If they can't make it work they can't make it work... don't see why this matters.

4/3/2013 6:41:10 PM

irrefutable logic

4/3/2013 8:37:52 PM

Quote :

"This is one of the reasons why I can't believe people don't overwhelmingly vote for democrats"

Democrats have their own status-quo problems/issues and IMO are just as bad, if not worse, than the republicans. The problem is with both parties. Both need to be reformed and people need to get out of the mindset of aligning themselves with one party or the other as their only options (ie: picking the lesser of the two evils)...

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 1:47 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 1:46:42 AM

Warning: words.

It seems like everyone in this thread fundamentally refuses to respect history or even the most basic parts of reality.

Let's start at the beginning: Heterosexual sex makes babies. Babies need parents. Society needs for babies to have parents. The best parents are the biological dad and the biological mom who are united for life. How children are raised matters, because babies eventually turn into adults.

Single parenthood, unmarried parenthood, and divorce are bad for society. If those things fall, a lot of other bad things go out with them. The nuclear family is the fundamental building block of society. It is society. If the family suffers, society suffers.

Because of its irreplaceable role, marriage as an institution (the union of a man and a woman for life) must be supported, encouraged, prized, praised, and incentivized by both social convention and the law. You start chipping away at that, and you're striking at the foundation of stable society.

Put another way - there are reasons that real marriage has been dominant in almost all of the world's history. Marriage deserves its unique place regardless of any mewling about unfair treatment. Well, the treatment is unequal because the things in question are not equal.

Such privileged treatment must, however, be combined with a serious social and legal responsibility to uphold the institution that grants you such benefits. To finally get to the topic of the thread, I'm not a fan of this law. In the area of divorce, we would do much better simply to repeal no-fault divorce.

There were days when marriage was held in honor, in which a bickering wife and husband who had 'irreconcilable differences' could mutually seek divorce from a judge. And that judge would then deny the request for divorce. "Sorry - you're still married. Make it work." The exceptions were specific, serious, and rare.

Having children out of wedlock (or breaking a marriage) isn't just a wrong against the other person and the children. It's doing wrong to your neighbor as well. My life is actually affected by the stability of the homes around me. To break your home is to crack a social dam, so to speak. And I'm on the bad end of that dam with you.

At our ceremony, we didn't say "...until death parts us" flippantly. Divorce simply isn't on the table. Bad things happen in life, and we may end up living under a bridge together. But we'll be living under a bridge together. That permanent union adds a utility to society that no other institution can touch, and it has to be protected and privileged. And it needs to be protected from both angles - against those who would undermine its worth by lowering the responsibilities it requires, and also those who would take away the benefits or status it deserves.

A related aside: All of you guys who want to just treat marriage the same as any other contract need to make sure you are honest in your vows. I've seen weddings (which ended in frivolous divorce) that made public, solemn vows that did not include any conditions before saying 'until death do us part.' If you want any conditions on that, then you should have the stones to say "until death, or grumpiness, or finances, or health, or a job opportunity parts us." Or openly refer to a separate contract in your vows, saying you'll meet the written requirements, but can't guarantee commitment otherwise. If you don't, and you divorce, I have every right to say you invited hundreds of your family and friends to get dressed up and witness the grandest lie you've ever told, and the greatest promise you've ever broken.

And that's the way it is.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:36 AM. Reason : s]

4/4/2013 2:32:21 AM

^What's worse than divorce, unmarried parenthood, and even single parenthood is parenthood by two people who stayed in their shitty marriage "for the sake of the children"; I'd know: I've been there, and I'm glad it was only 4 or so years instead of right up to adulthood.

Also, even if it is true in general that the "best parents are the biological dad and the biological mom who are united for life" (not certain, like I thought I read somewhere that "two mommies" are better than "mommy and daddy"), attempting to impose such a parenting scheme on every applicable child is like finding that daily consumption of milk is ideal for bone growth and therefore forcing it on all children, telling those with lactose intolerance and milk allergies to "deal with it" and brushing off criticism of its disproportionate impact on Asian and Native American children as "mewling about unfair treatment."

A free society cannot be designed with only the interests of the powerful and fortunate in mind; your atavistic conservative rank sounds quite frankly un-American.

Anyway, bigots like you are why, in the words of Supplanter, "I think it might take this generations grand kids coming to power before" equal protection actually is given under the law.

4/4/2013 3:11:15 AM

Quote :

"^What's worse than divorce, unmarried parenthood, and even single parenthood is parenthood by two people who stayed in their shitty marriage "for the sake of the children"; I'd know: I've been there, and I'm glad it was only 4 or so years instead of right up to adulthood."

I would question whether that is actually worse than the other options, but I know that in some cases it might be. Either way, it's a position that I'm not defending.

Staying together 'for the sake of the kids' isn't what I have in mind, because that implies that their obligation ends when kids hit 18. They're both itching to get out of it, and know perfectly well that they can, but they just have to hold on until a certain point. And then they will be able to stick it to their spouse as hard as they want. Of course that's poison to family life. Most parents who are 'staying together for the kids' don't make it anywhere near the kid's graduation anyway. They've just made the road to early divorce even worse by trying to cover things up. They only ever intend to cover things up, because they both know their relationship is going to be measured in years or months, not in generations, and that lawyers and not a headstone will end it. That changes behavior.

Quote :

"A free society cannot be designed with only the interests of the powerful and fortunate in mind; your atavistic conservative rank sounds quite frankly un-American."

I find this quite strange. The interests of the powerful and fortunate? The powerful and fortunate can afford divorce, child support, and alimony, and still live. The poor can't. Divorce is financial carnage for the bottom (and middle) rungs of the world. It not only eats money during and after its existence, but just its possibility affects work and savings.

I own a business, and I feel free to sacrifice, produce, and save partially because I know that my marriage isn't going anywhere. I know that it's worth making a 10 or 20 or 50 year life plan. I was willing to go through hard times in the past, because I know that the harvest from it will belong to my (intact) family. The possibility of divorce would affect all of that, because I'd have to engage in some form of self-protection, which would necessarily bring complication and inefficiency. I might not even start a venture in the first place (whether education or business or anything else), if I knew that between Uncle Sam and the ex-wife, it wouldn't be mine anyway. I'd be hesitant to have gotten married at all, given the devastation that awaits a man in divorce and child custody courts.

I can name a dozen guys off the top off my head who have told me similar things, either going into a divorce, or who have lost all motivation to succeed after one. Society has been robbed of their productivity, and given their situations, the men are perfectly rational in withholding their efforts.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 4:09 AM. Reason : a]

4/4/2013 4:08:38 AM

Quote :

"I would question whether that is actually worse than the other options"

Let's just say that if my parents weren't able to end their marriage by legal means, they would have done so extra-legally, and my sisters and I would have become wards of the state (or in your ideal world, orphans or street urchins).

On the side of more amicable marriages that just weren't working out, in the bad old days before no-fault divorce the ploys to meet one of those "specific, serious, and rare" exceptions were many and varied; it was a long time before state legislatures decided to stop the insanity and recognize that just because a judge may say "make it work" doesn't mean a married couple can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#Methods_for_bypassing_the_showing-of-fault_requirements_for_divorce

Quote :

"Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the "innocent" spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed "cruel.""

-Stanley Mosk, former California Associate Justice

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 7:29 AM. Reason : also thx for the MRA-style misogyny

4/4/2013 7:28:37 AM

Quote :

" To finally get to the topic of the thread, I'm not a fan of this law. "

So what was the point of all that? To tell us marriage is a big deal? Thanks.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 7:36 AM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 7:35:46 AM

Quote :

"Staying together 'for the sake of the kids' isn't what I have in mind, because that implies that their obligation ends when kids hit 18. They're both itching to get out of it, and know perfectly well that they can, but they just have to hold on until a certain point. And then they will be able to stick it to their spouse as hard as they want. Of course that's poison to family life. Most parents who are 'staying together for the kids' don't make it anywhere near the kid's graduation anyway. They've just made the road to early divorce even worse by trying to cover things up. They only ever intend to cover things up, because they both know their relationship is going to be measured in years or months, not in generations, and that lawyers and not a headstone will end it. That changes behavior."

What's the difference between "staying together for the kids" and "staying together for the sake of marriage vows"? Because you seemed to imply that the latter is admirable, while the former is not. In both situations, everyone involved is suffering.

4/4/2013 8:23:25 AM

Quote :

"The best parents are the biological dad and the biological mom who are united for life."

except that nothing supports that, the studies show support for any two parents

you also made up the part about biological parents being the best and them needing to be a man and woman

4/4/2013 8:39:16 AM

Quote :

""The best parents are the biological dad and the biological mom who are united for life.""

That's fucking bullshit!! I'm not my son's biological father but I'm 10 times the dad his biological father could ever be.

4/4/2013 8:50:08 AM

it's because he just pulled it out of his ass and made it up, its his opinion that he stated as fact

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 9:03 AM. Reason : and its an opinion only an incredibly sheltered and naive person could have]

4/4/2013 9:02:41 AM

^,^^
Did you guys miss this part?

Quote :

"And that's the way it is."

no argument necessary

it's strangely infuriating to see a well-written person with such antiquated views

4/4/2013 9:25:18 AM

i suppose we have ventured off topic at this point, but i don't think biological parents are the issue per se. there are plenty of nurturing stepparents and other situations where someone has stepped in to fill the role of a parent that has been nothing but positive for a child.

i do, however, believe that it stands to reason that a child does better with a direct male and famale parental figure. men and women are inherently different, and it's complementary to have one of each.

are there same-sex parents out there that do an amazing job and raise amazing kids? of course. is a child better off in an orphanage than with same-sex parents? absolutely not. but, all things being equal, a male and a female is preferable to two of the same.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 11:57:52 AM

your beliefs aren't supported though

4/4/2013 12:08:30 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference between "staying together for the kids" and "staying together for the sake of marriage vows"? Because you seemed to imply that the latter is admirable, while the former is not. In both situations, everyone involved is suffering."

It's not about what is admirable and what is not - if 'staying together for the children' actually meant mutually striving to have a harmonious home (it almost never does), then perhaps that would be admirable.

Even paying insincere tribute to such an idea has at least some merit to it, because they are recognizing that kids are better off with parents who love each other (despite not doing the hard and humbling things to make that happen).

I'm saying the entire relationship dynamic is changed by whether there is an easy exit. When divorce is among the list of viable options for the couple, their marriage is just one step above simple cohabitation in terms of commitment. It's cohabitation with a piece of paper saying a breakup will cost more. Their stuff is de facto seen as his and hers, not theirs. The kids are chips in the game they play, and neither spouse knows when the partner will unilaterally dissolve the arrangement. That fundamentally alters the landscape. In general, it changes their priorities, their investment in the relationship, how they resolve conflict, etc.

In short, with no-fault divorce, all the sociological problems of cohabitation predictably show up in marriages. That means lower relationship satisfaction, an increased likelihood of separation, lower standards for a spouse going into marriage than they would have otherwise, etc.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 12:10 PM. Reason : a]

4/4/2013 12:09:48 PM

Hard to support when there isn't enough data on same sex couples with kids to even make the comparison.

I'd be happy if these stupid fucks who keep having kids would just be involved with their children and raise them. I don't really give a shit what gender the couple consists of as long as they do things like pay attention to how the kid is doing in school, knows the name of the kids friends, etc.

4/4/2013 12:11:01 PM

^^^i'm interested in seeing some data

not because i don't believe you, but because i want to know what variables these studies use to draw conclusions. crime rates? future divorce rates?

i conceded that same-sex couples can do fine in the big picture, but i don't know how studies can make strong conclusions on more nuanced social and emotional matters.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 12:13:58 PM

Quote :

"I'd be happy if these stupid fucks who keep having kids would just be involved with their children and raise them. I don't really give a shit what gender the couple consists of as long as they do things like pay attention to how the kid is doing in school, knows the name of the kids friends, etc."

You want the benefits of stable marriages without all the prerequisites. Marriage used to mean the joining of families and lives in a way that usually forced people to become less selfish. There is then a larger, greater institution of which they are only one part. An individual's happiness depended greatly on the well-being of the institution as a whole, so they would prioritize it and make sacrifices for it.

Now that marriage, sex, child-rearing, etc. have become become buffet choices to take at the whims of personal preference and fulfillment, it's really hard to complain when people don't live up to their responsibilities. You tell them their life is all about themselves, and then get upset when they live like it.

4/4/2013 12:21:46 PM

Who's this "you" you keep referring to?

4/4/2013 12:26:28 PM

yeah but . . . . . . isn't selfishness a virtue?

4/4/2013 12:27:08 PM

^^ Pretty much everyone in this thread.

4/4/2013 12:27:43 PM

Quote :

"^^^i'm interested in seeing some data"

i'd be interested to see yours. most of the data heralded by "tradtional family" people is actually just about two parents, not two biological parents or two parents of the opposite sex. I'm happy to post the exact studies when I'm free, but I suspect you are going to make the same mistake that Focus on the Family did when they testified to congress so my response is just going to end up looking like Al Franken's or patrick Leahy's.
http://youtu.be/ZyAueltLsa4
summary: Focus on the Family cites a study showing all these benefits for two, opposite-sex, parent families. Focus on the Family replies that it thought nuclear familes referred to opposite-sex parents. Franken reads the definition of nuclear family that the study used, it covers any stable married two-parent household. Franken wins.

http://youtu.be/jccfXzt6Nas
summary: Leahy points out that children would be better off if same-sex couples had the same economic benefits and Focus on the Family acknowledges that same-sex two parent families are better than no families

Are those the type of thing you are thinking of? I want to make sure I'm responding to your assumptions correctly

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 12:47 PM. Reason : let's get assumptions laid out, i'm not participating in an aaronburro shifting goalpost discussion ]

4/4/2013 12:47:00 PM

my question is not, "can a same-sex couple make good parents?", because i believe the answer is undoubtedly "yes". rather, my question is, "which arrangement is better overall?" believing that a child raised by opposite-sex parents is living in a better arrangement does not preclude you from supporting same-sex rights.

my concerns lie in very small details that over the course of raising a child can add up to be significant in totality. what studies can show that a girl being raised by two fathers would be equally comfortable and equally informed in discussing her first period with them, as opposed to with her mother? or, conversely, a boy having two mothers wishing he could discuss his girl troubles with an understanding male figure? i love my mother. but there are certain things i just wanted to discuss with my father.

granted, in these examples, you could fall back on a trusted family friend or another relative. but in my discussions on this subject, i always assume all things being equal. a traditional family unit would not need that to fall back on.

every single family is unique, same-sex or otherwise. and while i'm perfectly convinced that a gay couple won't raise a hardened criminal or foster social ineptitude by default, i am troubled by small details that i doubt a broad study can adequately analyze. therefore, both sides of the argument are required to make some sort of assumption.

4/4/2013 1:33:20 PM

There's really only one assumption that's necessary: Gay couples don't steal babies from straight ones. If you have a problem with non-two-biological-straight-parent households, then get to work advocating the banning single parents, foster parents, and step parents. Otherwise I'm left to assume you feel uncomfortable with gays on some gut level you can't rationalize so you're just grasping at straws. Gay couples get children that wont have a two straight biological parent household anyway. So unless you think orphanages and foster homes are better than a married, committed gay couple, then I really don't see why it's worth arguing about.


tldr: The whining about "traditional biological opposite sex parents is best" is a total red herring and not based on science anyway.


[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:17:02 PM

i'm not sure how many consecutive posts i need to speak out in favor of gay rights to convince you that i'm actually in favor of the matter. But, i understand that antagonizing is one of your favorite things to do, so go right ahead.

i'm sure you'll agree with me that a baby born to millionaires has it better in life than a baby born to a lower-class family. does that mean we believe the poor should be forbidden children? of course not. you can concede that one living arrangement is overall superior to the other without wanting to do away with either.

the only person grasping at straws is you: you're so rabidly liberal that to even suggest a child has it better with opposite sex parents is bigotry. men and women are indeed different, go through different and natural rites of passage, and have different ways of relating to the world. all things being equal, you will never convince me that the sum of two different experiences to rely on when raising a child is not superior to two of the same.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:24:26 PM

Do you have any scientific evidence at all to support that belief?

And yes, it's pretty funny to see the last bastion of insecurity for folks uncomfortable with gays, "Look, they can get married...they can raise kids...whatever...but I'll still believe they're inferior in SOME way and you can't stop me no matter how much I refuse to back it up with anything except vague hypotheticals that rely on prejudice and not data to fill in the blanks."

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:32:45 PM

the way i laid it out seems like common sense.

if a girl has two fathers, there's nothing vague and hypothetical about not having a direct mother figure to discuss things only a female would go through with.

you're not debating politics, you're debating facts of life.

but yeah, nothing gets past you. you sure caught me hating them gays again.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:42:40 PM

Quote :

"i'm sure you'll agree with me that a baby born to millionaires has it better in life than a baby born to a lower-class family."

not at all

believe it or not, it is possible for millionaires to be pieces of shit who abuse their children

4/4/2013 2:47:49 PM

if we are talking solely about the issue of same-sex vs opposite-sex parents, you must assume all other things are equal. if that wasn't the case, i would just counter your point by saying "there are plenty of lower-class parents that beat their children, too."

granted, that example was not in the context of same-sex marriage directly, but the same logic still applies.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:49:47 PM

Quote :

"if a girl has two fathers, there's nothing vague and hypothetical about not having a direct mother figure to discuss things only a female would go through with."

This part confuses me. What are some examples of things that "only a female would go through" that I cannot discuss/impart wisdom about with my daughter?

Are fathers incapable of instructing on menstruation, tampons, pads, birth-control, dating, etc, or is it just that my instruction would be demonstrably worse than any given woman?

I'm not buying it. It makes more sense to me that the amount of time a parent spends working on parenting would have a much greater impact than whether they have a penis or a vagina.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:56:41 PM

If all other things are equal, does that include a parent's ability to relate to their child? If that's the case, then who they fuck and their sexual organs have no impact on any of the points you raised.

4/4/2013 2:56:50 PM

^^when the time comes, who will be discussing those issues with your daughter? you, or your wife? why?

Quote :

" It makes more sense to me that the amount of time a parent spends working on parenting would have a much greater impact"

irrelevant. this is a variable, so we have to assume them to be equal.

^my point is that gender has a direct impact on your ability to relate to other people, so it isn't a variable.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 2:59:29 PM

Are you arguing that, all things equal (i.e., any parents involved are perfectly moral, loving, and able to provide):

Mother + Father > Mother + Mother or Father + Father > Single Mother/Father

If so, I think I understand your argument. Two parents are better than one parent, all things being equal. I imagine that there are times when two men are going to be less able to understand what a female child is going through. That's not to say they couldn't be good parents, only that they'd have a different set of challenges.

4/4/2013 2:59:32 PM

Quote :

"^^when the time comes, who will be discussing those issues with your daughter? you, or your wife? why?"

Without getting too personal there are reasons why my wife would not want to discuss such things with our daughter and the responsibility will definitely fall on me or at the least both of us.

I don't expect my wife to do all the "woman" stuff by virtue of having a vagina. jesus I sound like a feminist.

4/4/2013 3:03:36 PM

^^essentially, yes.

^i wouldn't expect you to get too personal, but perhaps you can see where i'm coming from. someone who has actually been through her period and performed the routine countless times would certainly have an easier time explaining, and more importantly, relating to it. but, this is the last time i'm referring to that particular example, i'm conservative and uncomfortable talking about it

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 3:07:33 PM

Quote :

""which arrangement is better overall?" believing that a child raised by opposite-sex parents is living in a better arrangement does not preclude you from supporting same-sex rights."

i don't think i ever accused you of anything like that

i said that you haven't supported your opinion with facts, and the studies I've seen show no advantage of opposite-sex parents

(and one actually shows a slight advantage for having two mothers)

4/4/2013 3:17:34 PM

Quote :

"^i wouldn't expect you to get too personal, but perhaps you can see where i'm coming from. someone who has actually been through her period and performed the routine countless times would certainly have an easier time explaining, and more importantly, relating to it. but, this is the last time i'm referring to that particular example, i'm conservative and uncomfortable talking about it "

I get it, I'm just saying you're wrong. There are women that just don't talk to their daughters about such things and let them figure it out on their own essentially because "they're conservative and uncomfortable talking about it." Not saying my wife fits that bill in the least, but here in the south that shit is rampant.

4/4/2013 3:23:39 PM

so you can relate to any issue, despite never having directly gone through it yourself, just as well as someone who has, and countless times? that is bullshit and defies common sense.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 3:28:36 PM

literature study of 21 studies shows sexual orientation of parents has no effect on quality of relationship with child or on child's mental health or adjustment
http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/Stacey_Biblarz.pdf

another study discusses misleading research and shows there is no empirical evidence that there is a difference if parents are same-sex or opposite sex
http://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf

American Psychological Association agreed that there is no scientific evidence that same-sex parents are less effective, lesbian and gay parents are just as likely to provide supportive healthy homes for their children
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

And the American Psychoanalytic Association agrees, and so does the American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/827
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/professional-organizations-on-lgbt-parenting

study showing the same with census data
http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf

and another national study
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/pwInPress.pdf

and one using ECLS-K data
http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Potter.pdf

the point is that

Quote :

"Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation."

it don't matter who those two parents are, or what their genders are, only that they love and provide for the child.

(feel free to counter with the recent regnerus study so i can point out all of the problems with it and show you the academic smack-down it got)

4/4/2013 3:34:29 PM

that's a lot to read, but most of those articles were geared towards debunking bullshit beliefs such as children being more likely to get abused or stigmatized. i am speaking in much more abstract terms than that.

not to mention, quoting links picked and chosen by the "human rights campaign" is about like showing studies linked from coppertone on the benefits of sunscreen. the right thing to do in essence, but are you really expecting them to show anything that might suggest a downside?

to be clear, i am not trolling, but perhaps playing devil's advocate a bit. i don't believe there is a huge difference as a whole, but i believe it's there.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 3:46:30 PM

they address your abstract terms and conclude, pretty clearly in fact, that there is no difference if the parents are same or opposite sex

and only one of those links is from the HRC, and only because i couldn't find the original link from when i saw it first and that's what google gave me. so throw out that one link if HRC really bothers you that much, it doesn't change anything about my post at all.

the point is that your opinion is not supported by fact or reality, its just what you think

4/4/2013 3:49:29 PM

a quote from your squareonemd article:

Quote :

"How do these parental gender differences matter for children? An answer to this question is the brass ring above the family policy carousel and inordinately slippery to grasp."

your own article advocating same-sex marriage even concedes it's impossible to sort through the minute differences.

4/4/2013 4:04:09 PM

Quote :

"so you can relate to any issue, despite never having directly gone through it yourself, just as well as someone who has, and countless times? that is bullshit and defies common sense."

Nope, but I'm stating that I can do a better job than some women because having the experience itself is not the primary factor at being able to effectively communicate knowledge about that experience. I freely admit that if I (specifically me) was a woman I could do an even better job than I can now.

4/4/2013 4:15:07 PM

^^that's from an intro sentence to one of the case studies, it's just setting up the story.

hell the very next two sentences say:

Quote :

"Research consistently has demonstrated that despite prejudice and discrimination children raised by lesbians develop as well as their peers (Tasker, 2005). Across the standard panoply of measures, studies find far more similarities than differences among children with lesbian and heterosexual parents, and the rare differences mainly favor the former."

when there are even differences they tend to favor the children with two mothers!





[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 4:17 PM. Reason : format]

4/4/2013 4:15:58 PM

If anything, I'd expect an average homosexual parent to be far, far more attentive than his/her heterosexual counterpart with regards to the child coming to terms with their own sexuality and gender, honestly, openly, and without repression or pigeonholing. I don't think Daddy #2 has to have a period himself to tell his daughter that cramps are normal.

Most hetero parents seem pretty caught up on the whole "girls = pink dolls, boys = blue trucks" shit, probably because they were inculcated with it as children themselves and, not being homosexual, probably didn't experience much friction in that process of inculcation. I wouldn't be surprised if most pass that kind of indoctrination on without a second thought.

Quote :

"^my point is that gender has a direct impact on your ability to relate to other people, so it isn't a variable."

Parents and their kids are never identical. Every child goes through things and identifies with things their parents cannot relate to. Having periods is nowhere near the most challenging of these things. I'd add that you're confusing sex with gender when you bring up menstruation anyway.


[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2013 4:27:59 PM

Quote :

"literature study of 21 studies shows sexual orientation of parents has no effect on quality of relationship with child or on child's mental health or adjustment http://faculty.law.miami.edu/mcoombs/documents/Stacey_Biblarz.pdf another study discusses misleading research and shows there is no empirical evidence that there is a difference if parents are same-sex or opposite sex http://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf American Psychological Association agreed that there is no scientific evidence that same-sex parents are less effective, lesbian and gay parents are just as likely to provide supportive healthy homes for their children http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx And the American Psychoanalytic Association agrees, and so does the American Academy of Pediatrics: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/827 http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/professional-organizations-on-lgbt-parenting study showing the same with census data http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf and another national study http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/pwInPress.pdf and one using ECLS-K data http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Potter.pdf"

Every data table in every single one of these studies (of those that even offer them) points to the exact opposite conclusion to the one the researchers make. All of their commentary is bluster and obfuscation flowing from a previous ideological commitment.

It takes some heavy-duty statistical games just to show things getting even. The raw data isn't on their side - so they twist and turn and contort the numbers until the numbers cry 'uncle' and give them what they want.

And this is as good as the data can possibly get for the side advocating gay adoption. Gay couples who have adopted to this point are the cream of the crop. It will only get worse from here as those more toward the middle join the crowd.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM. Reason : s]

4/4/2013 4:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Nope, but I'm stating that I can do a better job than some women"

irrelevant.

Quote :

"I freely admit that if I (specifically me) was a woman I could do an even better job than I can now."

great. since you agree that being female would help you identify with problems only a female would have, you're only a few logical steps away from agreeing with the premise of my point.

Quote :

"If anything, I'd expect an average homosexual parent to be far, far more attentive than his/her heterosexual counterpart with regards to the child coming to terms with their own sexuality and gender, honestly, openly, and without repression or pigeonholing."

again, irrelevant. also, if someone were to make a generalization like that in order to shed a negative light on a certain group, you'd want them drawn and quartered. why are you backing up your views with "vague hypotheticals"?

Quote :

"I don't think Daddy #2 has to have a period himself to tell his daughter that cramps are normal."

maybe that's the case, but you won't convince me he'd do a better job of handling the situation than a woman with ample experience in the matter.

Quote :

"Most hetero parents seem pretty caught up on the whole "girls = pink dolls, boys = blue trucks" shit"

irrelevant.

i am only feeling more secure in my point, because nobody can come up with a rebuttal that doesn't contradict the "all things being equal" premise. i sound like a broken record, but saying things like "most gay parents are more nuturing to this and that" or "most conservative parents won't discuss this" shows the point has flown completely over your head.

the only way i will concede my argument is if someone can convince me that experiencing something yourself isn't of value when guiding someone in your care through the same situation. men and women, through natural and unavoidable social means, go through different experiences by default. having one of each, regardless of the gender of the child, ensures a larger collective of experiences to draw from.

[Edited on April 4, 2013 at 4:57 PM. Reason : /]

4/4/2013 4:56:33 PM

Ok, so all things being equal, the only differentiating life experiences between men and women are biological functions that the other sex physically cant experience, like standing to pee and menstruation. In which case, my response to your argument is "who cares". There are so many other experiences that are way more important in raising children that have no bearing on the sex of the parent.

4/4/2013 5:02:19 PM

deaf parents are inferior
blind parents are inferior
poor parents are inferior
depressed parents are inferior

blah blah blah

what's the point of this discussion?

4/4/2013 5:12:32 PM