the most normal, well-adjusted people I know.

---

Good for her. I'm happy she's happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

She might disagree with you on the intuitive nature of the innate superiority of a father and mother over a same sex couple.

---

Indeed she might.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

That scientific research may render your worldview outdated.

---

Um... no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

So you are, at least on some level, willing to accept that an expert may know more about a subject than a non-expert, and that in some situations expert knowledge may be superior to intuition?

---

Obviously, but not in this case.

Why not have all the babies be test tube babies born in vats, IV fed, and "educated" by electrodes for the first three-years of their life? I'll bet you dollars to donuts there's a study out there that says those kids would be just fine. Hell, they might even be better that the "normal" kids. While they are in their vat-cribs, they could be given special drugs to influence their IQ and mood and physique. We could have 100% happy, smart, healthy kids, who all live to be 110. Wouldn't that be great!

No. It wouldn't. It's - not - normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

But let us all go tell our mothers that their input into our upbringing was nothing that could not be replaced by your garden variety homosexual man. And let us tell our fathers that any lesbian of the day could supplant him in his role as "dad".

---

Surely you can make your point without a disingenuous appeal to emotion. No, a garden variety homosexual man could never replace the input I've had from my mother. Neither could a garden variety heterosexual woman. And a different heterosexual man could no more replace my father than a lesbian woman could. My parents have both had a profoundly individual influence upon me, that is the result of the sum total of who they are, not just their genders and sexual orientations.

Go tell a child raised by a gay couple that the input into their lives that one of their fathers had was nothing that could not be replaced by your garden variety heterosexual woman. I don't buy it.

Ajax

I am going to go along with Beirut here and give him the benefit of the doubt. Right now I am planning on knocking up my girlfriend so I can acquire all the common sense about kids that he obviously gained by shooting his man load into his woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Surely you can make your point without a disingenuous appeal to emotion.

---

Not always, no.

This thread deserves a fitting memegenerator.com pic but I can't find one :(

https://i.imgur.com/k9h4f.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am going to go along with Beirut here and give him the benefit of the doubt. Right now I am planning on knocking up my girlfriend so I can acquire all the common sense about kids that he obviously gained by shooting his man load into his woman.

---

That's a charming way to reference another man's wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

That's a charming way to reference another man's wife.

---

EDIT: Nah, forget it. I'm not joining this thread just to sling insults.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2h38sbm.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...aeger/beck.jpg

Gotta admit, this is the strangest group of people I have ever come across. I have never seen people not only against the idea that a mother and father is best for a child, but hostile to it.

Another fall of man, as King Henry would say. :no:

Quote:

---

Insecurities about what? Having to go to work and earn a living to pay for my kids' food instead of sitting in the coffee shop bantering about the ring of Gyges with the waitress?

Yeah, I feel terrible.

---

Why do we have to devolve into this?

Not everyone who is against you is some ivory tower libreal, My family is just as blue collar as yours

I'm simply not being stubborn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why do we have to devolve into this?

Not everyone who is against you is some ivory tower libreal, My family is just as blue collar as yours

I'm simply not being stubborn

---

I am being stubborn. Kids need a mother and a father. If there is anything worth being stubborn about, I think this is a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I am being stubborn. Kids need a mother and a father. If there is anything worth being stubborn about, I think this is a good one.

---

Kids' need for loving parents trumps their 'need' for one and only one of those parents to have a penis.

Ajax