Gay Parenting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

So who is ordering the researchers to alter their studies?

---

Ask Dr. Wakefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Ask Dr. Wakefield.

---

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

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...

Quote:

---

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

You couldn't mischaracterize my statement more you tried.

---

Then I should try next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

---

No, I'm sure some are just misguided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

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).

Quote:

---

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/langu...es/005496.html

gives a nice summary:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

better communicators/language skills...

---

Quote:

---

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)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyf

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

---

Quote:

---

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 –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:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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/langu...es/003607.html

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

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/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/ar...ays-study.html

Instead of things like I posted and:

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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

---

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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"?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

The particulars change but the basic principles remain the same.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamff

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

---

O RLY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

O RLY?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Three ad hominems and not an answer to be found.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

My mistake. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Everything a woman is.

---

And what does that everything consist of - specifically?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

... 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

---

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Amazing!

---

Thank you. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

---

Give it time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Thank you for your advice.

---

My pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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*

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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

Ridiculous show, very heartening results...

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

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"

Quote:

---

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"

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

whoa whoa Texas does not equal the south

The south is filled with ignorant crackers

Texans are the most noble of noble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Southern hospitality is unmatched by any other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwr

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!

: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

: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:

---

What is wrong with telling someone to do their job?

Or if you made a joke, if so, what was the point of it?

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

Face it, Texans are better than you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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?