Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a poltics forum however - not a religious seminar. So your impression of "sin" is not applicable any more than the clothing rules of the local golf club is applicable to what people on the street wear. The rules of your little religious club house have nothing to do with society at large. The question here is about same sex relationships. Not what your religion believes during club meetings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinSonic
because marriage is a union between a man and woman thats why.
Clearly not any more it is not. You appear to be another one clinging to out dated definitions of a constantly evolving and changing institution. The only thing making marriage about a man and a woman is your imagination. When you want to meet with us out here in the real world however - we are here for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
The fact is that a child in the "care" of gay people are in a sub-optimal situation.
Another example of how putting the word "fact" into a sentence does not magically turn it into one. It appears this is "sub-optimal" for no other reason than you declare it to be so. You certainly have not argued your assertion in any way other than repetition of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
A child needs a mother and father
No. They do not. The innumerable healthy adults who were raised by single parents testify to that. Stop making things up kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
is tantamount to child abise.
Except no it is not. The only one engaged in abuse here is you. Of the truth. Child rearing is about giving children the things they actually require. _Who_ is giving it to them is incidental. Be it a single parent - a married straight couple - a gay couple - or a 3 or more community of people. It makes no difference.
Again - stop making things up to feed your anti gay agenda. Stick with facts and figures please.
No. They do not. The innumerable healthy adults who were raised by single parents testify to that.
Number one statistical corollary for poverty, drug addiction, alcoholism, juvenile crime, drop out rates, and incarceration is the child raised in the single mother, no father present household. It beats race and geography by substantial margins.
Nobody denies that many children grow up just fine with a single parent. My sister and I essentially raised ourselves given that both our parents were FUBAR from the word jump. But the plain truth is that children, on average/statistically speaking, do better with a mother/father, mother/mother or father/father than they do with a single parent. Even die hard conservative talk show hosts will say the Mom-Dad paradigm is superior, but the Mom-Mom or Dad-Dad paradigm beats the single parent paradigm every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Simply too much data to back that up.
Two parent households >> than single parent households.
This does go back to the continued irrelevance of same sex relationships. A child is better off with two moms or two dads than they are a single parent. True, the mom-dad thing is the ideal, but any committed, stable, loving relationship benefits kids more than single parenting.
because marriage is a union between a man and woman thats why.
That's your opinion. In States/Countries where same-sex marriage is legal, that's not what marriage is.
Quote:
now I know it won't stand for long, but myself and millions of other americans feel this way. im not attacking you, you shouldn't attack me for having a different opinion
Millions of Americans also rejected interracial marriage. In fact, more Americans opposed that than do Same-sex marriage. Doesn't mean you all are right.
Number one statistical corollary for poverty, drug addiction, alcoholism, juvenile crime, drop out rates, and incarceration is the child raised in the single mother, no father present household. It beats race and geography by substantial margins.
That is an economic issue. Clearly in the case of single parents there is a lower level of resources available and such people stuggle in our society more than any other.
But we are not talking economics. We are talking about children being raised by gay parents. And if Harrier wants to suggest that children raised by gay parents are at some kind of disadvantage then he has to do much more than simply assert it.
We know what children require for a successful unbringing and there is nothing about _any_ parental configuration - single parents, hetero, gay, or community - that precludes any one of those configurations from providing it.
That economically single parents are less successful at attaining it in no way suggests they are in any way precluded from doing so. To make the comparison you have to NORMALISE for this factor rather than lead with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
But the plain truth is that children, on average/statistically speaking, do better with a mother/father, mother/mother or father/father than they do with a single parent.
I have no doubt this is true - but for the reasons I outlined above. The more parents you have in the situation the more resources you will have - and hence the better your chances. Not just economic - but simply the time you have available to parenting.
But again this is not the point I was actually making. The point is that Harrier claims that gay parenting is "Sub optimal" and my counter point is that he has not argued that this is so and there is nothing to preclude ANY parental configuration from being just as "optimal" as any other.
What harriers entire "argument" relies on is making the base assumption that the definition of "optimal" is X - and from there simply asserting that all "not X" is by definition sub optimal.
It is simply assertion driven by agenda. Nothing of substance or fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
True, the mom-dad thing is the ideal, but any committed, stable, loving relationship benefits kids more than single parenting.
That is the part I would be questioning in the points I have made. What makes it the "ideal" exactly other than tradition? That appears to be the assumption that is at the very core of Harriers "Assert and repeat" approach to the topic.
Its still Sin and does not fit my families life style and our relation to the Good Lord. Many followers of Christ have the same point of view. But Good Christian's should and will not treat those who decide their own life style differently.
Just Pry for them!
But the Gay / Lesbian have sued their way to have the rights of a Husband and wife marriage. That is man's law and we just have to live with that.
Now they have rights and benefits, but does not excuse them to press their values on normal man and wife relationship.
Bottom line, its a free country and everyone is responsible for their own actions and how that may effect other citizens rights.
Its still Sin and does not fit my families life style and our relation to the Good Lord.
As above - this is a politics forum not a fantasy forum. Why not discuss the facts and figures and the real world rather than making up entities with which to rubber stamp your own opinions? There is no reason to think there is a god at all - let alone to think this god holds pro or anti homosexual opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ
Many followers of Christ have the same point of view.
Any many people in golf clubs have comical opinions on what constitutes fashional trousers. But they have the common decency to leave the tenets and rules of their club _in the club house_ and do not expect the fashion tastes of the world at large to conform to what they do in their club house.
So if you and your cohorts in your club house do not want to have same sex relationships - more power to you and I will defend to the death the right to do that. But leave it in the club house kid ok? The rest of us are discussing the real world at large and until such time as you can even show there is a god - let alone that your vicarious claims about what this gods opinions are can be considered in any way accurate - it really is not applicable to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ
Now they have rights and benefits, but does not excuse them to press their values on normal man and wife relationship.
And how is it yuo think they are doing any such thing exactly?
That is the part I would be questioning in the points I have made. What makes it the "ideal" exactly other than tradition?
Biological, physical and mental differences that complement each other and create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Example - women are generally better than men at handling multiple tasks at once, but generally worse than men at singular devotion to a single task for an extended period. A child raised in a household with a man and a woman will generally see both kinds of tasking done well by someone, and will generally see both kinds of tasks done poorly by someone. In general, they see/learn a thing more completely.
You will note that I used the word "generally" several times because this is not universal, and I am not making the accusation that no woman can be singularly devoted to a task, nor are all men incapable of multitasking. I am saying on average, in general, men and women are wired differently that way.
Example 2 - When men respond to a crisis more emotionally than logically, they tend towards emotions linked with aggression and dominance. When women respond to a crisis more emotionally than logically, they tend towards emotions linked with empathy and caring. Each crisis presented will be better solved by one than the other kind of emotional response.
Again, this is not to say that all men are uncaring, or that all women are incapable of kicking ass and taking names. These are generalities, and in general, you get a more complete coverage of the various personality traits, emotions, mindsets, etc of the human condition with a man and a woman than you would with 2 men or 2 women. Just that generally more complete view of the human condition is a better framework for raising children.
I am not being religious on this point at all, but speaking more for general completeness in the transferring of knowledge and teaching by example. No insult to men or women of any sexual preference is intended or implied.
Biological, physical and mental differences that complement each other and create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Which sounds good on paper but when I read it closely it appears to say absolutely nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Example - women are generally better than men at handling multiple tasks at once, but generally worse than men at singular devotion to a single task for an extended period.
Not sure that is true at all. Sounds like one of those generalisations people throw out about the differences between the sexes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
A child raised in a household with a man and a woman will generally see both kinds of tasking done well by someone, and will generally see both kinds of tasks done poorly by someone. In general, they see/learn a thing more completely.
Firstly: So what? Seeing it is in no way going to affect them in many ways is it? They are still going to do it the way that is done by their sex - that is assuming your generalisation about how each sex does it is true - which I do not.
Secondly: Seeing things done well and poorly is not limited to ones parents. Nor is anything else. Children do not observe their parents alone. They observe friends, teachers, actors, books, peers and much much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Example 2 - When men respond to a crisis more emotionally than logically, they tend towards emotions linked with aggression and dominance. When women respond to a crisis more emotionally than logically, they tend towards emotions linked with empathy and caring. Each crisis presented will be better solved by one than the other kind of emotional response.
Another generalisation I simply do not buy and it falls prey to both of the same points I just made above.
I think you are coming at this entirely in the wrong direction. No one is claiming that there are no differences between men and women. At least I certainly am not. But I would claim that there are no differences between them that are relevant to the "optimal" upbringing of children. We know the things children need to be brought up well and successfully. And nothing on that list is tied to the genetilia of the person providing them.
So rather than looking at the differences between men and women and trying to fit that to some "optimal ideal" of bringing up children - come at it from the other directional. List on a piece of paper the things that a child actually requires for an optimal upbringing - and then read that list looking for a single thing that is by definition precluded a single parent. "normal" parents. Gay parents. Or any other parental configuration such as community parenting.
If you deny or "do not buy" obvious differences between the sexes, then I'll politely refrain from continuing this discussion, as someone who denies simple observable data is not someone open to a reasoned discussion.
I am not disparaging the same sex couple. Look at my posts in this thread. I could care less about a person's sexuality, or how they arrange their personal lives. I am not calling for a ban on same sex adoption or same sex parenting however it comes about. I am having a reasoned discussion on a generally accepted point without any emotion or personal bias one way or the other. But I can view things empirically, outside my personal comfort zone, like the simple fact that women are generally better multi-taskers than men, which most men and women would find agreeable to the point of "yeah...and?" You deny such obvious things, so further discussion between us is pointless.
If you deny or "do not buy" obvious differences between the sexes, then I'll politely refrain from continuing this discussion
If you are going to misrepresent what I said in this fashion then you would do better to refrain - but there is nothing polite about it. I very clearly stated in my post - but you did not bother quoting - that I recognise there are differences between the sexes. Go read it again and try not to so badly mis represent me next time.
My point was not that there is not "obvious differences". My point was very clearly that there are no obvious differences related to the "optimal and ideal" upbringing of children.
Funny however that you declare you will refrain from continuing - but then you proceed to continue -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
like the simple fact that women are generally better multi-taskers than men
Repetition does not validate assertion. I do not buy your assertion. Even if I did however - my point is that this has nothing to do with the "optimal and ideal" upbringing of children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
You deny such obvious things, so further discussion between us is pointless.
And yet you declare this but continue to do so and are about to - we both know - continue to do it again. Observe:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
