Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    What Sam fails to understand is that people are not a collection of data sets. This article here, deals with this topic and gives us quite a bit of something about these children and their desire to have a mother/father in their life and how they feel they were denied something. Sam will ignore it and/or call it an 'anecdote' because he doesn't like the narrative it sells yet who is he to determine how they should feel?
    Do everyone here a big favor, Crystal. Next time you want to link to an article, make sure you read the friggin thing. At no point did the article give a scientific study of any kind nor did we see any of this authors "examples". There weren't even any credentialed people featured in the article to support the opinion of the author. It was just a mindless winger post doing what wingers do best, complaining that nobody takes them seriously.

    PS: the guy that posted that article actually IS an anti-gay hate monger. I'm not a big fan of GLAAD and I don't like linking to them as source, but there's some "content" of his you might like to read. He gets a little PG-13 so be aware of that.

    Here are some quotes since I know you won't believe it, doubtlessly retorting I'm just calling him that:

    Robert Lopez

    http://www.glaad.org/cap/robert-osca...ka-bobby-lopez

    -- Claims the LGBT rights movement has "become an engine of world-historical evil": "When you see a movement as unprincipled and ruthless as the gay lobby is, you must be clear that you have an enemy. The gay lobby is not your friend. Any friendliness from them is likely manipulation and subterfuge. Remember: your end goal is to pour burning coals on his head, not to have tea and crumpets and reminisce about the good old days when you were classmates at Dartmouth. When they invite you to dinner with the kids they conceived with a surrogate, they are trying to brainwash you, as they’ve already brainwashed the kids. Remember that."

    -- Claims "The Gay Movement is an International War on Black People"

    -- Says that by siding with the majority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to connect the dots between same-sex parenting and slavery: "Incidentally, through my Puerto Rican roots I am also the descendant of African slaves, as I would guess Sotomayor might be as well. The scars inflicted on the survivors of slavery are tied to the fact that our ancestors were bought, sold, and robbed of a link to our biological roots. This is precisely what gay parenting does to kids through baby farming, adoption on demand, insemination, and surrogacy. You don't solve the historical trauma of such uprooting by vindicating the purveyor of the trauma -- in the case of slavery, white negreros, and in the case of same-sex parenting, gay activists who selfishly placed their desire for a family over children's needs for a mom and a dad. Slavery isn't the only past crime against humanity that offers warnings against shielding "parents" from scrutiny of their deprivation of children's roots. Did it protect the children born as slaves to keep slavery legal? Does it protect children deprived of their fathers to make it legal for the lesbians who have sequestered them to continue excluding them from contact with their fathers? Is the wise Latina awake? Paying attention? Just not connecting the dots? Hello!!" (**UPDATE: Mr. Lopez has deleted this post, which is something he has a habit of doing.)

    -- Insists same-sex parenting is "creepy gay child abuse masquerading as gay rights"

    -- Directly compares gay parents to slaveowners: "Slavery is the buying and selling of children. In US history, people whose families weren't large enough to work their own land paid slave owners to breed their male and female slaves, then bought their babies and raised them, presumably as beloved members of their family. Gay couples are no better when they arrange such things, even if they lie to themselves and say it's for love. To love a child you have to love yourself and the other biological parent; it all goes hand in hand. Otherwise you're being selfish and abusive. You are selfish and abusive in the way you put forth fraudulent arguments to justify the sale of human chattel and give over to modern slavery in the name of gay liberation."

    -- Accuses a lesbian couple fighting in court for marriage of "us[ing] their special-needs children as propaganda to force gay marriage on a state"

    -- Writes of his critics on "the left": "If you are on the Left you suffer from a severe mental disorder...To Hades with all of you. Go play in traffic."

    -- Writes of gay men and their sex lives: "I have often wondered if a very large percentage of gay men have chronic PTSD that one would expect of rape victims."

    -- In open letter to a theoretical lesbian couple with a child, refers to same-sex parenting as "this crime": "Why engage in debate with me at all if you are going to limit our vocabulary to brainless platitudes like "my family counts," "my family exists," and "I am as good as you"? Do you plan to keep your daughter in this Orwellian state of dumbed-down doublespeak for her entire life, lest she suddenly realize that you deprived her of a dad and spent much of her childhood trying to deflect blame for this crime onto other people?" Adds: "Do you ever plan to apologize to the girl you are raising for violating her basic human rights, severing her from her father and denying her a father and controlling her for your own quest for validation?"

    -- Equates same-sex adoption with "cultural genocide once used against blacks and Indians": "The gay community is now entirely allied to the cultural genocide practices once used against blacks and Indians, since they are determined to say that, in the words of Nancy Polikoff, genetics doesn't matter as long as an adoptive couple can sway the powers that be to award them children. It all feels new and shiny to the gay community, because to them it's a way to overcome past inequality. But they are repeating the same genocidal practices of the past."

    -- Yet another slavery comparison:"Gay marriage has caused slavery to return to the United States and the nation's courts and lawyers are ignoring the 13th Amendment. We are failing as a society."

    -- Suggested both Matthew Shepard's murder and Tyler Clementi's suicide were midtern elections ploys

    -- Without any evidence, claims that the late Tyler Clementi probably "had liaisons with men who were older than eighteen and committing statutory rape."

    -- Described the anti-bullying "It Gets Better" project as "expressly designed for delivery to vulnerable minors in a state of potential nervous breakdown;" added that the late Tyler Clementi's parents "need to step up and show true courage; rather than allow their son to be exploited by the very same subculture that actually caused his death, they need to take the LGBT movement to task."

    -- Slurs same-sex parents as "slavers buying children from poor surrogate mums overseas": "The testimonials from happy children of same-sex couples are obviously handpicked and staged to maximize the value of propaganda, but a gullible populace won't ask what isn't being printed or broadcast. A gullible populace prefers ingesting whatever is printed or broadcast. 'Love' is a meaningless mantra, like 'nobody is really listening to your phone calls' or "we need drones for national security purposes" out of the mouth of Obama; but in a country where people are swayed by Obama's silky voice, why would people not be swayed by gay couples saying, 'we aren't slavers buying children from poor surrogate mums overseas, we love our kids'?

    -- Claims the Human Rights Campaign "abets chattel slavery in the form of gestational surrogacy"

    -- Claims Disney Channel show featuring lesbian parents is meant to "anesthetize us to cruelty"

    -- Says of LGBT activists: "Dear God, these wacko LGBT full-body totalitarians don't know when to stop. They must control ALL forms of government record-keeping, ALL possible conversations between doctors and patients, ALL lessons in EVERY classroom, ALL jokes made in EVERY military barracks, ALL tweets, ALL florists and cake-bakers and photographers and....Dear God, they are taking over the whole world!!!! God help us."

    -- Says neighbors should intervene in lesbian households "to make sure the kids don't turn out totally screwed up": "Listen, lesbian moms out there -- cut the crap. You went out of your way to place helpless children into a fatherless home. You knew your household was going to be controversial. You shouldn't have created this situation in the first place. Now that you created it, we all have to make the best of it. Your loved ones and neighbors should be intervening in your household to make sure the kids don't turn out totally screwed up."

    -- Claims gay people who use reproductive assistance are "re-pathologizing" homosexuality: "If it's normal to engage in homosexual relationships then you can't justify using sperm banks or surrogacy to procreate, in cases where a gay man's testicles are functioning perfectly and a lesbian's uterus and eggs are fit for action. The fact that you're not interested in matching functioning testicles to a functioning uterus because you're gay is supposed to be NORMAL; if we start involving medical treatments for you, then you are reinforcing the notion that homosexuality is a defect. That undoes the whole de-pathologizing move of forty years ago."

    -- On same-sex parenting: "Lesbian moms allow the sources of their children's sperm to run off and be unbothered, saying to themselves, 'those two dykes will care for my kid, shit, I don't owe the world anything.' Gay dads are just two pairs of men running off to live in a world of men, avoiding the hassles and PMS and demands of the women who bear them children. Both forms of same-sex parenting pass on more broken family ties, cause more erasure, sever children from their origins, and teach men to be fatherless and feckless all at once."

    -- Accuses "the gay lobby" of "pushing internationally to bring back chattel slavery in the form of gestational surrogacy" and "carrying out a systematic cover-up of the community's global pederastic sex trade"

    -- Claims "support for gay marriage means supporting the view of children as COMMODITIES FOR PURCHASE, otherwise known as SLAVES."

    -- In downright nasty (and vulgar) take on Edie Windsor's forty year relationship, Lopez reduces her shared decades with her late wife as being all about sex: "So it goes with Edith Windsor and the woman she was having sex with. She went to the Supreme Court and demanded that American taxpayers reward her for having lesbian sex by issuing her a back check for $300,000+. This is what civil marriage is based on. The country pays you to have sex. When it's a man and a woman having sex, it makes sense -- we need men to have sex with women so that we procreate. Why do we need Edith Windsor to have sex with another lady? What is the public interest in their sex life? They have the freedom to engage in sex because after Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional. So it's not possible for the state to prevent Edith Windsor from jumping into the sack with another sexy senior female and using dildos, dental dams, frottage, or whatever stimulating activities might send them into erotic thrall. They are free to do that. Once they are legally married, however, and they want the state to pay them for this mutually gratifying sexual activity, they are now no longer free to stop having sex. If Edith and her partner were to keep their clothes on for twenty years and not even do anything erotic at all, her partner could sue for divorce and claim sexual neglect. They would have to go to divorce court. Judges would have to know facts and figures about how they serviced or didn't service each other's erogenous zones."

    -- Equates same-sex parents with abusers: "So the kid is basically a victim of two gay adults, who are now (without realizing it) rubbing it in the kid's face. 'See! Everyone says what I did is okay! You have NO reason to complain!' This is the way abusers often treat the people they abuse: They send flowers and apologize, justify themselves, make their victims feel it's all in their heads, publicly force their victims to say they're happy and nothing's wrong...I hate seeing kids be exploited and placed in traumatically uncomfortable positions. I hate seeing them be crushed into submission with the emotional tricks of abusive adults."

    -- Claims surrogacy, adoption, and other paths same-sex parents take toward parenting recall "many of the worst vices against humanity that have been committed in past eras"

    -- Published fiction books bashing gay life

    -- Blames America's LGBT rights movement for other nation's draconian bans on homosexuality: "If we do not clean up what's going on in our own backyard, we will only make the problem worse, increase the alarm overseas, and incite ever-increasing levels of antigay backlash. No, I am not excusing antigay backlash that goes this far -- but I am saying that we can't ignore what's happening at home because, in fact, the best way for us to help counteract the antigay backlash overseas is to reform our own gay lobby and inspire other nations with examples of a country that can find a reasonable middle ground of acceptance and support for homosexuals, rather than blatant antigay repression on one end, or the tyranny of LGBT social engineering on the other end."

    -- Says "I think polygamy is far preferable to same-sex marriage because at least there is a father and a mother in a polygamous household, irrespective of how many additional fathers or mothers there might be."
    So no study on this one. Just a hate monger pimping a book.
    Last edited by Sea of red; 05-27-2015, 10:55 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
      Different points of view still don't take care of the reality that children seem to do best, when they have a mom and dad, in a good relationship. The fact of the matter is that there's much out there that seems to show that if you want your children to have the best start in life, having a mom and dad in a decent family seems to be the best for the children involved.
      That's true for the most part. Sometimes though, the best product is not available, and you have to go with the next best option. Plenty of people I know were raised by just mom or just dad, and have done pretty good for themselves. I know people that were raised by adoptive parents or even living on the streets; they have good lives for themselves. That's why when I hear blaming "the lack of fatherhood" for Baltimore thugs I cringe. People grow-up in far worse and don't commit such violence.

      I know it's not scientific to say, but psychologists have a bad practice of blaming things people do on the parents. Why did Johnny shoot his classmates? Why is Sally pregnant? Why is Mark depressed and using drugs? Lets blame the parents! I've done bad things in my life and it was my own fault but so many of these psychologists will try to pin on something in my childhood.

      So when I hear people/kids complaining how they missed out not having the other parent in their life instead of praising the one that raised them, excuse me for not caring too much.

      It's not where a kid is raised, Crystal. It's HOW a kid is raised.

      PS: nice to be sparring with you again. This place is boring without you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
        Do everyone here a big favor, Crystal. Next time you want to link to an article, make sure you read the friggin thing. At no point did the article give a scientific study of any kind nor did we see any of this authors "examples". There weren't even any credentialed people featured in the article to support the opinion of the author. It was just a mindless winger post doing what wingers do best, complaining that nobody takes them seriously.
        Did I claim that it my link was a scientific study? No I didn't, so what is that thing called again when you make up what your opponents say, to make it easier to refute? You could you know... show anything they said is wrong vs your well poisoning and character assassinations that you made below, but that would require you to actually READ the articles, represent your opponents properly, and deal with what they said vs what you want them to say. Now, what is wrong with the article, here let me help you out:

        The article is wrong because...

        There you go! Now avoid the character assassinations, the attacking positions your opponents never said, etc and you'll be home free before you know it!

        PS: the guy that posted that article actually IS an anti-gay hate monger. I'm not a big fan of GLAAD and I don't like linking to them as source, but there's some "content" of his you might like to read. He gets a little PG-13 so be aware of that.


        That's right, I need to put blind trust into an organization, caught lying about it's opponents, to properly represent it's opponents? That's right because see, a man that describes himself as being a bisexual, really hates the GLBT community that he self identifies as being a member of. Yep, makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it. Don't take my word for it though, here is what he said about it himself:

        In my life as a scholar, I had struggled to arrive at a moment such as this. Scholars come from somewhere. Growing up the awkward Latino child of lesbians in the uncharitable milieu of 1970s Buffalo, I overcame racism and sexual prejudice all my life with literary craft, reading and writing, witticisms, and intellectual adventures. The bigots who scrawled “****” on the chalkboard when I was at school and threw homophobic slurs at me could not trespass on my sacred ground: Nihil humanum mihi alienum puto, wrote the great poet Terence. Nothing that is human is foreign to me. The world, with its splendiferous cultures and deliciously capricious languages, belonged to me, as long as I was reading and writing.
        http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/27/...t-inquisition/


        *note article contains racial slur*

        So perhaps you could explain how he could he could be a 'anti-gay hate monger' when his full words expose the opposite? See James, I actually read quite a bit about him and I already knew GLAAD has a hate campaign against him because he supported a study that went against their narrative, so they have made a campaign to smear his name for not going with the narrative they wanted to sell. I don't trust GLAAD to represent the truth one tiny bit and when all they can present is soundbites, it makes me trust them even less (read the article, with the links, to see their claims deconstructed and shot down). Try again James and this time, stop assuming I'm stupid for daring to disagree with you. I know how to use the internet too and I do read what both sides say and I know that GLAAD is a bunch of liars and hate mongers and I wouldn't trust them to tell me if water is wet.
        Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 05-27-2015, 11:25 AM.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
          That's true for the most part. Sometimes though, the best product is not available, and you have to go with the next best option. Plenty of people I know were raised by just mom or just dad, and have done pretty good for themselves. I know people that were raised by adoptive parents or even living on the streets; they have good lives for themselves. That's why when I hear blaming "the lack of fatherhood" for Baltimore thugs I cringe. People grow-up in far worse and don't commit such violence.
          And people grow up in great homes and comment violence too, but we're talking about stats and not individuals (being a horrible person knows no bounds). Here is the problem you are running into; is it a well known fact that your childhood has a huge effect on the rest of your life? Of course it does and while we can debate if this gives people an excuse to do things (like riot) all we want, but we can't ignore the facts in front of us. Children, who are in a good family, perform better than children that are not. Does this give excuses to be violent criminals? Nope.

          I know it's not scientific to say, but psychologists have a bad practice of blaming things people do on the parents. Why did Johnny shoot his classmates? Why is Sally pregnant? Why is Mark depressed and using drugs? Lets blame the parents! I've done bad things in my life and it was my own fault but so many of these psychologists will try to pin on something in my childhood.
          Can you quote me where I said you should blame your actions on somebody else? I sure haven't and I tend to be a huge advocate of personal responsibility, but it is quite interesting to see that children that get themselves in more trouble, tend to come from broken and/or dysfunctional families while the children that don't do have a tendency to get into less trouble. We can't just ignore this tendency and we need to explore it further. Why is how children are raised, have this impact upon them long after they are out of that environment? Likewise, what is the best environment for children to be raised in and why? Very good questions that seem quite relevant, when we are dealing with the problems our nation is running into today with less and less children within a traditional family.

          So when I hear people/kids complaining how they missed out not having the other parent in their life instead of praising the one that raised them, excuse me for not caring too much.

          It's not where a kid is raised, Crystal. It's HOW a kid is raised.
          Sure, but have you ever been a parent or been responsible for a child or a group of children? Perspectives upon these things, change upon having the responsibility thrown upon your shoulders. What happens, within our childhood, has huge consequences for us for the rest of our lives. Children of divorced parents are more likely to end up divorced themselves. This isn't something that was made up, but it a pretty well known fact. Children who have two good parents, who take care of them, are more likely to perform better in school, less likely to end up divorced, etc. So yeah, you are correct that it does matter how kids are raised, the question is... what is the best environment for children to be raised in and why?

          PS: nice to be sparring with you again. This place is boring without you.
          Glad to hear.
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            One of the first things I learned in college was to do the reading or risk looking silly (I found a clever way around this, though: enroll in philosophy courses). You certainly can't "poke holes" in numerous sociological studies by assuming that they didn't look at such basic measures as family stability. As I discussed extensively last time on this board that I actually tried to handle this discussion citing the studies, family stability was found to be a primary factor in the development of children, whether of same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, and children of same-sex couples were found to be no more or less developmentally susceptible to disruptions in family stability.

            So your problem isn't that you've found a gaping hole in the studies. It's that you have invented a reason not to even bother looking at the studies in the first place (because obviously they probably didn't account for family stability) and subsequently imagined that you were making a great point when even looking at a few relevant abstracts could have steered you away from this shipwreck of a post:

            Source: Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief. Wendy D. Manning, Marshal Neal Fettro, Esther Lamidi. Population Research and Policy Review. August 2014, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 485-502



            This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. We discuss challenges and opportunities for new research on the well-being of children in same-sex parent families.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Emphasis added.

            At least I should be thankful that this compelled me to find a new meta-review that hadn't existed the last time I went looking for 'em.
            Pap did a great job of ripping your arguments apart and exposing their biasness that lies beneath, so I'll just sit back and watch the fun.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              My ability to interact with others became so much better after discovering MBTI. Night and day.
              Hummm, I find my MBTI as interesting, but sometimes being totally inaccurate. I tend to closely identify as being and INFJ, yet I find the whole psychic stuff (that it claims INFJ's can have) as being utter nonsense. MBTI is useful, but not 100% complete or totally accurate.
              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                Google, Facebook, Youtube, even Amazon are pretty bad at figuring out what sorts of things to recommend to me.

                Data points can describe a person, but they cannot capture a person. You can't reduce a person to a set of data points. Maybe this is semantics... or maybe I'm just a very special snowflake.
                Amazon and Google is terrible for me because just because I'm looking up something on Amazon or even buying something doesn't mean I'm interested in it. I often use it for gift buying or looking up a product that I could care less about. Likewise, just because I Googled something doesn't mean I have an interest in it. Sometimes I use Google to look up something for somebody else. Sam attempting to divide people into data point collections, isn't very accurate because you need to assume things. Just because I brought something doesn't mean it is for myself. I tend to buy far more things for others vs for myself.
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Uggh. For the life of me, I can't understand why otherwise intelligent folk like yourself get suckered into type indicator tests like these. Its the modern day equivalent of a horoscope.
                  MBIT and the others I put in the 'interesting' category. While I do find some stuff for the INFJ's as accurate to some of my behaviors, others I cringe it (IE the psychic babble that some claim INFJ's have).
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    And people grow up in great homes and comment violence too, but we're talking about stats and not individuals (being a horrible person knows no bounds).
                    I'm not talking about stats, I couldn't care less about them. Stats outside of the natural sciences and mathematics are not something I'm typically impressed by, even when it agrees with me.

                    Here is the problem you are running into; is it a well known fact that your childhood has a huge effect on the rest of your life? Of course it does and while we can debate if this gives people an excuse to do things (like riot) all we want, but we can't ignore the facts in front of us. Children, who are in a good family, perform better than children that are not. Does this give excuses to be violent criminals? Nope.
                    Sure it does, but it's not your whole life. Like I said before, people that grow-up in these 'less the ideal conditions' often tend to do very well for themselves. A good family is not about "one mommy and one daddy" but a loving household. The dynamics of which can vary greatly and still produce good results. The problems you speak of are much deeper than simply the family you come from. People can come from great families and turn out to be scumbags, like I've seen in my life. Whatever happened to the bad apple, did they just go away?

                    Can you quote me where I said you should blame your actions on somebody else?
                    Can you quote me where I accused you of that? You haven't said that but you've opened the door for that.

                    I sure haven't and I tend to be a huge advocate of personal responsibility, but it is quite interesting to see that children that get themselves in more trouble, tend to come from broken and/or dysfunctional families while the children that don't do have a tendency to get into less trouble.
                    Look at the bold and think about that for a second. Dysfunctional can be ANY family (I know from mine) including this alleged ideal one you speak of. Children that become scumbags tend to chose the lifestyle I'm afraid, while for some the apple didn't fall far from the tree. None of these things are exactly arguments against same-sex couples adopting.

                    We can't just ignore this tendency and we need to explore it further. Why is how children are raised, have this impact upon them long after they are out of that environment? Likewise, what is the best environment for children to be raised in and why? Very good questions that seem quite relevant, when we are dealing with the problems our nation is running into today with less and less children within a traditional family.
                    Those are deep questions as I said before and trying connect it all back to 'the family' is not doing those issues any justice. A lot of that is due to poverty, education, community, friendship, mental-health, and an overall sense of wanting to do good in the world. The best environment is any one which promotes honesty, loving people, not harming the world, and being as conscience of how your actions effect others. Anything that promotes that should be what we get behind, not 'just because' something is seen as traditional.


                    Sure, but have you ever been a parent or been responsible for a child or a group of children?
                    Yes to the latter.
                    Perspectives upon these things, change upon having the responsibility thrown upon your shoulders. What happens, within our childhood, has huge consequences for us for the rest of our lives. Children of divorced parents are more likely to end up divorced themselves. This isn't something that was made up, but it a pretty well known fact. Children who have two good parents, who take care of them, are more likely to perform better in school, less likely to end up divorced, etc. So yeah, you are correct that it does matter how kids are raised, the question is... what is the best environment for children to be raised in and why?
                    Already answered this.

                    Glad to hear.
                    And I thought you didn't like me. *sniff*

                    Comment


                    • The whole thing about Glaad and Lopez is doomed to become a pissing match so I'll just concede my points on that post. Most of the content is redundant to our discussion that is thus far, been civil for us.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                        I'm not talking about stats, I couldn't care less about them. Stats outside of the natural sciences and mathematics are not something I'm typically impressed by, even when it agrees with me.
                        Why is that? If X action leads to Y action, we should try to see why. If we discover a trend (such as those who are children of divorced parents seem to show a trend of being more likely to divorce themselves) we need to see why. Just because something isn't math, physics, chemistry, or biology doesn't mean it is useless. We seem to find something pretty hard to ignore though; how we are raised will affect us in many areas for our entire life seems to the the logically conclusion. This means we need to know a very good question; what is the best environment for children to be raised in? A very important and I'd even say among the most important questions, that we need to find an answer for.

                        Sure it does, but it's not your whole life. Like I said before, people that grow-up in these 'less the ideal conditions' often tend to do very well for themselves. A good family is not about "one mommy and one daddy" but a loving household. The dynamics of which can vary greatly and still produce good results. The problems you speak of are much deeper than simply the family you come from. People can come from great families and turn out to be scumbags, like I've seen in my life. Whatever happened to the bad apple, did they just go away?
                        But they are less likely to do as well as those who did grow up in more ideal conditions. We need to include everything, including who they were raised with and how this affects them into adulthood. More than a few children, of gay couples, have come forward to say they felt their life was missing something (either a father or a mother) and they believed they missed out on something important. Do we ignore this claim they are making and hope it goes away or do we look at their claims and see if there is more merit there? Remember, they are making a claim about emotional well being; not something as capable of being pursued by scientific research as other claims might be. Are they right? Were they denied something or not? Since we seem to have strong data that your childhood has a huge impact on the rest of your life, why ignore their charges?

                        Can you quote me where I accused you of that? You haven't said that but you've opened the door for that.
                        You've got quite close to that. You are responsible for your own actions, that is true, but we can't just ignore the trends we see before us either.

                        Look at the bold and think about that for a second. Dysfunctional can be ANY family (I know from mine) including this alleged ideal one you speak of. Children that become scumbags tend to chose the lifestyle I'm afraid, while for some the apple didn't fall far from the tree. None of these things are exactly arguments against same-sex couples adopting.
                        I don't recall saying dysfunctional can't be part of any family either, but it is obvious that we have ideal situations and less ideal situations. True or false? Is a same sex couple the most ideal situation or not? That is the question we need answered. What is the best and most ideal place for a child to be raised in and why?

                        Those are deep questions as I said before and trying connect it all back to 'the family' is not doing those issues any justice. A lot of that is due to poverty, education, community, friendship, mental-health, and an overall sense of wanting to do good in the world. The best environment is any one which promotes honesty, loving people, not harming the world, and being as conscience of how your actions effect others. Anything that promotes that should be what we get behind, not 'just because' something is seen as traditional.
                        All good things, but another factor we need to include is how to interact in a romantic relationship. As I pointed out before, the trend for children of divorced families to be more likely to end up divorced themselves does tell us that the relationship between your parents, among themselves, is quite important for the development of the children involved. Remember, our parents are the first people we develop a relationship with, they are the first we learn from, and they appear to be a model for our romantic relationships latter on in life. As I have discovered, being a parent does not ever end nor does it ever go away. The relationship might end up changing, but it will always be there and it will affect us long after we are grown and gone. Knowing this, does it sound that is very important that we get this right? Children are not something we should experiment with and use as political pawns in our schemes. The question is... is the same sex parent the best possible place for children to be raised in? That is all that should matter and I don't care who it offends either.

                        Yes to the latter.
                        Now imagine being responsible for somebodies well being, all the time. Taking care of kids or a group does help, but I will assure you that nothing can quite compare you for the real thing (when you are babysitting, they go home, but they don't when they are yours).

                        And I thought you didn't like me. *sniff*
                        I have never disliked you. I hope the best for everybody.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          The whole thing about Glaad and Lopez is doomed to become a pissing match so I'll just concede my points on that post. Most of the content is redundant to our discussion that is thus far, been civil for us.
                          That works, but I don't trust a word Glaad says. I have noticed they have a tendency to lie about their opponents and/or make up what their opponents say when they don't like the narrative they are selling. Lopez calls himself a bisexual, so why he'd hate the LGBT community is rather odd, but I guess when somebody disagrees with the narrative; smear them with mud.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            Why is that?
                            When applying stats to people researchers tend to input variables that give them a desired outcome.

                            If X action leads to Y action, we should try to see why.
                            Sure.

                            If we discover a trend (such as those who are children of divorced parents seem to show a trend of being more likely to divorce themselves) we need to see why. Just because something isn't math, physics, chemistry, or biology doesn't mean it is useless. We seem to find something pretty hard to ignore though; how we are raised will affect us in many areas for our entire life seems to the the logically conclusion. This means we need to know a very good question; what is the best environment for children to be raised in? A very important and I'd even say among the most important questions, that we need to find an answer for.
                            I answered this before. You've gotten my opinion, now go look for it in previous reply to you.

                            But they are less likely to do as well as those who did grow up in more ideal conditions. We need to include everything, including who they were raised with and how this affects them into adulthood. More than a few children, of gay couples, have come forward to say they felt their life was missing something (either a father or a mother) and they believed they missed out on something important. Do we ignore this claim they are making and hope it goes away or do we look at their claims and see if there is more merit there?
                            So what? Are these kids in prison or mentally unstable? Lots of people in single parent households state this stuff too, so are you going to rally against single parenting, an advocate it be illegal? People see how families are television are depicted, and often feel that's the bar they were entitled to, not realizing the parent may have had a good reason for raising them away from the other parent. You have to make the best of what you're given in life, and try not to wish for things you don't have.

                            Remember, they are making a claim about emotional well being; not something as capable of being pursued by scientific research as other claims might be. Are they right? Were they denied something or not? Since we seem to have strong data that your childhood has a huge impact on the rest of your life, why ignore their charges?
                            Why bring it up at all we can do is speculate as to who is right? Like I said, we don't know the whole dynamic of their situation or how it came to be. This is why statistics should not be trusted on matters like these, as the variables are much more numerous than often accounted for.

                            Oh and don't use words like "data" or "research" if you don't want science or mathematics to get involved.

                            You've got quite close to that. You are responsible for your own actions, that is true, but we can't just ignore the trends we see before us either.
                            You were rockin' and rollin' on that first part and then you had to go and talk about "tends". Are people responsible for themselves or not? When you talk about how it's all down to the family, you enable people to not be responsible for their actions.

                            I don't recall saying dysfunctional can't be part of any family either, but it is obvious that we have ideal situations and less ideal situations. True or false? Is a same sex couple the most ideal situation or not? That is the question we need answered. What is the best and most ideal place for a child to be raised in and why?
                            There is no "ideal" situation as I've already stated. I know people that gay parents and love them, and they turned out to be good citizens. I know people raised by adoptive parents, or single parents and they love each other, and also turned out just fine. Are you saying their love isn't legitimate? Are you saying it was mistake or that it can't happen in other households?

                            All good things, but another factor we need to include is how to interact in a romantic relationship. As I pointed out before, the trend for children of divorced families to be more likely to end up divorced themselves does tell us that the relationship between your parents, among themselves, is quite important for the development of the children involved. Remember, our parents are the first people we develop a relationship with, they are the first we learn from, and they appear to be a model for our romantic relationships latter on in life. As I have discovered, being a parent does not ever end nor does it ever go away. The relationship might end up changing, but it will always be there and it will affect us long after we are grown and gone. Knowing this, does it sound that is very important that we get this right? Children are not something we should experiment with and use as political pawns in our schemes. The question is... is the same sex parent the best possible place for children to be raised in? That is all that should matter and I don't care who it offends either.
                            Believe me, I agree children shouldn't be used as shields to justify religious creeds -- we're on the same page.

                            Like I have already said, there is no ideal situation. What works for some may not work for others. Why is everything always some sort of "one size fits all" solution when it comes to conservative religion?

                            Now imagine being responsible for somebodies well being, all the time. Taking care of kids or a group does help, but I will assure you that nothing can quite compare you for the real thing (when you are babysitting, they go home, but they don't when they are yours).
                            I pretty much raised my younger brother, so I actually do know a bit about caring for something.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                              That works, but I don't trust a word Glaad says. I have noticed they have a tendency to lie about their opponents and/or make up what their opponents say when they don't like the narrative they are selling. Lopez calls himself a bisexual, so why he'd hate the LGBT community is rather odd, but I guess when somebody disagrees with the narrative; smear them with mud.
                              I don't trust a word the Focus on the Family types have to say either. Those kind of people tend to just throw a lot of intellectual pollution out there that nobody in academia takes seriously, and for good reason.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                . Why is everything always some sort of "one size fits all" solution when it comes to conservative religion?
                                t5506880-216-thumb-irony.jpg
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 02:29 AM
                                12 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:48 PM
                                2 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:16 PM
                                5 responses
                                33 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:45 PM
                                18 responses
                                105 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 01:59 PM
                                6 responses
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Working...
                                X