Refuting fundamentalists

[Esquilax]

Lion's mind: where even a wrong answer is correct, so long as it's given firmly!

[Lion IRC]

I think you've just proven how dishonest you are. I'm done with you.

I would have thought if you wanted to prove/disprove something you would make some effort to falsify my claim/opinion/assertion etc. You havent even made an attempt.

I cited a source for my claims about avoiding alcohol and you mocked the benefit of maternal breast feeding - shoving a huge middle finger right up in the face of the World Health Organization.

Still, if you wanna walk off instead of "refuting fundamentalists" that's your choice. *shrug*

---

Maybe I'm not a proper Fundie.
I haven't invoked God or the bible.
...yet!

Or how same-sex adoptive parenting denies children the opportunity to honor their mother and father as per the 5th Commandment.

[Captain Colostomy]

Read that again...and turn off the projector.

OK, you said that you were reading over the article and noticed that it claims children do better with their biological parents. And this for some reason means that the article has an agenda and that there is a "rat" involved, as you put it.

So, I think my question is a fair one.

I emphasized through indenting the word that raised my bullshitometer. Since I didn't read the link thoroughly, I didn't also indent 'biological', even though I suspect bullshit there, too.

Stating that I was surprised was you putting words in my mouth, or an assumption that something you take to be true was/is everybody's position.('Biological' parents are necessarily better for snotlickers) If so, you are the one surprised. Ergo, projecting.


Isn't the important thing a loving , caring relationship between a child and parent? Finding which combo (single, married, gay, adopted, mormon mothers, etc...) works 'best' seems a secondary concern. Well, unless you are looking for ammunition to use against your favorite group to hate. If a poll of everybody on the planet shows(like that is possible...) lesbian couples make the best parents, should lesbians try to shame and legislate away hetero couples? Of course not. Good eggs, and bad, are found in every demographic. Papers like this can cause more problems than they're worth.

[GodsRevolt]

I emphasized through indenting the word that raised my bullshitometer. Since I didn't read the link thoroughly, I didn't also indent 'biological', even though I suspect bullshit there, too.

Stating that I was surprised was you putting words in my mouth, or an assumption that something you take to be true was/is everybody's position.('Biological' parents are necessarily better for snotlickers) If so, you are the one surprised. Ergo, projecting.


Isn't the important thing a loving , caring relationship between a child and parent? Finding which combo (single, married, gay, adopted, mormon mothers, etc...) works 'best' seems a secondary concern. Well, unless you are looking for ammunition to use against your favorite group to hate. If a poll of everybody on the planet shows(like that is possible...) lesbian couples make the best parents, should lesbians try to shame and legislate away hetero couples? Of course not. Good eggs, and bad, are found in every demographic. Papers like this can cause more problems than they're worth.

I apologize if I assumed your "surprise". Maybe I am still confused, but the context of your first comment does seem to hint at some sort of disbelief in the results of the posted study. I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

On that note, please do not assume that I hate homosexuals. I believe they are human beings with the same dignity as the rest of humanity, and they deserve respect as such.

So, I guess I should have asked if you agree with the findings of the study. DO you think that, assuming an equal loving home across the board of options, the biological parents would be the best situation for the child?

(Also, you italicized the word you were trying to emphasize. Indent is something different)

[Captain Colostomy]

Bah...I'm groggy on pills. Indent, italic...derp!

I don't give a shit about anything except A) a loving caretaker, and B) a child who blossoms because of A. All this crud about marriage/sexual orientation/# of parents doesn't amount to squat...other than statistics, that is.

[GodsRevolt]

Bah...I'm groggy on pills. Indent, italic...derp!

I'm glad you didn't explode with the fiery atheist rage on that one. I was just confused about it until I saw what you were trying to say.

I don't give a shit about anything except A) a loving caretaker, and B) a child who blossoms because of A. All this crud about marriage/sexual orientation/# of parents doesn't amount to squat...other than statistics, that is.

I think this is a sidestep to the question I asked. If you want to argue with me you can say that homosexual relationships are not ideal, but they are available when the ideal (biological parents) is not.

Or you can disagree, but I am going to ask for an explanation.

---

With that being said, I'm way to tired to be getting into this one tonight. Anyone reading this, have a good one!

[Esquilax]

I think this is a sidestep to the question I asked. If you want to argue with me you can say that homosexual relationships are not ideal, but they are available when the ideal (biological parents) is not.

I think the better question is, why are we phrasing this issue in terms of the best possible configuration exclusively, when we do this with no other issue of morality or equality? If we were seeking only for the ideal, why stop at just biological heritage? For one thing, if this issue was about producing the happiest, healthiest children alone, then the majority of biological parents also wouldn't fit the bill. Given the large number of additional factors that never get pulled into this argument when we get to statistics, like the divorce rate, mortality rate, levels of abuse and so on, it's clear that this argument is agenda driven and not at all about the ultimate wellbeing of the children. It would be applied consistently, if that were the case.

Want some statistics? Studies show that levels of child abuse increase with religious fundamentalism; if we were to apply this same argument across the board, this would mean that religious parentage would be a last resort too... but I don't see anyone making the statistics argument regarding gays making that claim.

Probably because they're mostly religious themselves.

[pocaracas]

I only read the first and last pages of this thread, so .... sorry if this has already been addressed...

The case for gay parentage has several venues.
1) The biological father turns out gay, separates from the mother. The child would be usually put in the care of the (now single) mother. The male role model would be missing, possibly not for too long, but who knows...?
1.1) If the mother has no conditions to raise the child, it may be posited at the care of the father.... The sexual orientation of the father should have no bearing on this decision. The father is, in principle, also (legally) single, at this moment, usually. The female role model would be missing

2) The biological mother turns out gay, separates from the father. The child would be usually put in the care of the (now single) mother. Would this be that much different from the numerous hetero single moms out there? The male role model is missing, too, but has the potential to show up...


3) The biological parents are *missing*. The child is up for adoption. Nowadays, while they wait for an adoptive family, they are at the care of a foster family, which tends to see many such children come and go. A gay couple is interested in adopting:
3.1) two lesbians: Should this couple adopt this child, or should it remain in the care of the foster family until a heterosexual couple comes along? They will not lactate, but may give the child all the motherly love required, times 2!! Male role models will probably be absent from the home, but all too visible on the tv, school, etc... Is a father that necessary, considering the amount of single (hetero) moms in existence, today? I'm not saying it's good to be raised solely by the mother, but it does happen a lot. Should 2 women be barred from raising one child?
3.2) two gay men: Should this couple adopt this child, or should it remain in the care of the foster family until a heterosexual couple comes along? They will not lactate, but may give the child all the fatherly love required, times 2!! Female role models will be absent in the home, but all too visible at school, tv, etc.. (notice I changed the order from the previous case). Is a mother that necessary, considering the amount of single (hetero) fathers in existence? (I was raised by my dad... can't say I turned out too wrong...) I'm not saying it's good to be raised solely by the father, but it does happen. Should 2 men be barred from raising one child, when they are willing to give it their best?

3.3) How long should the child wait for a heterosexual couple before the willing homosexual one becomes more viable?

4) How many biological parents become parents while not being the least capable of parenthood? Should we deny them that right? Should a pregnant woman (and spouse/partner/etc) be forced to go through some parenting classes prior to the child's birth? Perhaps, only a psych assessment?


I'm sure there are many other cases, but these seem to dominate the statistics...

[Zazzy]

Two gay men dont have lactating breasts. How on earth can they provide the scientifically proven benefits of maternal breast milk?

Does this mean that lesbians get bonus points?

It must also mean that women who can't breastfeed (I have known several) don't deserve their children.

[Doubting Thomas]

Even if it's proved that homosexual couples aren't as good of parents as heterosexual couples, why should their rights be taken away? Unless the children are actually being harmed (in which case children's protective services would get involved) there's no reason to prohibit gay couples from raising children.

And really, you can find good heterosexual parents and bad heterosexual parents across any cross-section of the population, so claiming that homosexual parents aren't as good as the "good" heterosexual parents is a moot argument. I'd rather have children be raised by two men or two women who love the child than have that child raised by a man and woman who would neglect the child.

---

It must also mean that women who can't breastfeed (I have known several) don't deserve their children.

My wife is one. And yet our children are happy and healthy.