Gay Parenting

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

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

[Beirut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

But there not

So I listen to the science

[Fragony]

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

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

But there not

So I listen to the science

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

[Strike For The South]

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

You're right new things can't be scienced

Aplogies to the oranje tulip

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Pah! Where'd you read that nonsense?

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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



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



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

One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant.

[Beskar]

One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant.

I thought the other thread proved that.

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

[PanzerJaeger]

I thought the other thread proved that.

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

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

[Fragony]

One cannot reason with the willfully ignorant.

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

[Samurai Waki]

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

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