how safe are our children?
The reality is that those who feel that children experience loss from not having a biological connection with one or both parents and who feel that men and women offer unique and complimentary roles in child development are not welcome to the discussion. They have been banned from a voice within media as well. … There is great pressure on “researchers” to affirm gay parenting, as is evidenced by the funding sources of some of the studies.
My friends, it seems that almost every non-religious professional care body in the western world is packed to bursting with stupid doctors, lying social workers and sloppy psychologists. Because there is pressure on them to support the right of non-heterosexuals to be parents. And it seems that political pressure tops the welfare of children in the eyes of our esteemed professional care givers. Shame on them. So what can we do about this?
The broad-based studies using participants who were selected at random have shown that divorce, surrogacy, sperm donation and separation from birth-parents prior to adoption have shown that children are negatively affected by those factors. There is no dispute of these findings among social science experts.
I think everyone will agree that should this be the case, the only fair (without showing weird and irrational prejudice) way to combat this is to:
- ban divorce
- ban surrogacy
- ban sperm donation
- ban separation from birth parents
- ban individuals who don’t fulfil proscribed gender roles from becoming parents
But in the name of justice for children facing any factors that may negatively affect their life experience, I think we need to take this one step further. Because let’s be honest, there are lots of factors that can negatively affect the lives of children. In short, we need to ban all negative factors on the upbringing of children, so that we can’t be accused of using whatever random information we have to hand to exclude a historically persecuted minority group in society from having equal parenting rights. I call on you now to take up the fight to:
- pass legislation to ban parents who are smokers, drinkers, drug users, workaholics, obese, mentally ill, poor, fishermen (high death rate), bad tempered, religiously deluded etc
Because if we don’t do this, it can seriously look like we have an irrational hang-up with a sexual activity we will never have to perform (unless we want to), and that has no relevance to a person’s ability to be a human being with nurturing insticts, negative factors and all (some of them may be fishermen, after all).
* Quotes courtesy of Askthebigot ‘One Christian’s candid answers to your questions on Gay Marriage’ from our conversation on lurking 7: how to tell a person of principle
We need far more religious heterosexual couples raising children. they know how to bring them up:
http://www.examiner.com/article/exorcism-deaths-brutal-exorcism-slays-2-mother-stabs-her-other-children-act
LikeLike
Yikes, I think I get the gist without clicking on the link and reading the gory details. That would make a catchy title for a series of posts: We need far more religious heterosexual couples raising children I’ll redirect the Bigot to this if she can bothered coming back for more.
LikeLike
I hope your readers will take the time to read our full conversation. My question was this:
“The broad-based studies using participants who were selected at random have shown that divorce, surrogacy, sperm donation and separation from birth-parents prior to adoption have shown that children are negatively affected by those factors. There is no dispute of these findings among social science experts. So, if you are not looking through the lens of ideology, how do you account for “studies” (none of which meet rigorous standards for social science testing such as control groups, large sample groups and most importantly randomly-selected participants) which show that children who experience at least one of the above factors suffer no adverse effects when raised by a same-sex couple?”
You haven’t yet answered it.
LikeLike
Studies show that children orphaned in the Bosnia War were also highly negatively affected.
As were the many, many,many….many children during the Rwanda conflict and also the continual dust up in the Congo.
In truth, this is largely about sex; specifically, two penises or two vaginas, and what the owners of each do to each other’s.
As a parent who has a penis neither of my children were invited to watch what I did with it with my wife.
I would hazard a guess that homosexual couples don’t have such an inclination either.
If, as a responsible adult, one were to weigh up the negative effects of child starvation in a piss-poor country in Africa against the highly questionable negative effects of a child raised in a stable loving environment , that just happened to be homosexual, I reckon it would be a no brainer. And anyone who balks at this is, quite frankly, a dickhead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought the post addressed that. Assuming what you say is true, the adverse factors you’re complaining about are the same factors that children raised by heterosexuals are faced with, therefore you can’t exclude only one type of potential care-giver on that basis. Furthermore, they are no more adverse than a whole host of other factors that every child is faced with. No child is raised in an ideal environment at all times because we’re not robots programmed to respond optimally to every situation – most families experience death, separation, turmoil, physical and mental illness, stress etc. I can only assume that these studies were measure outcomes against a normal range of childhood experiences, and those children raised by homosexual individuals or couples fared just as well as your average child. Or better, because people that choose to become parents rather than those that fall into it through mindless tradition or sheer mistake assuredly will make far superior caregivers.
LikeLike
@Askme, what are you hoping to do with such an answer? You have no method to quantify the adverse effect. There might be an adverse affect but then there is an adverse affect on children by being exposed to McDonald’s advertising, school bullies, and religious dogma. Breathing kills.
Unless there is a method to quantify the harm done, you’ve done nothing more there than try a bit of fear mongering. Now, we all truly appreciate fear mongering when done tastefully, but you seem to be pushing boundaries here.
LikeLike
Violet states: “While you will claim that you also have evidence that gay marriage is harmful, almost every well-respected institution in the western world would disagree with you. No-one will disagree with me that animals suffer or that we only eat them for personal satisfaction. My belief is based on fact, yours is based on conjecture.”
Those statements were the impetus for my question. She made the claim that there is “no harm.” I just asked the question. I want to know how intellectually honest and scientific Violet and her readers are willing to be. No one on this thread has been able to give an explanation other than “crappy things happen to children everywhere so what’s the big deal if they don’t get to live with one or both of their natural parents.” Interpretation: all “crappy” is subjective so who cares if the child has to experience loss within the gay parenting model, they’re going to experience loss somewhere anyway. But good data tells a different story. Do most children face some kind of hardship at one point or another? Yep. The point of large, random sample studies is that you capture children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, races, and the “normal range” of childhood factors. That is when data is useful for forming a sweeping conclusion about the benefits of one family structure over another. That is what studies supporting gay parenting lack. Please, look into it.
What I am “hoping to achieve” is for us to see that in our rush to validate the worth of our gay family and friends, we have gone against real science (and logic, and tradition) by diminishing the needs and rights of children.
LikeLike
Homosexuality has always been part of humanity.
The tone of your posts suggest you are trying to whip up some irrational fear that the world will soon end if we allow gay marriage and gay people to rise kids.
“Oh, my god, Deidre, the faggots are coming. Will you look, at that kid they’ve raised a monster. Get the bug spray,”
Well, I am sorry, but this is as effed up an idea as one can get
But worse…oh so very much worse, is that you are, in truth, basing this hogwash on your god & your bible, and you are simply too bloody ignorant to realise that this piece of es aitch 1 T was the blue print to okay Slavery, okay Apartheid okay Wife Beating and a myriad of other things including, genocide.
So why anyone would give your opinion any credence is ludicrous.
You are simply a silly person. Go and make your husband’s tea and wash his socks or something.
You demean yourself with this nonsense.
Say 3 Hail Mary’s and stop playing with your Rosary.You know it’s a sin and you might go blind. And remember…..Jesus is watching.
LikeLike
What is silly, is that by your examples I am that monster. You cannot answer my question. Because it would be damaging to your ideology. So you resort to personal attacks and degrading the person with whom you are speaking. Instead of engaging in honest conversation, you ascribe malicious intent and call people names.
LikeLike
No, I did not use the term monster in reference to you.
Sorry, I hadn’t realised you ha actually asked a question. Please. Ask it again and I promise I shall answer as best as I am able.
That parenting is traditionally a man/woman role is not in dispute.
That a child cannot be successfully reared in a homosexual environment is in dispute.
That you bring this argument to the table largely based on erroneous religious doctrine that you claim has the stamp of approval from your god is the most bloody ridiculous thing I have heard, and it really makes my blood boil that there are people with such beliefs making kids as we speak.
And, sadly you do not think the god argument is degrading.
In fact, your mental health should be questioned if this is the ultimate basis for your objection.
Amen Ra
LikeLike
Hewhoshallnotbenamed has a message for your further down the post. Charming chap!
LikeLike
I have no idea why you keep asking the same question I keep answering. If you were interested in rigorous research methods you would understand that a baseline of ‘negative factors’ is required for comparison. It seems more than obvious that against this baseline, same sex parents perform no worse than the average heterosexual parents. As I stated above, this is more than likely to be due to the fact that coming into parenting, same sex couples are more likely to be dedicated to task than heterosexual couples who generally take parenting for granted.
As we are both aware, long-term studies which I assume are currently underway are likely to give us a more rounded picture in the future, and perhaps reasons for this, but in the meantime it’s enough to know that children with same sex parents are just as likely to have a happy and fulfilling childhood as children from the traditional heterosexual couple.
I know, it’s astounding that the sexual activity that two adults get up to doesn’t affect their parenting skills!
LikeLike
Well then, that makes things more clear. Ignore science and logic in the name of supporting your hatred of some group of people… a very traditional thing to do. Your bigotry is showing in marvelous colors… a whole rainbow of them.
Despite that you seem a perfectly pernicious little bigot. Your haste to ban the gays removes possible homes for those chidren with no parents at all, so in the din of your noise you hope we’ll forget that LGBTQ marriages tend to mean more adoptions, reducing the number of children that have no home life at all, never mind that they don’t even get a home to speak of. You are ignoring the value of love in favor of the value of fornication. Yes, that’s what I said – fscking! Because that is literally all the qualification that is needed to be a parent. LGBTQ citizens who adopt have to go through a strict qualification test to make sure they are suitable as parents, guardians, and supporters. Your average heterosexual family generally only has to be able to pull off a quickie in the back seat to qualify. The divorce rate in the US is roughly 50%. Guess what, that number was arrived at before same sex marriage. So the values that you so gleefully espouse in your bigotry are the very values that end up being smashed 50% of the time.
So, should we ban divorce to protect the children? I didn’t think you’d go for that. Yeah, let those orphans suffer and forget about the children suffering because heterosexual marriages only work half the time. I wonder if you have some advice for creating a better success rate in heterosexual marriages? Do you?
If we were to follow your line of advice we would need to do something about these sluts and whores who can’t kee their legs closed till they get a ring on it. Maybe stoning them to death would do the trick… but then we’d need at least one parent for the children left behind. What would you suggest for them – an orphanage run by deviant rapist clergy?
Tell me something. When did you pick out your sexual orientation? When you picked it, did you pick one that would make you a good parent? What do you think is required to be a good parent? Should we test people when they hit puberty to decide whether to sterilize them or not?
I know one thing. I hope that you never become a parent and pass on that bigotry to onther human being. YOU are demonstrably not fit to be a parent, as you clearly think that a same sex marriage would pass on bad morals and cause harm. We DO know that almost all bigots learned their craft at home and bigotry does harm children, their mental state, how they are viewed by others, their chances for success in life and so on. It’s a bit like the pot and kettle for you to be advocating for the welfare of children.
There are several question marks in my comment. See if you can find them and answer the question that precedes them.
LikeLike
Hewhoshallnotbenamed has a message for you further down the post.
LikeLike
hahaha
LikeLike
Clare Flourish has just posted something very relevant to this discussion with links to some very interesting studies. Hope you find time to check it all out:
LikeLike
Judging by the loving tone in all the responses to the bigot, you are all clearly top shelf parent material. Scary what can happen when you convince yourself your hate is justified. A couple of points, regarding the argument that “as the Bible does not specifically mention gay marriage, Christians have no reason to oppose it”. It’s silly to say that a deviant of a defined concept such as marriage is acceptable because THE DEVIANT VARIATION is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The biblical ground Christians have to stand on regarding marriage is firm. If you wish to use their book to defend your position, you may want to do your own research, or you can just keep reading “research” done by people who seem to think the purpose of the Bible was to affirm homosexuality. Jesus healed a roman’s sex slave because he was Jesus and that’s the kind of thing he did, heal people. It was not an affirmation of homosexuality or the owning of sex slaves. He also kissed lepers and saved prostitutes, by your reasoning this would indicate he was an advocate of infecting everyone with leprosy and prostituting them as sex slaves.
Regarding the argument that if we condemn gay parenting , as no family life is perfect, we might as well condemn every form of family and every human shortcoming. That’s just lazy thinking. This logic is applied nowhere else, by anyone, to anything so why should we apply this “logic” here? All things have an ideal state or condition and we all should strive for that ideal. The ideal parental structure is a man and a woman, not because of their sexual preferences for the opposite sex, but for the balance of masculine and feminine influence on children. The science for this is overwhelming and there is no legitimate argument to the contrary (including sited new studies LACKING peer review). Can a same sex couple be good parents? I’m sure there are examples of fantastic same sex parents, however, a family with same sex parents is not the ideal. As a society and as individuals we should promote the ideal in all things, anything else is illogical and irrational.
Is homosexuality normal? No. Is it naturally occurring? Yes. There is a difference. Albinism occurs without outside influence (naturally occurring) however it is an error and therefore not normal. Yes I am saying homosexuality is an error. It is not an outcome of evolution as some might like to think. Although the deep hate many of you have does fit nicely with this evolved superior master race delusion (Clare Flourish). Wait, that’s not what she is saying?? Yes it is. This delusional thinking is a result of not accepting homosexuality for what it is and being ok with it as a homosexual. As with any other malady one can live a full life accepting the fact they were born with a malady.
Homophobia and hate. Get over it. People disagree with what homosexuality is and why it is, but that is a far cry from irrational fear (phobia) and hatred. Not approving of it does not directly equate to hate and intolerance. If you are looking for hate and intolerance read the posts from Arkenaten and myatheistlife. These folks are filled with hate. And with Arkenaten in particular, maybe too much liquor.
Queue gay lynch mob…
LikeLike
As the blog host, I’d be interested to know where you think I’ve expressed hate towards Askthebigot on this post (or anywhere). I’ve very patiently answered her question three times.
“by your reasoning this would indicate he was an advocate of infecting everyone with leprosy and prostituting them as sex slaves.” I fail to see how this is the case. My argument isn’t based on anything Jesus is actually reported to have done, as he didn’t mention same sex marriage. Jesus didn’t mention surgical procedures under anaesthetic and only advocated healing by prayer/miracles. In fact, he didn’t even suggest medical intervention was a helpful route that could be pursued, yet the majority of Christians assume that because medical intervention is available, it is acceptable. Jesus didn’t mention that slavery was anything other than perfectly acceptable, yet the majority of Christians today assume that because there is a general understanding that it deplorable, they can dispense with slavery. Or maybe they secretly believe they should have slaves but they need to reluctantly follow the law of the land?
Similarly, Jesus didn’t mention gay marriage. There was no conception of what the benefits that committed homosexual relationships could bring to society, and to individuals who are attracted to people of the same sex.
“Regarding the argument that if we condemn gay parenting , as no family life is perfect, we might as well condemn every form of family and every human shortcoming. That’s just lazy thinking. This logic is applied nowhere else, by anyone, to anything so why should we apply this “logic” here? ”
If you think more clearly about this you’ll realise that this logic is applied throughout society. That’s why there are no force sterilisation programmes for drug addicts, alcoholics, people with mental illnesses or learning disabilities and people under a certain income threshold. All these factors are likely to have notable negative outcomes on a child’s life and no-one is campaigning to remove their rights to parenthood. However, that is not to suggest that homosexual parenting in general faces the same level of challenge as those mentioned. In fact, as I have stated to Askthebigot on several occasions (and she has ignored) the normally seen negative factors that result from surrogacy, divorce etc are likely to be more than mitigated by the benefits of parenting by same sex couples who have to passionately want to be parents and pass through rigorous adoption procedures, rather than the average heterosexual couple who either fall into parenting because ‘that’s what you do’ or have children by mistake.
“Is homosexuality normal? No. Is it naturally occurring? Yes. There is a difference. Albinism occurs without outside influence (naturally occurring) however it is an error and therefore not normal. Yes I am saying homosexuality is an error.”
Well, at least you know it’s naturally occurring and don’t believe it’s a lifestyle choice like some of your fellow believers. I’m sure your god wouldn’t be pleased to hear you think he made mistakes in his glorious creation. Your choice of vocabulary reveals your hateful prejudice – the typically loaded “you’re a mistake, you’re not normal!” thrown around by the bully trying to hurt the already victimised minority. It’s very sad that your religion of ‘love’ can create such a harmful outlook, and sounds nothing like the kind of words or attitude the character Jesus taught. Ah, the irony.
“If you are looking for hate and intolerance read the posts from Arkenaten and myatheistlife. These folks are filled with hate. And with Arkenaten in particular, maybe too much liquor.” I agree wholeheartedly. Ark is full of hate and is probably an alcoholic. Unfortunately atheists can be just as hateful as Christians.
LikeLike
@Violet.
Don’t get cheap on me now. You left out misogynist, coke snorter, and Liverpool supporter, who thrashed his kids with a leather belt nightly.
If you’re going to tout my resume, then at least include the juicy bits.
LikeLike
I was going to mention your atrocious taste in music but decided that would be below the belt. 😉
LikeLike
Yeah…kick a bloke when he’s down. Heartless woman, that you are.
LikeLike
I’m getting a 404 message for madame’s site. Can you log on here?
LikeLike
No idea what you’re talking about. You getting all confused and clicking on the wrong buttons? Put the liquor down and your specs on. 🙂
LikeLike
I have been known to press all the right buttons.
Jack Daniels duly stowed.
LikeLike
I cannot reach Askme ‘s site. I keep getting a 404 message
LikeLike
http://askthebigot.com/
Maybe you’re linking to a comment she’s deleted? Seems to be working fine.
LikeLike
Nope. I reckon she has turfed me out….
This is a server issue.
I currently have no probs on any other site.
Maybe there’s another issue I am unaware of.
You could ask her.
LikeLike
Is it possible to ban someone from your blog? Surely not. Just some weird South African problem with American servers. Try again later.
LikeLike
I bow to the expert…..
How’ s Mud Island aujourd hui?
LikeLike
Actually it was surprisingly sunny today! Bit chilly though. How’s Sunland? Can you get through to your muse yet?
LikeLike
Wow! Admission that the pais was a lover, immediately followed by the comparison of homosexuality to leprosy. Jesus did not alter the couple’s orientation.
But, I don’t get what you mean about “this evolved superior master race delusion”. I make various deductions from evolution, but think that the existence of gay people supports the idea of the evolution of groups: as younger brothers of two or more brothers are more likely to be gay, they make good uncles. And- being evolved does not mean success for individuals, just that the population as a whole can maintain itself or grow.
An albino or a synaesthete might have a defect, but you would not stop them marrying whom they love, would you?
LikeLike
@ Hewhoshallnotbenamed
Lol…..what a silly person you are…
LikeLike
@Hewhoshallnotbenamed
The discussion as I remember it was the question of whether same sex parents caused harm to the children they raise? Now that you seem to want to change that to a discussion of homosexuality and same sex marriage, let’s have a look at that.
What is the biblical definition of marriage? There are many people who have studied this and it is not simply between one man and one woman. You can get the gist of the situation here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html
The bible does not set a prescriptive norm for marriage. It’s odd that one would think religion the right place to look for definitive information about marriage given the church’s general history. I’m speaking of Abrahamic faiths _and_ generalizing. Regardless of arguable points the history of monotheism shows that is does not promote the optimal normal definition in any other way than forcing the populace to treat marriage in the way that the church wants it treated.
We’re left with a question then. What is the ideal marriage? Does the definition change if there are children involved? On what basis could we claim many marriages unhealthy and remove the children from that marriage to raise them in an ideal situation?
A family with only one parent or divorced parents is not ideal. We can prevent this by forcing marriages and prohibiting divorce. When you want to use wide brush strokes the logical response is to reject it. Now, again, what is the ideal situation for kids? Forget the parents and their sex – what is the ideal situation for the kids? Show me the science on that question and there is a disucssion to have. Then we can define acceptable deviation from ‘normal’ and so on.
“As with any other malady one can live a full life accepting the fact they were born with a malady.”
If we accept this thinking there is no reason to believe that same sex parents do harm and we should not think so unless and until there is some method to determine the ideal early life for children. Get that definition for us but dance around the eugenics carefully.
LikeLike
VW, my reference to the biblical passages was a combined response to your position that marriage is not defined in the bible (it is) and to the ideas that can be found in the Clare Flourish link you posted. That is where the argument, more a flawed bit of reasoning, can be found that as Jesus healed a gay man (the sex slave) he therefore supported homosexuality. As to the hate I was referencing from Arkenaten and myatheistlife, “You are simply a silly person. Go and make your husband’s tea and wash his socks or something. You demean yourself with this nonsense. Say 3 Hail Mary’s and stop playing with your Rosary. You know it’s a sin and you might go blind. And remember…..Jesus is watching”. That kind of talk just makes you all (you and those that share your opinion on this subject) look bad.
“Regarding the argument that if we condemn gay parenting , as no family life is perfect, we might as well condemn every form of family and every human shortcoming. That’s just lazy thinking. This logic is applied nowhere else, by anyone, to anything so why should we apply this “logic” here? I think you missed the point. To be consistent, you would have to promote drug addiction as equal with drug free clean living. The flawed logic you used is that since all things are flawed we can condemn nothing, judge nothing, but actually we all judge and support ideal conditions in all things, all the time.
Regarding “I have stated to Askthebigot on several occasions (and she has ignored) the normally seen negative factors that result from surrogacy, divorce etc are likely to be more than mitigated by the benefits of parenting by same sex couples who have to passionately want to be parents and pass through rigorous adoption procedures” well that’s just fairy dust talk there isn’t it? “Likely to be”? You’re riding your ideas out on a “Likely”? What is your evidence for such statements? Anyway, this is flawed at the core as you are comparing best case same sex to worst case mixed sex when actually you should be comparing best case same sex looking to adopt to best case mixed sex looking to adopt. Clearly you should pick the mixed sex couple as that is aligned with nature. That really can’t be honestly and rationally disputed. Same sex couples cannot provide the masculine feminine balance for obvious reasons. Also, when you have a chance, what are the “benefits that committed homosexual relationships could bring to society”? That is not a back handed insult. I really would like to read the benefits as you see them.
Regarding rights to parenthood. A right cannot be dependent on someone else providing it for you. You have a right to parenthood in the same way everyone else does, pair with a member of the other sex and procreate. If you choose to do so please stay with that person and raise your children in a loving environment. Deciding to pair with a member of the same sex and demand a child be provided to you is not a right.
“Your choice of vocabulary reveals your hateful prejudice” Yes, and I am also a member of a secret society that plans to destroy you all…crap, not so secret anymore. Seriously, for not liking Christians you all sure do like to climb up on the cross. I disagree with you, I don’t hate you. I disagree based on honest research and science, not out of fear. I do not fear you or hate you. That fall-back is old and tired and is the ever predictable go-to accusation for someone out of ideas. We do however agree that Arkenaten is a drunken sod, so that’s a start.
Clair, Double wow!! Your blog is filled with comments that lead one to believe you think homosexuality is a part of evolution. As one can assume, understanding that heterosexuality for obvious reasons came first, homosexuality is the evolved state. It is then not such a stretch to think that someone who is gay might like to think that, right? I mean after all the pain and sorrow many gay people suffer, who wouldn’t want to think they were actually part of some superior race? As you throw hate and homophobia around like it’s going out of style, with no evidence of it, I say fair game saying you have a master race delusion.
Myatheistlife, the question is what is more ideal, and that is clearly a mixed sex couple. I also said we should promote and strive for the ideal, I did not say we should force the ideal. So no forcing people to stay together or killing the sickly. That kind of stuff is firmly in the camp of crazy leftist and I am not in that camp.
LikeLike
Voldemort, come and debate my views on my blog. No master race ideation, I assure you. I argued that “reasons” for opposing equal marriage are rationalisations, and homophobia is always underlying them. There is no other reason to want to prevent equal marriage.
Homosexuality evolved. I suppose that since there are heterosexual single-cell eukaryotes, and no homosexuals below amphibians, being gay makes you a frog? Or something? So a princess might kiss you (if you were a female frog).
I am, though, careful with my allegations of hatred.
LikeLike
Have you come across this person before? I’m always suspicious of people with no blog and silly names. Do you think it could be Jim playing a game? (whatever happened to Jim?) He seems to relish playing with you as much as Jim did.
LikeLike
I googled. Voldemort is “He who Must not be named””. My bad.
I don’t think it is Jim, though I have not heard from him for months. Last I heard he had had his Operation (no, not that one) and was going to sleep well and have his life changed by it. This one is more plodding: Jim’s most insulting lines as Pastor Cal had a tincture of wit in them.
HeWho, my blog is there, with all I have said on it. Pick any post you like, and we can start debating. At Midnight GMT I am posting on the Reformation.
Too many in the church are obsessed by homosexuality. It really is far less an important issue than their reaction would suggest.
LikeLike
“The flawed logic you used is that since all things are flawed we can condemn nothing, judge nothing, but actually we all judge and support ideal conditions in all things, all the time.” Of course we do. There are rigorous criteria to judge suitability for adoption that all couples are subject to. Social workers are judging families all the time, evaluating if there is any risk to the children, and if there is, they are removed. My point was in no way that same sex parenting is inherently flawed, as clearly there is no evidence pointing to this. My point was that the circumstances that Askthebigot brought up run throughout both heterosexual and homosexual parenting. If you’re suggesting they should be banned on that reasoning, then they should be banned for heterosexual parents too. And we all know that would be absurd.
“I do not fear you or hate you.” I never suggested you did, you’ve been reasonably civil to me. However, your hateful prejudice against homosexuals is clear in your choice of language. Your attitude reeks of playground bullying. I have red hair, and that’s an error because the default ‘natural’ colour for hair is black. If the black-haired community tried to restrict my basic human rights on this basis, and constantly called me an ‘error’, I would call that hateful prejudice. More so if there was a long history of this irrational prejudice that is only in this day age starting to be addressed sensibly.
“That fall-back is old and tired” It’s not a fall-back, my argument is sound – there is no evidence that homosexual couples make worse parents than heterosexual couples; and you have no basis in the Bible to pretend it’s the will of an invisible deity, even for the religious community. I brought up the point about your ‘hateful prejudice’ in an attempt to make you think more carefully about your nasty behaviour, because quite frankly it’s shockingly rude.
I’m disappointed that Askthebigot has abandoned the conversation, but understand that Ark and Myatheistlife’s cheeky and rather rude comments can be off-putting. Are you a friend of hers?
LikeLike
Clair, Triple wow!!! Now you’re just not being honest. you’re blog is filled with examples of how anyone who believes homosexuality is anything but good and approved by God is a hater and a homophobic fool. And really, Voldemort? That must be a mistake as you are very careful with words that imply an allegation of hatred.
debate you? sure, pick a specific subject. I’ll watch your blog for it.
LikeLike
Yes, I am a real person and I am not this Jim you speak of. Did either of you (Clair or VW) have any actual responses to any of my questions or statements? Or are you just going to roll with insults? Sorry, as I am a plodding dullard I’m not sure how these things on done in the blogosphere.
Clair, I’ll read your post on the reformation, although the subject could possible bore me to death, but I’ll read it. Also, the avatar is a play on the fact that all avatars are a cover. So why not one that is honest, instead of some grandiose self-serving name, like some I have seen here? I can however see now how you made the assumption it referenced Harry Potter. No worries, as I took it as a completely off-base insult, it made me a bit snippy. How’s that for wit?
LikeLike
Hey-ho, HeWho, I’m up for that. You wrote All things have an ideal state or condition and we all should strive for that ideal. The ideal parental structure is a man and a woman,
Well, yes, in an ideal situation, But many people are not rational, sensible adults who behave well all the time. What do we do when the ideal is not possible? When a couple cannot stand the sight of each other, or one assaults the other, or one habitually lies to the other. This is not a good environment for the child. Social Services take children away from heterosexual couples, you know, because of the risk to the child: by which I mean merely to argue that just male and female parents living together does not an “ideal situation” make.
So what do we do with less than ideal? People do our best in difficult circumstances which are rarely ideal.
Gay couples- well research, I understand there is research showing they make good parents and their children have good outcomes, but the paucity of subjects makes such studies difficult. There is a large longitudinal study starting in Australia at the moment which shows promise for gay people. I am not qualified to critique the studies published.
So what should society do? Would making divorce more difficult improve life for children? In bickering marriages, possibly not. If a single mother shacks up with a female partner, that could give more stability to her situation: it could be an improvement. Less than the ideal, but so what? In that example, laws preventing gay couples caring for children would have a deleterious effect on that child, with no way of making any “ideal” more likely.
Well. There we go. Some dickering around- my first two words, for fuxache- and a fair bit of rhetoric, but an honest attempt to argue. It is so much effort! You make two statements, not really backed up by argument, and I show circs in which they do not stand up. Then you go on about lazy thinking and false applications of logic, which I find in your comments.
LikeLike
VW, the point regarding marriage you made was that as gay marriage was not mentioned in the Bible Christians were out of line based on their own teachings. This is actually not the case as Jesus does define marriage in the new testament. The definition he provides excludes same sex. In this you are just wrong. Mine was a point of debate execution, meaning if you’re going to use their book you should be sure you know what you’re talking about first. Christians have a valid position based on their teachings. Now if their Bible is wrong, fiction and just a bunch of campfire stories is another argument.
“My point was in no way that same sex parenting is inherently flawed, as clearly there is no evidence pointing to this.”. Yes there is clear evidence, natural law, natural order, whatever you want to call it. The ideal family STRUCTURE is a man and a woman. That is clear. Can a same sex couple possible be great parents? Sure but they are not the ideal structure. In regard to adoption the Ideal structure should be sought. Your argument is not sound.
“However, your hateful prejudice against homosexuals is clear in your choice of language” VW, I think you really should look at this and what it says about you. I have a position that you do not share. That position is that Homosexuality is an error. All species driving primary imperative is to reproduce and no one has produced any evidence to support Homosexuality being aligned with that goal. This is not a hateful position, it’s just a rational conclusion. To say I am a hateful and prejudiced person because I have a differing opinion is actually the dismissive tactic used by bullies, and it is old and tired.
Human rights being restricted? What rights are you talking about? As far as I know no one has advocated restricting any actual rights. Well maybe Justin de Vere has.
“My point was that the circumstances that Askthebigot brought up run throughout both heterosexual and homosexual parenting”. I believe ATB’s point was the studies you referenced that seemed to claim that adopted children with same sex adoptive parents were somehow NOT subject to the adverse effects had to be flawed. I would agree her, assuming I understand her point correctly. To say all children suffer ill effects except the ones adopted by same sex couples is highly suspect and I would really want to dig into the details before I started using such a study in defense of any of my positions.
Am I friends with ATB? Who can say? Maybe I am, or maybe I’m just someone who stumbled across a bunch of bullies arrogantly picking on someone and I just don’t like that kind of thing.
LikeLike
1. I’m concerned you didn’t respond to Clare’s excellent rebuttal of everything you stated, which opened up the debate beautifully and gave a serious dose of reality check to your point of view.
2. “maybe I’m just someone who stumbled across a bunch of bullies” Touché. We’re bullies for calling you both bullies. The difference being I’m not advocating that anyone should repeal any basic human rights from you (marriage, parenting). If you are both unable to defend your point of view on victimising same sex couples, I guess you could resort to imagining you’re being bullied by words you disagree with. Interestingly enough, I have previously publicly chastised both Ark and Myatheistlife for their approach to discussion. Cheeky little imps that they are. https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/effective-online-dialogue/
3. “Jesus does define marriage” There is a definition of marriage – there’s no mention that it is exclusive and there’s no explicit prohibition against same sex marriage. There’s also a definition of slavery that I don’t see you sticking to. There’s a definition of being a good Christian that involves giving up all your material possessions, which I see hardly any Christians sticking to. Apparently you have to apply these words to today’s society, and Jesus clearly didn’t know about the prospect of same sex marriage, as he didn’t know that slavery is abhorrent, as he didn’t know that giving up all your possessions isn’t very practical.
4. “The ideal family STRUCTURE is a man and a woman” You are clearly confusing ‘ideal’ with ‘traditional’. There is no ideal family, and pretending that heterosexual family structures are some plastic perfect arrangement is simply blinkered. Loving and nurturing families come in all shapes and sizes, open your eyes.
5. If you don’t understand that is hurtful to call someone from a victimised minority group an ‘error’ while publicly declaring they’re not fit to raise children, then I’m finally lost for words.
LikeLike
VW, I guess I just didn’t see Clair’s response the same way you did. First it started with an admission that my stated ideal ( mixed sex parents) was correct. Clair then listed several less than ideal scenarios that are not relevant as they would also apply to same sex parents. It is not my argument that all mixed sex parents are magical ideal parents. Mixed sex is however the ideal structure. I can’t imagine your argument is that all same sex couples would be absent of all of the conditions Clair described as that would be completely ludicrous. In short Clair’s response had no validity, and as she had accepted my ideal structure point I thought I would just let it rest. In the interest of furthering productive discussion. To note that the referenced study is unfinished and has had no peer review and is therefore as valid as last week’s UFO sighting would have been pointless. I’m sorry you were concerned.
“The difference being I’m not advocating that anyone should repeal any basic human rights from you (marriage, parenting)” Where does this keep coming from? I have never advocated the restriction, removal, revocation or negation of anyone’s actual rights ever for any human being. Are you sure you know what a right is? I think you may not. This is not intended to be insult or belittle, I think you may be unclear on what a right is or you have confused my thoughts as stated with those of someone else. Please clarify.
Your third point is so full of holes I don’t even know where to start. Jesus didn’t know? From the Christian point of view he was God so that does not fly as God knows all, past and future. Or the odd reasoning that a thing defined does not also, by being defined, define it’s exclusions. You reasoning seems to come from desire based logic “I desire it to be so, therefore it is”. You may have some cognitive dissidence in there as well.
Your fourth point. No, confusing ideal with traditional would be something more like “My father was a chimney sweep, his dad was before him so I am going to be one too” and die from coal soot in my lungs at 43 like they did. Is it ideal for me? No ,that would just be the tradition of my family. The mixed sex parent structure is clearly not a case of tradition. You cannot honestly believe that it is just tradition.
5. I truly doubt you will ever be at a loss for words. Do I understand that someone could be hurt by my statement that homosexuality is an error? Of course. But that is different that my intent being to hurt, and that is not my intent. My intent is to share truth and understanding, eyes wide open, even if sometimes the truth hurts others or myself.
LikeLike
HeWho, I am sorry that you did not see my argument as a trouncing. Perhaps you just couldn’t see it.
Let us go over the whole issue. Should gay people be able to marry their partners? Yes, because many people see marriage as giving their lives stability, and gay people should not be worse off than straight people.
Should gay people have medical assistance to have children? Yes, because having children is more difficult for them, and there is no basis for making them a group uniquely prohibited from access to fertility treatment.
Should you get to decide? No. You do not get to tell people what to do. Sorry. In Common Law systems, generally people can do what they want unless law specifically prohibits it: one of the bases of our freedom.
Is gayness evolved? Of course, since it exists. It may be evidence for theories of the evolution of groups, recently espoused by EO Wilson, who knows more about these things than I- or, I suspect, you.
Does the Bible’s apparent condemnation, or some Christians’ strongly held beliefs, have any bearing on the issue? Not if they cannot come up with some moral argument backing them up. They say “I believe it is God’s Will”, I disagree as a Christian, having studied the Bible passages.
There. Having read this, there is the slightest hope that you might understand. So either thank me humbly, or waddle off.
LikeLike
“Are you sure you know what a right is? I think you may not.”
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/16.asp
http://www.amnesty.org.nz/our-work/lgbti-rights
“Jesus didn’t know? From the Christian point of view he was God so that does not fly as God knows all, past and future.” I don’t think you’ve read the words of Jesus very closely. He doesn’t think he’s the Christian god God at all, and he had no idea what was happening in even the near future.
1. “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God” (Matthew 19:17)
2. “My father if greater then I.” (John 14:28)
3. “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’?” (John 12:27)
4. “But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:27)
5. (I won’t even mention that Jesus thinks Moses actually existed, yet the majority of Jewish rabbi’s today admit their historical narrative is a myth:
http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/of-course-what-you-say-is-true-but-we-should-not-say-it-publically-13/)
“You cannot honestly believe that it is just tradition.” Tradition = the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
Examples of this tradition being different across time and cultures include the polygamy throughout the Old Testament, even to post-New Testament times, as attested to by Josephus “it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time”. Tradition clearly has room to change in the Christian model. Like your attitude to slavery – did I mention that?
“My intent is to share truth and understanding, eyes wide open, even if sometimes the truth hurts others or myself.” Your intent is to publicise your personal interpretation of a book that can more easily be interpreted to justify slavery, murder, polygamy and self-imposed poverty. Knowing it is considered to have been ‘misinterpreted’ on the four aforementioned areas for centuries, if you were a reasonable person you would concede there is considerable room for error on your part, and not so arrogantly splatter your chosen harmful views in public forums.
LikeLike
A trouncing? Hardly. A weak irrational argument? Yes. Should gay couples legally be able to enter into a union and call it whatever they want? Yes. Using the Bible to try and convince Christians they are wrong is silly and smells of desperation.
Same sex couples have a harder time with fertility? Did you really say that. “Harder time” implies there is some chance at all. Please elucidate, how will two men alone create a child?
Should you have access to fertility assistance? If freely provided to you sure. You also have the right to kill yourself with heroin, doesn’t mean you should do it.
Do you have a right to have a child provided for you? No. You may want to read all the work that has been written on this subject as it pertains to France and how this leads to a modern slave trade.
You discuss common law and freedom and then reference a man who would have us all live in a societal structure where you would be one of the first to death camps, for the good of the collective. He was right however that men would rather believe than know, you are proof.
Waddle off? Oh you must know you have set the hook now.
LikeLike
Mmm. You have made it perfectly clear that not only are you incapable of empathy, but you are also too stupid to understand when you have lost an argument.
Bye.
LikeLike
Well folks there you have it, the ultimate acknowledgement of defeat. Unfounded claims of victory and an aloof name calling dismissal. I can hear the toys hitting the ground and the pitter patter sound of little feet leaving the sandbox. Again desire does not make truth. I guess you don’t spend nearly as much time talking with those that disagree with you as you spend talking about them with sycophants. I wish you all the best Clair and I really hope you find truth, peace and happiness.
LikeLike
Umm, VW ….I’m not a Christian. If you look at my posts (not through the filter of your preconceptions) you would have see that. It’s so easy to make such a mistake when you lazily ride a paradigm and just don’t pay attention.
LikeLike
Well, there you have it, the ultimate acknowledgement of defeat. Can’t answer a single one of my latests rebuttals that blasted gaping holes in your illogical assertions. Instead you try to divert attention by throwing a random shot of nonsense about a blog you don’t link to, and ramble about your personal beliefs which are of no relevance when you are attempting to justify homophobia through the Bible. (Speaking of laziness, or perhaps it’s sheer childishness, Clare spells her name Clare, like the Clare you see on every comment.)
LikeLike
Liar liar, pants on fire. Your entire argumentation is the parroting of Christian anti-gay rhetoric. So if not a Christian, a Christianist or something along those lines. if you’re interested in real science/evidence:
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
Try reading more than one book, then we can talk.
LikeLike
Pingback: Towards a meeting of minds | Clare Flourish
Clare, my apologies on this misspelling of your name.
Violentwisp, Are you now plagiarizing? Well what is there to answer in your argument that you think blasts holes in the very fabric of all I know and believe? Your “arguments” and comments are, and your thinking is, so convoluted and filled with contradictions and non sequitur tangents that it’s hard to pick a place to start. For example you claim I reference a blog but provided no link, all as some sort of diversion, yet I have never referenced a blog on this thread.
Your response regarding Jesus, what he knew and when did he know it, and the four passages you quote. First you presume a lot to say you know what Jesus knew, in the extreme as you don’t believe he was real. Second you are totally without theological standing and the quotes you provide have no relevance. So a trouncing, demolishing, pain bringing can of kick-ass opened up on me? Only in your mind. As to this, “ I won’t even mention that Jesus thinks Moses actually existed, yet the majority of Jewish rabbi’s today admit their historical narrative is a myth” this is relevant to your flawed argument about what Christians should or should not believe in regard to Christ’s position on marriage in what way? In case you are confused, that is a question feel free to provide a specific answer. Also, was that supposed to shock anyone? What!?!? Jesus believed Moses was real!?!? Really?
Anyway. For the third time, you should become more informed on the Bible if you are going you use it against Christians. This was my only point to you in regard to the bible. If you are going to argue within the construct of the myth you have to abide by the rules of the construct. You may want to start your studies with what these words mean to Christians as it relates to the subject, “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”.
Regarding your AI link on what their position is in regard to gay marriage, yes I have full knowledge of their position on this subject. My question to you (still unanswered) was do you know what a right is? Meaning in general terms do you understand and can you define what differentiates a right from a privilege. My question was not “hey can you send me a link on what AI thinks about gay marriage rights and how they interpret 16 of the UN human rights declaration”.
Tradition, “Tradition clearly has room to change in the Christian model. Like your attitude to slavery – did I mention that?” So, again, you cannot honestly believe mix sex marriage and parenting is solely a product of tradition.? That’s one’s a question and a statement. I am firmly against any form of slavery, my position on the subject has not and never will change. So I’m not sure why you bring that up.
“Your intent is to publicise your personal interpretation of a book that can more easily be interpreted to justify slavery, murder, polygamy and self-imposed poverty. Knowing it is considered to have been ‘misinterpreted’ on the four aforementioned areas for centuries, if you were a reasonable person you would concede there is considerable room for error on your part, and not so arrogantly splatter your chosen harmful views in public forums.” Wow, no, quadruple wow!! Your mind reading skills are worse than you text reading skills. You assume a lot, again based on your prejudice towards those who disagree with you on this subject. We all must be hatful and Christians. I am neither.
So here are some questions I have asked throughout this thread that have gone unanswered.
1, Can you define what makes a right. What is a right and what is not a right?
2, (Spoiler alert) If a right cannot be dependent on it being provided by another, how can adoption by same sex couples be a right?
3, Do you believe Marriage defined as mixed sex couples is solely based in tradition? If so what is your bases for excluding the evidence of how our species procreates in this tradition only determination?
4, What in my positions, as I have stated them, defines them as hateful? (Please don’t waste our time with platitudes in your answer to this one. Be specific and specific to my statements)
5, What does Jesus’ opinion on marriage have to do with his belief in Moses? And if you think they both were mythical what is your point of arguing what either of them said? (Feels like I’m arguing the color of unicorn horns with you on this one)
6, what is your (credible evidence supported) argument for not agreeing that the mixed sex parental unit is the ideal STRUCTURE?
LikeLike
So, when you say “If you look at my posts”, you actually mean your comments on this post. It would help if you used the correct vocabulary.
You ask questions, I politely reply providing references. You claim Jesus is the god God according to Christians, and therefore knew everything. I point you to clear references in their holy text where he explicitly states he is separate from the god God, along with areas where he reveals his ignorance on key issues of knowledge on the future and the past. Your response is a childish paragraph of sarcastic nonsense. Do you really believe this is a discussion?
1. I’ve already provided a link to the UN human right your campaign seeks to undermine, along with a link to Amnesty with further explanation. If you don’t know what a right is, use a dictionary, and stop wasting my time.
2. Everyone has the rights to marriage and parenthood.
3. You’ve confused yourself here. The discussion about tradition was solely based on the difference between ‘tradition’ and ‘ideal’. It’s irrelevant whether or not mixed sex marriage is traditional. I would never suggest that we can only do things that are traditional – or we would still have our traditional slaves and be traditionally sacrificing virgins or traditionally burning witches.
4. What a silly question! Your whole argument is exclusionary, discriminatory and based on irrational prejudice. For specific utterances, see: “Yes I am saying homosexuality is an error.” Please don’t waste my time by asking me to refer back to areas we have already discussed.
5. This is explained in the second paragraph of this comment.
6. Again, you’re confusing ‘traditional’ with ‘ideal’. I’ll redirect you to the link that pinkagendist provided: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
My question for you: why are you so full of hate and why to you fear same sex couples so much?
LikeLike
You provide an argument that is invalid and ignorant of the subject matter. Again you should study the Christian faith and the Bible a bit more if you are going to continue using it as a reference for argument. Just because you think your argument is valid does not make it so. Spend some time educating yourself, there is a copious amount of theological work on this subject that can easily be found.
1.”I’ve already provided a link to the UN human right your campaign seeks to undermine, along with a link to Amnesty with further explanation. If you don’t know what a right is, use a dictionary, and stop wasting my time.” Got it, you can’t answer the questions and actually provide a definition or explanation, from your own mind, not a link, of what a right is and is not.
2. “Everyone has the rights to marriage and parenthood.” Ok, a question answered with an unsubstantiated statement of opinion. Again you have not answered the question.
3. “You’ve confused yourself here. The discussion about tradition was solely based on the difference between ‘tradition’ and ‘ideal’. It’s irrelevant whether or not mixed sex marriage is traditional. I would never suggest that we can only do things that are traditional – or we would still have our traditional slaves and be traditionally sacrificing virgins or traditionally burning witches.” Again unanswered questions. Neither slavery, human sacrifice or witch burning can in any way be argued to be natural and or the natural biological process for the continuance of our species. Putting mixed sex unions in the same category as human sacrifice and witch burning is daft hippie talk.
4. “What a silly question! Your whole argument is exclusionary, discriminatory and based on irrational prejudice. For specific utterances, see: “Yes I am saying homosexuality is an error.” Please don’t waste my time by asking me to refer back to areas we have already discussed.” Again, question unanswered. My position that it is an error is not fearful or hateful.
5. “This is explained in the second paragraph of this comment.” So as Jesus thought Moses was real and in theory we now know he wasn’t this is proof he didn’t know what he was talking about? Well, when the majority of theologians from the three faiths actually agree that Moses was a myth we can revisit this point. But we are still arguing the color of unicorn horns, when you don’t believe in unicorns or color.
6. “Again, you’re confusing ‘traditional’ with ‘ideal’. I’ll redirect you to the link that pinkagendist provided:http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup.” Again, you have not answered the question and are ignoring the obvious biological required paring of male and female for our species to produce offspring.
“My question for you: why are you so full of hate and why to you fear same sex couples so much?”
I have no hate for homosexuals. To throw homophobia around and hate, hater, and hateful around is just a childish fall-back bully tactic. If you have anything to substantiate this claim in regard to me let me know. Again, my statement that homosexuality is an error is not such evidence, unless you can provide concrete evidence that such a claim can only come from hate.
I do not fear same sex couples. I do however fear what you might create in your well-intentioned, but wholly ignorant drive to create a fictitious right for parents to have children provided to them. Neither mixed sex or same sex couples or single individuals of either sex have a right to a living child they did not create. Adoption is a privilege for those who adopt, not a right. The primary purpose of adoption is for the well-being of the child. If you force the falsehood that adoption is a right, you change the paradigm and the purpose of adoption becomes providing people with other people. I know you do not promote slavery or human trafficking. Again, there is a vast amount of work to be found on this subject with a simple Google search.
LikeLike
1.”Got it, you can’t answer the questions and actually provide a definition or explanation, from your own mind, not a link, of what a right is and is not.” Or rather, why would I redefine something that is perfectly obvious? If you don’t understand what it means and refuse to educate yourself by using the dictionary and the links provided, that’s your choice.
2. “Ok, a question answered with an unsubstantiated statement of opinion.” Or, if you’d like to check out the links, you’ll find it clearly stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Again, your choice if you want to remain in ignorance and make silly accusations.
3. “Putting mixed sex unions in the same category as human sacrifice and witch burning is daft hippie talk.” Not if you’re discussing traditional practices within a society. We’ve covered this already with polygamy no longer being traditional. You seem unable to think outside the box. I know change is hard for some people but you should really check out how far society has advanced since the Bronze Age. We can make more changes without imploding.
4. “My position that it is an error is not fearful or hateful.” I can’t force you to understand this. I’m sorry your empathy switch doesn’t work.
5. “when the majority of theologians from the three faiths actually agree that Moses was a myth we can revisit this point” It’s up to you what level of evidence you think is acceptable.
6. Well, what can I say, if you want to make accusations that this is all unsubstantiated and then ignore the evidence, it’s up to you.
7. “Neither mixed sex or same sex couples or single individuals of either sex have a right to a living child they did not create.” That’s kind of sinister sounding. I don’t think any couples with fertility problems would thank you for your understanding of their pain and your dismissive attitude to the beautiful children that intervention has brought them. I would also add that no-one has a right to a child just because they created it. If the child is at risk in any way I would hope that civil authorities would intervene.
8. “Adoption is a privilege for those who adopt, not a right.” I agree, that’s why all potential parents go through an immensely time-consuming process of rigorous background checks before they can be approved.
I do enjoy a good discussion HeWho but I must confess this isn’t one of them, and I’m tiring of your bizarre “you’re not answering my questions” game. If you have anything further to add to the discussion please feel free but don’t waste both of our time pretending you don’t understand what I’ve written.
LikeLike
Not quite. You’re confusing ability and desire. Religionists often make this unscientific jump between biology and psychology. Should gays and lesbians choose we can have intercourse (as many animals do), and then leave the rearing of the children to one party or another. The vast majority of male ducks live as bachelors, leaving care exclusively to the mother (with the exception of the NA Ruddy Duck who assists the mother with care).
The research cited is a review of all most peer reviewed studies available. Most of which point to no significant differences between LGBT parenting vs. Hetero-parenting.
There’s no such thing as ‘ideal’. That’s a fantasy developed by people seeking to lend “exceptionality” to a particular group with no regard to reality. Your alleged ideal is much the same as the pushing of The Bell Curve and other racist propaganda. The underlying fact is that people of whatever ethnicity, when offered similar cultural circumstances, can achieve similar results.
The same is true of gay families. Just keep in mind that every day there are HETEROsexual parents who abuse children. There are HETEROsexual parents who kill their own children. There are HETEROsexual parents who abandon their children. There are HETEROsexual parents who ignore their parental responsibilities. Do you know what that means? That sexual orientation has no bearing on a person’s ability to parent successfully. the leap you’re making is one of profound ignorance- and it seems to me, wilful ignorance.
LikeLike
Try actual answers. Saying it’s obvious yet again not answering proves nothing. You have yet again failed to explaine what a right is. This would go a long way in proving that you do actually know and understand. Links to sites with info regarding rights just proves you can use the web and can read.
Again you completely ignore the roots for mixed sex couples that can be found in the biological requirement for a man and a woman to produce offspring. You just keep completely ignoring this in your tradition only argument.
You again misunderstand, or can’t understand the point regarding adoption not being a right and where the push to make it one for same sex couples will lead. But all the emoting about beautiful children and understanding pain I’m sure makes you feel better about not understanding. Fertility assistance was in no way addressed in my comment. In the context of the point on adoption I was making this should be clear.
I’m sure you do love a good discussion, of course when good is defined by your ego being petted and winning an argument.
You offer emotive platitudes instead of logic and reason. You, without evidence, accuse others of hate, yet the majority of your blog seems to be devoted to the hateful mocking of others. You provide no actual argument substance. I’m sure this all seems sufficient at cocktail parties with people that agree with everything you say, but if you wish to have intelligent discussion with those who don’t, you really need more work on your debate skills.
LikeLike
“I’m sure you do love a good discussion, of course when good is defined by your ego being petted and winning an argument….You provide no actual argument substance .. you really need more work on your debate skills.”
It’s strange I haven’t been moved by your “clever” argument that because in nature male and female animals are required to breed, it follows that no other structure can provide a sufficiently nurturing environment for offspring. However, I do hope you get round to reading some of the relevant research findings provided at the link below (third time you’ve been directed here):
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
If you have anything to add on reflection after actually looking at some evidence, I’d suggest you direct your responses to pinkagendist, as it seems that Clare is no longer interested in your ramblings and I certainly have no desire to spend any more time going round in circles. Pinkagendist is very clever and can certainly provide argument substance that even you can’t ignore. Although based on your performance to date, chances are he’ll tire quickly of your ridiculous attempts at personal insults and your rather idiosyncratic tendency to not follow the discussion.
Good luck! And if you ever feel secure enough to comment under a genuine blogging name, I’d be delighted to pop by your site for a visit.
LikeLike
Five times I have asked how you can ignore the male female pairing that is required to produce offspring and claim that marriage is solely a product of tradition. Again you fail to answer and instead dance around and evade with a claim falsely attributed to me. So you have gone with name calling, dismissive arrogance and now lies? “It follows no other structure can provide a sufficiently nurturing environment”. Those are your words, not mine. My point regarding your tradition only claim for marriage, defined as mixed sex, has been that it completely ignores the origin that can be found in the male female requirement for procreation. As this makes your argument invalid, I assume this is why you ignore it.
I did read the studies linked. Nothing says good science like “according to their mothers reports” really? A study on the effects of same sex parents on children where the “evidence” is based on the reports of the same sex parents? Might as well base a study of rates of reform for prisoners based on their own claims of reform at their parole hearings.
Oh, and I can hardly wait to have a debate with the luminary who brought “liar liar pants on fire” to this discussion. I’m sure he or she is completely objective and has no agenda other than truth. Well as you have quit the field I hope Pink can provide an honest challenge.
LikeLike
Marriage and sexual activity are not synonymous. Is that a terribly complicated thing to grasp? Marriage is solely a tradition. In fact it didn’t exist as we know it in matriarchal cultures (i.e. Marchesas, Iroquois, various Asian societies).
I can take that point further and state that child rearing up until the 20th century was generally appointed to people of the same sex as the child. Boys were sent to schools where are employees were male. Girls were reared at home by females.
As for the studies, how do you think research is done? People questioned are the people involved- and you’re outright, shamelessly lying by saying the evidence is merely the opinions of the mothers. You’re making that sort of claim in bad faith, which demonstrates a willingness to be dishonest.
LikeLike
As for liar, liar pants on fire- it was a light-hearted joke, although I meant it.
Your entire argumentation is the parroting of debunked anti gay propaganda pushed by imbecilic religious opportunists who are out to make a buck at the expense of their fellow human beings. That’s the essence of religion. Fraudsters pushing mythology designed to forward a political agenda from which they’ll personally benefit and the under-educated idiots who fall for it. Don’t think you’re the first that’s crossed any of our paths.
We can present you with studies, but you don’t like peer-reviewed studies published in respectable scientific magazines. Rather, people like you cite criminals like Paul Cameron, whose anti-gay studies were deemed fraudulent by the scientific/medical community en masse. You don’t have serious arguments and you can’t engage in a serious debate, because your entire ideology is based on artificial parameters. A type that is arbitrary and entirely disregards real biology, real history and real human relations.
LikeLike
To say the origin of the pairing of a man and a woman is solely tradition is disingenuous. To believe it requires a deviation from rational thought, a form of faith if you will. Marriage and sexual activity are not synonymous. That’s obvious and irrelevant as we are talking about the the biological exchange required and not the act required to provide the exchange. As it is about procreation and raising the child or children, It is the exchange not the process that is the basis for the pairing we call marriage.
As to the history of the family structure you provide, it is not consistent with known history. Schools are a relatively new idea in the whole of human history and until the most recent past something only for the elite. The majority of any education in our human history has been within the home by the parents and immediate family.
How is credible research done? For the study I referenced I would think regular evaluations of the children and of the parents, interviews of teachers, review of grades throughout the year for every year of the study and a control group of mixed sex parented children in a comparable socioeconomic group during the same period of time in the same geographic region would have been a good start. Oh and peer review is required, although I did not see that in all the referenced studies.
I’m not a Christian or follower of any other faith. And as I have studied absolutely zero anti-gay propaganda, or anti-gay information of any kind it would not be possible for me to parrot whatsoever. This is all assumption on your part, based on you own bias.
What I actually have stated, for the sake of clarity in any debate going forward.
1, Homosexuallity is an error as it is not aligned with our species primary imperative of survival and continuance via procreation. This does not mean however, that I have any fear or hate for homosexuals. Nor does it mean I believe they should be excluded from, or prevented from, exercising any actual rights.
2, A right cannot be dependent on it being provided by another, therefore no one has a right to a child they can not naturally create. This includes heterosexual couples and individuals.
3, A male female couple is the ideal root structure for a family unit.
4, As same sex couples do not meet the criteria of the ideal structure they should not be seen as equal to a mixed sex couple in regard to adoption, as the primary purpose of adoption is for the well being of the child.
5, To force the false right to a child for those who can not naturally produce one (heterosexual or homosexual) will create a modern day slave trade.
LikeLike
It is far too tedious to debate with HeWho, but I wanted to illustrate by small example his complete ignorance. “A right cannot be dependent on it being provided by another”, he says. In jurisprudence, the correlative of a right is a duty: contractual rights, for example, arise from and give rise to duties to perform under contract. With human rights, the duty is on States, first not to interfere with those rights, and (as with Millennium Development Goals) to provide those rights.
This is the level of HeWho’s silliness.
LikeLike
Oh, I can’t resist! As you are clearly in pursuit of a fairer society for all, perhaps you should start your crusade against infertile couples in general and see how many people not pre-loaded with hateful discrimination against gay people suddenly feel the urge to agree with you.
1, Infertility is an error as it is not aligned with our species primary imperative of survival and continuance via procreation. This does not mean however, that I have any fear or hate for infertile people. Nor does it mean I believe they should be excluded from, or prevented from, exercising any actual rights.
2, A right cannot be dependent on it being provided by another, therefore no one has a right to a child they can not naturally create. This includes infertile couples and individuals.
3, A fertile male female couple is the ideal root structure for a family unit.
4, As infertile couples do not meet the criteria of the ideal structure they should not be seen as equal to a fertile couple in regard to adoption, as the primary purpose of adoption is for the well being of the child.
5, To force the false right to a child for those who can not naturally produce one (heterosexual or homosexual) will create a modern day slave trade.
I know a few infertile couples who sought non-traditional parenting routes. I can’t wait to inform them they are creating a modern day slave trade!
LikeLike
The original pairing of man and woman?
See what you’re doing there? That’s called doublespeak. It’s intentional dishonesty. You’re playing with words to lend credence to an ideology that can’t stand on its own two feet.
As I’ve already explained you’re conflating what cannot be conflated from a biological perspective. Reproduction and raising children are different things. That’s even the case for early humans- and as I also already mentioned in matriarchal societies.
There’s an evolutionary argument for homosexuality. Why don’t you look it up and get back to us. Hint- hint, University of Parma.
You see the problem with your ilk is the utter dishonesty of it all. I mean, what’s the point of any discussion if your intent is deception coupled with self deception and a complete disregard for facts, science and history?
LikeLike
(copied from HeWho in case you missed it)
Pink,
For clarity it would help if you referenced my words specifically. For example I have not used the words “the original pairing of man and woman” so it is unclear what you mean. As I have not used the words it is also impossible for it to be doublespeak.
I am stating there is a clear correspondence between reproduction and child raising. Conflating would be better used to describe the grouping of me, in your mind, with all the others in the “ilk” you falsely assume I am a part of.
Love to read this work you speak of from Parma, have a link?
I have been nothing but honest and blunt for the sake of honest debate, can you clarify where you believe I have been dishonest?
LikeLike
Clare, I truly hope you are not so ignorant as to believe rights come from the state. Are you, a member of a discriminated against minority, actually a statist? I’m not even going to bother with the comparison of contractual obligations and the rights of free people, but my only experience with contracts has been writing, negotiating, Implementing and interpreting them so what would silly old me know?
VW, you almost have it. Just a couple of corrections.
1. Homosexuality is not an apples to apples comparison to infertility as Homosexuality manifests itself psychologically, as the choice to pursue same sex relationships even when the individual may have no reproductive issues. Again, neither the infertile, sterile or homosexual should be denied actual real rights.
2. Correct, it would be a privilege not a right.
3. Correct
4. Incorrect, see 1.
5. Correct.
Can’t comment on the route your friends chose but if was in furtherance of false rights, then yes that is what they have done.
Pink,
For clarity it would help if you referenced my words specifically. For example I have not used the words “the original pairing of man and woman” so it is unclear what you mean. As I have not used the words it is also impossible for it to be doublespeak.
I am stating there is a clear correspondence between reproduction and child raising. Conflating would be better used to describe the grouping of me, in your mind, with all the others in the “ilk” you falsely assume I am a part of.
Love to read this work you speak of from Parma, have a link?
I have been nothing but honest and blunt for the sake of honest debate, can you clarify where you believe I have been dishonest?
LikeLike
I am as ignorant as the legal positivist Hans Kelsen, perhaps. We have no rights without power, he would argue, and the power comes from people acting together, in states: the Grundnorm is based on power. I am not definitely a legal positivist, but I see the attractions of the model in particular cases.
So then you say you have been “honest and blunt”. No, rude and silly. You call us ignorant, with no basis for it. As for Parma, I googled evolution homosexuality, and found this: http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/homosexuality.html in a few seconds: you can search, I would think?
LikeLike
“Hewhoshallnotbenamed on February 11, 2014 at 5:22 am said:
To say the origin of the pairing of a man and a woman is solely tradition is disingenuous”
So you didn’t say that? Scroll up.
The problem as I’ve already explained is you’re repeating the Christian mistake of confusing disciplines as in sex=reproduction=marriage. That’s factually, scientifically and historically untrue.
Marriage is an entirely cultural matter. So is the system in which children are reared. That’s why I mentioned certain tribal cultures. In some, fathers have no role in raising a child. In others women have relations with various men during their fertility cycle (ie The Mosuo of China), so the identity of the father is unknown and the children are raised in the matrilineal line. In the case of the Minangkabau, males only stay with their mothers in early childhood. By the time they’re ten they’re sent to live exclusively amongst other males. The Garo people have a similar system where all men live together and only ‘visit’ the women. So your correlation between social sex, reproduction and child rearing is entirely false.
Furthermore, early man wasn’t monogamous. As society developed it created rules and gave various attributes to marriage until it became what it is today. But by no means was it in the beginning what it is now. It was created as a system of ownership with a man being the proprietor of the family unit. In fact, take the case of adultery as defined in late Roman times. If a married man had sex with a prostitute that was not adultery. It was only adultery if he did it with a virgin (a crime against the virgin’s father), or the wife of another man (a crime against her husband).
As for the study in question it’s the Camperio-Ciani study (University of Padova, not Parma, my mistake). The study found that 100% of gay males (who participated in the study) had mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers who were more fecund (reproductively fertile) than the women in the paternal line. From an evolutionary perspective this means nature is producing offspring that will be less draining on the familial unit. Some species resort to infanticide/brood reduction. The first born black eagle pecks its younger sibling (that only hatches days after the first) to death. In humans it seems we can conclude gay offspring have a role as a supportive figure to the overly-fertile mother. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. Offspring that will not produce offspring will be able to focus their assistance and resources on the larger family unit. I see this happen regularly (particularly before adoption became popular in the LGBT community). When my partner’s mother became ill with vascular dementia, we had abundant resources of time and finances to care for her. Resources that generally aren’t available to offspring who have offspring.
LikeLike
“Again, neither the infertile, sterile or homosexual should be denied actual real rights.” No wonder you don’t want reference to dictionaries or any organisations. You’ve clearly made up in your little head what a ‘right’ is. If you’re not accepting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a reference point for ‘rights’ because ‘real rights’ in your head are something different, there’s little point in discussing anything with you. Talk about arrogant ignorance. 🙂
Adults in infertile consensual relationships are clearly a valid comparison. “Hi infertile heterosexual couple, HeWhoIsTooScaredToCommentUnderHisBlogName thinks you are an ‘error’. It’s a fact, not a hateful insult. He also thinks if you resort to any kind of infertility treatment you are creating a modern slave trade.” You surely see how awful you sound now, even if you’re blinkered to the stupidity of the argument against same sex couples.
LikeLike
Clare, there you go again trying to woo me with such sweet words. On the whole if you honestly reviewed all the comments above you would see I have been subjected to far more rudeness than I have dealt out.
So I take that as a yes to the question are you a statist? As to Hans Kelsen his Grundnorm was the base norm as agreed upon by the majority of the community governed by the law in question, another term for this is mob rule. So, as you are a member of an oppressed minority, are you sure you want to support a system where the majority define law and by extension your rights? What happens when the winds change and the majority no longer includes you?
LikeLike
Such black and white thinking! You imagine that I must either be a Statist- always for the State and looking to the State- or, a Libertarian? Truth is always more nuanced.
LikeLike
Pink,
Did I say “To say the origin of the pairing of a man and a woman is solely tradition is disingenuous”? Yes I did and I stand by it, and I would like to hear your explanation of how it is doublespeak, intentionally dishonest and in support of an ideology to which I do not subscribe. However in your previous post you referenced “The original pairing of man and woman” not my words, and as they could be understood to reference a religious first man first woman point of some kind, and as you seem to think I am promoting some sort of Christian agenda, I’m sure you can see how this was confusing.
The Mosuo matriarchal structure was forced upon them by an elite few to protect their power so I can’t see how this could be an example of a positive or natural variant. As to their practices, they do marry, and yes they do have open sexual relations outside of their marriage, but this is not for the purpose of keeping the father of any children unknown. The children, be they the offspring of the husband or not, are raised by the married couple.
The Garo have a male female marriage structure where the couple live together in the female’s house.
The Minangkabau live in a male female parental unit. The men leave the home earlier (for religious study) than a child leaves home in western culture but it is still a male female parental structure.
The Camperio-Ciani study. No harm no foul on the Parma error, 2am blog comment errors are completely understandable. The study indicates there is a genetic connection between high fertility in some woman and homosexuality in the men of the same family, less that 25%, but still a connection. This is compelling in terms of a possible genetic cause for male homosexuality, however it is a huge leap to say it is an evolutionary process intended to lessen the depletion of the familial resources. In fact evolutionary study of our species would indicate an increase of offspring to gather and produce more resources is the norm as opposed to a reduction of consumers. The paradigm for the eagle, limited geographic reach, limited skills and resources, is not the paradigm for our species. However eagles do mate in male female couples for life.
Unless you are arguing some evolutionary precognition, then you and your partners ability and resources to aid your partners mother was just a favorable coincidence. If you ARE arguing evolutionary precognition what is your explanation and evidence for this? Are we taking this into the realm of evolution as a sentient entity and time physics? If we are, I’m game.
LikeLike
You’re misrepresenting facts again and again. Firstly I’d recommend you stop using the word ‘natural’ as that is, on its own, deceptive. You use it to imply something is universal and correct, however high incidence doesn’t translate to ‘best option’. Aristotle spoke of slavery as being ‘natural’ in this same manner. People use the word to imply something is good/better when no evidence of such is given.
Your shallow study of tribal customs demonstrates you’re beginning with a conclusion and then trying to accommodate facts to justify said conclusion.
The tribes I mention are clear EVIDENCE, that there is NO ‘natural’ model. These are simply cultural constructs. In those groups men and women live in virtual cultural segregation. The same was true of the European upper classes until the mid 20th century. Boys were sent to boys only boarding schools, girls to female convents. Contact with the parental unit was quite limited. This was so common, and still is, that both my parents and all of my grandparents were part of this CULTURAL pattern. It’s neither natural nor unnatural, it’s cultural, sociological and as such unrelated to biology. Primates have formed a variety of social structures for rearing offspring, none less ‘natural’ than the next.
Orangutans live in a single female + offspring structure. Adult males live alone, never sharing the company or territory of other adult males. Marmosets are polyandrous, one female and 2 or more males. Baboons are polygynous. Macaques are multi-male/multi-female groups. There are no stable heterosexual bonds. Chimps are fission/fusion societies. Heterosexual monogamy and child rearing is extremely rare in primates and certainly WAS NOT FOUND IN EARLY HUMANS- hence your use of the word ‘natural’ to describe it is FALSE. It’s also the common Christian usage of the word, which is why I say you’re emulating the Christian argumentation, if not simply parroting it. You don’t find biologists saying that sex=monogamous marriage=child rearing, which is the implication of your argument.
You also didn’t read the the detailed findings of the Campero-Ciani study which were reproduced by Vasey. Fecundity in the maternal line of male homosexuals was universally higher than in the paternal line. The percentage was overwhelmingly convincing, at around 98%. Not 25%. The 25% figure is how much Campero-Ciani’s model concluded that would have an influence in ‘developing homosexuality’. There’s no jump from that to the evolutionary hypothesis. It’s an explanation that clearly demonstrates how evolution isn’t preoccupied with reproduction alone.
As we’re there, let me also clarify that sex isn’t merely about reproduction. In primates only 3% of sex ends in reproduction. Scientifically speaking it’s also an act of socialization, like grooming. Just because the result CAN BE reproduction doesn’t exclude all of its other functions. That would be like saying that the role of the palate is only to identify bitter tastes/poisons- it isn’t. We’ve evolved to also derive enjoyment from tastes, so consuming food is no longer simply a matter of survival.
LikeLike
Pink, the use of natural in my last comment was correct. In this context to discribe an occurrence of change in the Mosuo society that did not come about naturally, as it was forced upon them. So the comparison to Aristotle’s thoughts on slavery is incorrect. If I had however said that the change forced upon them by the elite was natural, then your comparison would be correct. As I said the opposite you are incorrect.
“Your shallow study of tribal customs demonstrates you’re beginning with a conclusion and then trying to accommodate facts to justify said conclusion.” Well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? You listed several cultures and made statements regarding them that we’re not correct. So for clarity do the cultures you referenced raise children within a male female parental core or not? As all the information I could find clearly indicated they do, it would seem you are are starting with a conclusion and using superficial traits to support your conclusion while ignoring the core facts. Again do all these cultures raise children in a mixed sex parental unit or not?
The European boarding school reference represents such a brief moment for such a limited population in the scope of human history, and I have already responded to this point.
All manner of species mate for life in mixed sex pairs. Wolves, many birds, gibbons, several reptiles, and even insects. Point being for every orangutan you can sight there is a gibbon to match it. As we are not these species this is not really relevant. This seems like a dead-end tangent for either side of this debate.
It is indeed a leap to say this is clear evidence of an evolutionary process. All that has been proven is a strong indication to a genetic connection between male homosexuality and female fecundity in the same genetic line. Your stretching to a completely unsupportable conclusion.
Sex is not merely about reproduction? Well, the absence of thousands of children in my family proves that point for you. However in the hierarchy of purposes for sex, reproduction is clearly the superior, as in the hierarchy of purposes for eating, sustaining the needs of the body is the superior purpose. Are other purposes excluded? Thankfully no, however this does not mean all are equal.
LikeLike
Pingback: I’m coming out. | asktheBigot
Pingback: Lies, damned lies, and ‘The Bible’ | Clouds moving in